California gets gay marriage and very hot weather

[Tender Branson]

Good, good.

The last CA poll I saw on this issue was by SurveyUSA, conducted in January 2008:

Support - 46%
Oppose - 47%

This will be interesting in November.

[Emsworth]

There is nothing philosophically unsound with "everyone should have the right to marry the one person they love."  Yes, it is somewhat arbitrary.  I'd argue that I can't find a convincing argument for it being more arbitrary than "everyone should have the right to marry the one person they love, as long as they are of the opposite sex."

That's precisely my point: There really is no philosophically sound argument for simply allowing same-sex marriage. It's really just an utterly arbitrary personal preference. At that point, I really don't see why the arbitrary preferences of a minority should be imposed, judicially or otherwise, on the majority.

[Iosif is a COTHO]

There is nothing philosophically unsound with "everyone should have the right to marry the one person they love."  Yes, it is somewhat arbitrary.  I'd argue that I can't find a convincing argument for it being more arbitrary than "everyone should have the right to marry the one person they love, as long as they are of the opposite sex."

That's precisely my point: There really is no philosophically sound argument for simply allowing same-sex marriage. It's really just an utterly arbitrary personal preference. At that point, I really don't see why the arbitrary preferences of a minority should be imposed, judicially or otherwise, on the majority.

I've looked at it every way and I cannot see a single way in which gay marriage is an imposition on heterosexual marriage.

And it is no less of an 'utterly arbitrary personal preference' than straight marriage.

[Secretary Polnut]

Good.

Sometimes the mob is wrong.

[JSojourner]

There is nothing philosophically unsound with "everyone should have the right to marry the one person they love."  Yes, it is somewhat arbitrary.  I'd argue that I can't find a convincing argument for it being more arbitrary than "everyone should have the right to marry the one person they love, as long as they are of the opposite sex."

That's precisely my point: There really is no philosophically sound argument for simply allowing same-sex marriage. It's really just an utterly arbitrary personal preference. At that point, I really don't see why the arbitrary preferences of a minority should be imposed, judicially or otherwise, on the majority.

I've looked at it every way and I cannot see a single way in which gay marriage is an imposition on heterosexual marriage.

Haven't you been listening?  The queers will steal our sons and teach them to play with dolls and kiss boys.  LOL

It's funny -- they make the same argument against gays in the military.  Somehow, a gay marine is going to force his lifestyle on the 31 other heterosexual marines in his platoon.  And before you know it, they'll all be listening to Bette Midler and singing Broadway show tunes. 

What a load of crap.

[Alaska Thunderfvck]

If you dont like gay marriage....dont marry one then. Its THAT easy I promise..

[Χahar]

Down to 80. It's been real bad the last few days.

[Senator Sbane]

Down to 80. It's been real bad the last few days.

We are still getting roasted in the southland. Those damn gays.

[Snowguy716]

Don't worry, guys.. you'll be having a chilly summer along the coast. 

And this is why (look at the west coast)

[Χahar]

I see a yellow spot near LA. Ha!

[Senator Sbane]

HAHa I see that spot too lol. Must be why it got so humid last night. damn gays.

[Friz]

All those against gay marriage would be serving humanity better by trying to build a one-way time machine.  Getch'yo ass and your logic back to the 12th century, fools.

[Conan]

There is nothing philosophically unsound with "everyone should have the right to marry the one person they love."  Yes, it is somewhat arbitrary.  I'd argue that I can't find a convincing argument for it being more arbitrary than "everyone should have the right to marry the one person they love, as long as they are of the opposite sex."

That's precisely my point: There really is no philosophically sound argument for simply allowing same-sex marriage. It's really just an utterly arbitrary personal preference. At that point, I really don't see why the arbitrary preferences of a minority should be imposed, judicially or otherwise, on the majority.

Are you an american? Did you know that this country was founded on the majority not being able to impose it's will on the minority? Nothing is being imposed by the minority in this case anyway. It only affects them, not the majority. Also, you need to keep on your James Madison.

[Emsworth]

Are you an american?

No.

Did you know that this country was founded on the majority not being able to impose it's will on the minority?

I did not "know" that the United States was founded on so implausible a principle, because, as it turns out, it was not.

The Constitution of the United States is ultimately a majoritarian document. It allows the majority, through its elected representatives, to enact such laws as it may desire, subject to only a handful of exceptions and limitations. And who adopted those exceptions? Who authorized those limitations? It was "We the People," that is to say, the majority. The majority decided to limit itself, but only in some cases. It did not set up the courts as super-legislatures, responsible for reviewing the wisdom of every single enactment. When judges stray beyond the words of the Constitution, they usurp power that the people never delegated to them; they take away authority that the people retained for themselves.

Now, of course, it is very convenient for leftists to praise judicial intrusion when that intrusion expands so-called "social rights"--abortion, same-sex marriage, and so forth. Needless to say, most of them would oppose the same judicial intrusion if it were designed to protect "economic rights" such as the liberty of contract. I doubt you would be very happy if the Supreme Court revived the doctrine of Adkins v. Children's Hospital (which held that minimum wage laws were unconstitutional because they violate the "right" of the employer and employee to negotiate with one another). In that case, too, the Supreme Court claimed that it was preventing the majority from infringing individual rights. Philosophically, I see no difference between those types of cases, and the case decided by the Supreme Court of California this month. The only distinction is that Adkins, decided in the 1920s, was favored by the right wing of the time, while the Marriage Cases are favored by the left. Each is a result-oriented expedient with no basis in the law.

But leave aside, for a moment, the issue of judging. You say that the majority should not have the power to impose its will on a minority. What alternative do you propose? Who shall decide the limits to the majority's ability to make laws--who shall decide what rights the minorities have?

Nothing is being imposed by the minority in this case anyway. It only affects them, not the majority.

These cases require the government of California to do something, to grant a particular type of official recognition to a particular type of union. Marriage is a civil institution, and any change to that institution not adopted by the people themselves is an imposition.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

That's precisely my point: There really is no philosophically sound argument for simply allowing same-sex marriage. It's really just an utterly arbitrary personal preference. At that point, I really don't see why the arbitrary preferences of a minority should be imposed, judicially or otherwise, on the majority.

I'll admit that, in practical terms, I think you're right.  I do however feel that it's immoral to not extend this right.  I think it should be allowed for the polygamous too.  The only reason I'm more passionate about the former is that it affects fewer people and the bureaucratic changes involved present a better technocratic argument.

I don't really think that something being arbitrary makes it "philosophically unsound," because pretty much any philosophy is based on some arbitrary axioms derived from some sort of observation or feeling, but whatever, that's a separate argument.

[MODU]

I love how everytime this thread pops up, the index shows it as "California gets gay."  hahaha . . . it says a lot!

[Conan]

Are you an american?

No.

Did you know that this country was founded on the majority not being able to impose it's will on the minority?

I did not "know" that the United States was founded on so implausible a principle, because, as it turns out, it was not.

The Constitution of the United States is ultimately a majoritarian document. It allows the majority, through its elected representatives, to enact such laws as it may desire, subject to only a handful of exceptions and limitations. And who adopted those exceptions? Who authorized those limitations? It was "We the People," that is to say, the majority. The majority decided to limit itself, but only in some cases. It did not set up the courts as super-legislatures, responsible for reviewing the wisdom of every single enactment. When judges stray beyond the words of the Constitution, they usurp power that the people never delegated to them; they take away authority that the people retained for themselves.

Now, of course, it is very convenient for leftists to praise judicial intrusion when that intrusion expands so-called "social rights"--abortion, same-sex marriage, and so forth. Needless to say, most of them would oppose the same judicial intrusion if it were designed to protect "economic rights" such as the liberty of contract. I doubt you would be very happy if the Supreme Court revived the doctrine of Adkins v. Children's Hospital (which held that minimum wage laws were unconstitutional because they violate the "right" of the employer and employee to negotiate with one another). In that case, too, the Supreme Court claimed that it was preventing the majority from infringing individual rights. Philosophically, I see no difference between those types of cases, and the case decided by the Supreme Court of California this month. The only distinction is that Adkins, decided in the 1920s, was favored by the right wing of the time, while the Marriage Cases are favored by the left. Each is a result-oriented expedient with no basis in the law.

But leave aside, for a moment, the issue of judging. You say that the majority should not have the power to impose its will on a minority. What alternative do you propose? Who shall decide the limits to the majority's ability to make laws--who shall decide what rights the minorities have?

Nothing is being imposed by the minority in this case anyway. It only affects them, not the majority.

These cases require the government of California to do something, to grant a particular type of official recognition to a particular type of union. Marriage is a civil institution, and any change to that institution not adopted by the people themselves is an imposition.

I guess you haven't learned about American history or constitutional law.

The constitution gives people their rights. Also, there is a reason we don't have national referendums Our founders didn't have trust in the masses, people like yourself, to make certain policy.  You're argument that gays achieving equal rights is imposing on the majority is just silly.

[Emsworth]

I guess you haven't learned about [...] constitutional law.

Really? I guess one finds out something new about oneself everyday.

Also, there is a reason we don't have national referendums Our founders didn't have trust in the masses, people like yourself, to make certain policy.

I must disagree with your decision to characterize me as a member of the "masses." But I digress. You're right: The Framers of the United States Constitution did not trust the people to make political decisions. But the Framers of the California Constitution certainly did. That's why California allows laws to be made by referendum, but the United States does not. California's system is perfectly consistent with the federal Constitution, whose Tenth Amendment provides that undelegated powers "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." And the decision that same-sex unions should not be called marriages in the state of California was, as it so happens, made by those very same people.

But let's get back to the federal constitution for a moment. The general power to make policy, although not lodged in the people directly, was lodged in their elected representatives, the Congress. It was not granted to the courts of law. Of course, the courts should exercise the power of judicial review, and strike down any law that offends the text of the Constitution. But the manner in which California's refusal to designate same-sex unions as marriage violates either the state or the federal constitution completely escapes me.

You're argument that gays achieving equal rights is imposing on the majority is just silly.

Let's say that a court decided that, if individuals wanted to work for less than the minimum wage, they should be allowed to do so, and that minimum wage laws are invalid. Would such a decision be an imposition on the majority? (Surely, it would not be an imposition under your standard, because no-one but the worker and the employer would be directly affected.)

[MODU]

Conan,

Emsworth makes most of us look like idiot children when it comes to Constitutional law.  I trust his analysis on this stuff more than even the talking heads on tv, and he's still a kid (no offense, Ems).  I can't wait until he makes this his career.

[Senator Sbane]

Jeez read through the whole thread and could not find a legitimate reason to hate gays. cAn anyone let me know why I should vote against gay marriage this november? Hmm... the weather is turning nicer too. Maybe they gays arent so bad after all.

[MODU]

Jeez read through the whole thread and could not find a legitimate reason to hate gays. cAn anyone let me know why I should vote against gay marriage this november? Hmm... the weather is turning nicer too. Maybe they gays arent so bad after all.

Hating gays has nothing to do with it, so you aren't going to find that in the thread.

[Senator Sbane]

Jeez read through the whole thread and could not find a legitimate reason to hate gays. cAn anyone let me know why I should vote against gay marriage this november? Hmm... the weather is turning nicer too. Maybe they gays arent so bad after all.

Hating gays has nothing to do with it, so you aren't going to find that in the thread.

LOL so what does it have to do with? Tradition? Please complete your answer without the phrase "sanctity of marriage". IF it has anything to do with that then I say we outlaw divorce first and then move on to gay marriage.

[MODU]

Jeez read through the whole thread and could not find a legitimate reason to hate gays. cAn anyone let me know why I should vote against gay marriage this november? Hmm... the weather is turning nicer too. Maybe they gays arent so bad after all.

Hating gays has nothing to do with it, so you aren't going to find that in the thread.

LOL so what does it have to do with? Tradition? Please complete your answer without the phrase "sanctity of marriage". IF it has anything to do with that then I say we outlaw divorce first and then move on to gay marriage.

I've yet to provide an answer on this thread.  I was just pointing out how you aren't going to find a "legitimate reason to hate gays" on here.  Other than the 1% of the cooks on the forum, no one here "hates" gays.

[Senator Sbane]

Jeez read through the whole thread and could not find a legitimate reason to hate gays. cAn anyone let me know why I should vote against gay marriage this november? Hmm... the weather is turning nicer too. Maybe they gays arent so bad after all.

Hating gays has nothing to do with it, so you aren't going to find that in the thread.

LOL so what does it have to do with? Tradition? Please complete your answer without the phrase "sanctity of marriage". IF it has anything to do with that then I say we outlaw divorce first and then move on to gay marriage.

I've yet to provide an answer on this thread.  I was just pointing out how you aren't going to find a "legitimate reason to hate gays" on here.  Other than the 1% of the cooks on the forum, no one here "hates" gays.

Look I was just trying to say that I have heard no good arguments against gay marriage and I know 99% of the people here do not support it. I just want to see why the dissenters are against gay marriage and how this ruling will affect them, even if they are in California. I was just kidding about the hating part but a lot of the arguments I hear against it is just plain bigotry. I think one of the reasons I read was because heterosexual marriage was the accepted tradition of society so it should not be changed. That is the same argument that was made against interracial marriage or civil rights in general. See this ruling does not say that we MUST marry gays. It just lets gay people have their rights and it does not impose anything upon churches or upon individuals.

[MODU]

It just lets gay people have their rights and it does not impose anything upon churches or upon individuals.

This is the catch.  Marriage is not "a right."  States can deny marriage for many things, including medical issues.  It is, for the lack of a better example, a business contract.