Wage War On Prop. 8 At The Ballots, Not In Court - Lawrence Lessig

Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2009/01/14/Lawrence_Lessig_Remix

Stanford law professor and digital rights advocate Lawrence Lessig warns against efforts to overturn California's Prop 8 (gay marriage ban) in state courts. Lessig argues that doing so may shift the focus of debate from civil rights to "activist judges," and that Prop 8 opponents would be better served by bringing their issue back to the voters.

-----

In "Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy", Lawrence Lessig shows how we harm our children - and almost anyone who creates, enjoys, or sells any art form - with a restrictive copyright system driven by corporate interests.

In this new book, the acclaimed author of "Free Culture" reveals the solutions to this impasse offered by a collaborative yet profitable "hybrid economy."

He also discusses his new Change Congress movement, which aims to fight corruption in Congress - Booksmith

Lawrence Lessig is a professor of law at Stanford Law School and founder of the school's Center for Internet and Society.

He teaches and writes in the areas of constitutional law, contracts, and the law of cyberspace. Prior to joining the Stanford faculty, he was Berkman Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and a professor at the University of Chicago.

He clerked for Judge Richard Posner on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and for Justice Antonin Scalia on the United States Supreme Court. For much of his career, he has focused on law and technology, especially as it affects copyright.

Recognized for arguing against interpretations of copyright that could stifle innovation and discourse online, he is CEO of the Creative Commons project, and he has been a columnist for Wired, Red Herring, and The Industry Standard.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• california
• ca
• gay
• marriage
• ban
• lbgt
• lgbt
• banned
• banning
• overturn
• overturning
• fight
• issues
• judges
• supreme
• court
• laws
• constitution
• unconstitutional
• legal
• arguments
• prop
• san
• francisco
• ken
• starr
• argument
• fora.tv
• foratv
• fora
• tv

[sklanger]

@sidecar771 Then don't ask for public recognition if it isn't the public's business. Which is it? Either it's the public's business because you are asking for public recognition of same-sex marriage, or it isn't the public's business and you have no right to demand public recognition.

People who want to marry their cousins "pay the same taxes as everyone else." So they should be allowed to marry their cousins and produce halfwits like you? I don't think so.

[sidecar771]

@sklanger It's basically none of the publics business. Gay people pay the same taxes as everyone else and as such are entitled to all the protections of the law. Half wit hate filled bigots are going to have to get used to this.It is not the prerogative of the state to intervene in the private lives of citizens, basic human rights are "inalienable"...regardless of an antique ruling of an ignoramus.

[sklanger]

@budddy23 Except the judge was talking about the California statute being unconstitutional under state law -- i.e., the California constitution, not federal law. There is no "parallel," because the standard of review under federal law (rational basis) is different from the standard of review under state law (heightened scrutiny).

The reality is that your head is up your ass, with no possibility of extraction.

[sklanger]

@SporeConvergence So I'm a liar or a psychopath? Here's a third option: you're a moron.

Marriage is meant to encourage reproduction and child rearing to take place within the socially preferred paradigm of two biological parents. The biological reality is that two people of the same sex can never reproduce with each other; if a gay person wants to reproduce, he or she has to do so with third party of the opposite sex to whom he or she is not married, defeating its rationale. Dig, simpleton?

[sklanger]

@sidecar771 So? The Fourteenth Amendment no more guarantees that you can marry a person of the same sex than it guarantees that you can marry your cousin or your bisexual polyamorous partners both at the same time. Otherwise laws against consensual consanguinity, bigamy, polygamists and bigamists would be unconstitutional.

[sklanger]

@sidecar771 Wrong. You're asking for public recognition of gay marriage, that makes it the public's business, not merely a "personal" decision. That distinction between private and public conduct has been extant in the law since at least Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888) ("It partakes more of the character of an institution regulated and controlled by public authority, upon principles of public policy, for the benefit of the community.").

Learn about it.

[sidecar771]

@sklanger Grow up you big baby! This is about a personal decision and none of your damn business, nor is it the busines of anyone.

[nnjhansen]

@sidecar771 Thank you you for restating the 14th Amendment but what is your point? The question is how is that applicable to this question.

[sidecar771]

@nnjhansenAll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. i.e. the constitution

[budddy23]

Lol what a dumbass, don't you see that a state judge is giving respect to federal law as well as state laws.

See what ya wanna see.. as usual. This is what we call a parallel. I suggest you pull your head out of your ass and learn to parallel it with reality.