Prop 8... Again

[Jason Tandro]

psychokind wrote:

Quote: Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples," the judge wrote in a 136-page ruling that laid out in precise detail why the ban does not pass constitutional muster. The judge found that the gay marriage ban violates the Constitution's due process and equal protection clauses. this is what I read. ok, so the judge states that the prop8 is violating the constitution. so I ask again: who else should do that?

The issue here is jurisdiction, psychokind. This is not a simple law that is in violation of the US constitution but an entire state's constitution. The changes should be made on the state level, not the federal one.

@Freedan: Now there's a can of worms. To be honest, I would rather have tyranny by the majority than tyranny by the electorate.

[Freedan]

Is one better than the other? Tyranny is tyranny, be it a small group of leaders or a 52% majority. And when who-knows-how-much of that majority is swayed by nothing more than propaganda and scare tactics, neither option seems preferable. People can't always be trusted to act in the best interests of their state, country, or whatever (unfortunately); they're every bit as capable of making crappy decisions as a single politician.

I doubt people would prefer one form of tyranny over the other if they were affected by it.

[anclunn]

If a court is held to upholding a set of laws, then it's not necessarily tyranny (well perhaps tyranny to principle, but that's actually not so bad so long as the principles make since and everyone knows what they are up front.) However the courts have been interpreting rights and laws into and out of existence ever since that jackass FDR stacked the courts to push through his agenda.

[Jason Tandro]

@Freedan: The difference is a majority will not always be a majority on every issue, whereas a small group of single tyrant will always have his way.

The unfortunate downside to rule by the people is that (and I've said it time and again) we cannot undermine the will of the majority for the whims of the minority.

Now, as it happens, in the case of gay marriage I think there is some logic to that argument, but for the most part I would rather have majority rule than minority rule.

[Freedan]

Jason Tandro wrote:

The unfortunate downside to rule by the people is that (and I've said it time and again) we cannot undermine the will of the majority for the whims of the minority. Now, as it happens, in the case of gay marriage I think there is some logic to that argument, but for the most part I would rather have majority rule than minority rule.

Majority rule is fine in certain cases, but this isn't like an election, where whoever gets the most votes wins the state, or passing a law intended to punish criminals more severely. The difference is that this proposition infringes on the rights of the minority. Tyranny of the Majority regulations were put in to place specifically to prevent the majority from doing that with a vote.

Striking down the proposition isn't undermining the majority for the minority's whim, it's preventing the majority from doing what they're not allowed to do.

[Jason Tandro]

Freedan wrote:

Striking down the proposition isn't undermining the majority for the minority's whim, it's preventing the majority from doing what they're not allowed to do.

Ah, but there's the rub. Who determines what one is or isn't allowed to do? Inalienable rights arguments notwithstanding, in any society laws are determined by the ruling body and in a rule-by-the-people society, the majority may make rules that are unfair or even inhumane to the minority.

Is that a good thing, certainly not, but it does raise very tricky ethical questions.

Mind you, as I've said I agree with your argument, but the justice system is painstakingly rigid and does not allow these emotional arguments to sway it (when one could argue that it should).

[Ratty Randnums]

Jason Tandro wrote:

Freedan wrote: Striking down the proposition isn't undermining the majority for the minority's whim, it's preventing the majority from doing what they're not allowed to do. Ah, but there's the rub. Who determines what one is or isn't allowed to do? Inalienable rights arguments notwithstanding, in any society laws are determined by the ruling body and in a rule-by-the-people society, the majority may make rules that are unfair or even inhumane to the minority. Is that a good thing, certainly not, but it does raise very tricky ethical questions. Mind you, as I've said I agree with your argument, but the justice system is painstakingly rigid and does not allow these emotional arguments to sway it (when one could argue that it should).

Jason Tandro wrote:

@Freedan: The difference is a majority will not always be a majority on every issue, whereas a small group of single tyrant will always have his way. The unfortunate downside to rule by the people is that (and I've said it time and again) we cannot undermine the will of the majority for the whims of the minority. Now, as it happens, in the case of gay marriage I think there is some logic to that argument, but for the most part I would rather have majority rule than minority rule.

This isn't a "whim of the minority" human rights should not be put to a vote at the state or national level.
And here's an "unemotional" argument for you: To charge homosexuals the same amount of taxes then not give them the same amount of benefits is making them second class citizens. Taxation without representation.

[psychokind]

Jason Tandro wrote:

psychokind wrote: Quote: Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples," the judge wrote in a 136-page ruling that laid out in precise detail why the ban does not pass constitutional muster. The judge found that the gay marriage ban violates the Constitution's due process and equal protection clauses. this is what I read. ok, so the judge states that the prop8 is violating the constitution. so I ask again: who else should do that? The issue here is jurisdiction, psychokind. This is not a simple law that is in violation of the US constitution but an entire state's constitution. The changes should be made on the state level, not the federal one.

how do you come to that? the judge said that the ban IN the constitution doesn't fit with the constitution itsself. so there's nothing wrong with the state's constitution, only with the part where it bans gay marriage.

and why a problem with jurisdiction? the people of the state wanted it, so basically the state itsself. and then the next higher-up has to stop it.

besides, how could it be possible for that judge to decide this if he hasn't jurisdiction? I don't think this is possible

[Freedan]

Jason Tandro wrote:

Freedan wrote: Striking down the proposition isn't undermining the majority for the minority's whim, it's preventing the majority from doing what they're not allowed to do. Ah, but there's the rub. Who determines what one is or isn't allowed to do?

The people that the majority elected. Isn't that the point of electing them? Part of the job description is to make laws. And the courts are supposed to decide if a law is valid and/or being violated or not.

[Jason Tandro]

Ratty Randnums wrote:

This isn't a "whim of the minority" human rights should not be put to a vote at the state or national level.

No argument. I've always said, let the religions do what they want and everybody should have the rights of married couples.

Quote:

And here's an "unemotional" argument for you: To charge homosexuals the same amount of taxes then not give them the same amount of benefits is making them second class citizens. Taxation without representation.

That's a very unemotional straw-man argument. Homosexuals have the same right to vote as any other citizen of the United States.


@psychokind: Right, but it's a State versus National dispute. That's one of the complicated things about American politics. Each of our 50 states are Sovereign and only held together on a Federal level by the system we have. Some favor a smaller federal government (Republicans) and some think our nation should be more unified (Democrats). There are good arguments for both.

@Freedan: The elected officials are still bound by the decisions of the people and in this case the people voted against gay marriage.

[Freedan]

Sounds like tyranny of the majority by representation, then.

Unless I misunderstand American politics, aren't elected officials supposed to act in the interests of their constituents, not necessarily according to their wishes? Because if not, then it seems pointless to even have elected officials if a majority vote makes the decision anyway.

[Jason Tandro]

Freedan wrote:

Sounds like tyranny of the majority by representation, then. Unless I misunderstand American politics, aren't elected officials supposed to act in the interests of their constituents, not necessarily according to their wishes? Because if not, then it seems pointless to even have elected officials if a majority vote makes the decision anyway.

That is the great ethical dilemma. There's no right answer. Some say they must act according to the will of the people, others say they are elected to make decisions in the best interest of the people. I tend to be in the former group myself, but again, there is merit for both arguments.