The Fancy Bastard Forum

It's great, a friend showed it to me yesterday and I proceeded to send links to everyone I know and post it on all my accounts. Any one who hasn't watched it yet must.

Ch, gaaaaaaay.

Classy.

This seems like as good a thread as any to bring up this point - today the California Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 8 was indeed Constitutional. There have been strong outcries that whether or not it follows along with the letter of the law of the Constitution, the proposition is itself inherently wrong.

So without discussing my own personal feelings on it (which for the record do not fall neatly into either camp), I pose this question to exercise the collective Fancy Bastard brain:

If a vote is taken -- let's say Blue vs Green -- and the result of the majority vote is Green, and the courts rule that Green does not violate the Constitution, then how can any argument be made that Blue is the way things should be? After all, isn't that the basis of a vote? And as a follow-up, what recourse do any Blue supporters have, if any, that wouldn't throw the idea of democracy out the window?

Be careful how you answer. Right now the law favors both the choice to have an abortion (polls say if there was a vote, the Roe v. Wade court decision would be supported) and heterosexual-only marriage. Since most people tend to be in favor of one but not the other, it becomes very difficult to answer without giving opponents a way to reverse the other issue.

Remember everyone...be respectful piranhas.

I think it's an extremely valid point that democracy in California may simply not support gay marriage. On the other hand, I think if the government tells you you can't do something that hurts no one, fuck them. Interesting conundrum, and in the end I don't give a shit about marriage as an institution, but in the end what I really want is for the greater populace to understand the nature of homosexuality and that it is in no way a threat to their way of life.

I'm not sure how I feel about hijacking this thread for such purposes but I feel like I have to throw my hat into the ring.

Instead of Blue vs. Green, let's say this is the year 1890 and there is a state in which women in some cities were given the right to vote. Women in those cities register in droves, but the vast majority of voters are still male. An initiative comes onto the ballot to change the state constitution so that voters are defined exclusively as men. The majority of the voters in this state, having no particular stake in allowing women to continue progress towards suffrage, or having personal convictions against the idea, pass the initiative. Given that this is a generation before the 19th amendment is ratified, there is nothing unconstitutional at the state or federal level about this. But is it right?

I think there are several issues here. On the one hand, the way I understand it, the decision today basically says that voters in a state have a right to amend their constitution by a majority vote. That has nothing to do with whether the vote is right or wrong. I think it sucks that this is the issue that the Calif Supreme Court had to deal with. (Which, by the way, has nothing to do with the religious institution of marriage, it has to do with legal contract rights, inheritance, that sort of thing). In order to change things, voters will probably have to have a counter-proposition or somthing. I don't really know how that stuff works. It sucks, but I'm sure the lawyers will find another loophole. Or people in Calif. will have to wait until some federal law is passed that will trump the state laws.

@Dram - "Fuck them" is a good enough idea when it comes to jaywalking or even the fight over legalizing pot, but neither of those things have the daily impact of marriage (emotionally or financially). Although I guess that depends on your pot supply... But yeah, I agree that it is difficult to have a proper vote when we need to 're-educate' a way-too-large number of people who see homosexuality as a conscious decision, and/or something that is either 'a phase' or rebellion; and on the other side, seeing supporters of hetero-only marriage as bible-thumpers, or 'the Man'. But being uninformed doesn't stop people from voting in regular elections either.

@Tindomiel - That's a fair enough example, but my "Green vs Blue" thing was specifically to take any sort of emotion or "right vs wrong" out of the equation. What may be incredibly obviously fair and just to one person might be just as obviously unjust to another. The abortion issue is a perfect example of that. One person says it's obvious that a woman can not have the government telling her what she is or is not allowed to do with something growing in her own body. Another person says it's obvious that abortion results in the death of a human being. The question of women voting changes the parameters a bit though, and makes voting itself the issue. In the case of Prop 8, there were lobbyists and protesters on both sides, and supporters of both sides have just as much say in the result, making it as "fair" as I think a popular vote can be.

@Kristi - My understanding of NJ politics is that if there is enough support, the referendum goes on the ballot for the next election. There were apparently enough to get it on the California ballot, so I see no reason it wouldn't happen again. That might be the answer - it keeps going on the ballot every year, and every year everybody holds their collective breath. And if the popular vote changes, then there will likely be enough signatures for it to go on again, but then it'll just be the same thing the opposite way. Rinse and repeat. Now, California might be completely different, but I could see that situation happening for quite a while until one side just keeps winning. Like in Mortal Kombat.

Sean: taking "right vs. wrong" out of the equation misses the point entirely. The reason why I bought up my example is specifically because it is a question of what is just vs. what is legal. If this had been an initiative that merely amended the constitution to set a mandatory amount of taxpayer money aside for schools, it would not have been as big a deal as it is. Merely because something is legal does not mean it cannot or should not be overriden by the courts for being unjust.

And what is common to both the suffrage and abortion examples is choice. If a woman really believes that God tells her she should be barefoot in the kitchen and have no role in civics, she is free to not vote. But that right is there for someone who believes differently. If a woman believes abortion is murder, she can choose not to have one. Someone who believes differently has the right to choose to have one. However, as the law currently stands, if a woman loves and wants to marry another woman, she is not free to do so, because the law precludes that choice entirely.

I don't see why people have a problem with gay marriage. Most (all actually) of the people I talk to who voted for Prop 8 say or will eventually admit that they have a problem because it conflicts with their religious beliefs. So they hate on gay marriage and don't try to outlaw other religions that conflict with what they believe? If you can ban gay marriage because it goes against the christian bible, why not ban all other religions? Why ban something that does no harm to anyone? After this line of questioning, most of the people I talk to panic and pull out some bullshit like "This is a Christian Nation," or "Gay people are forcing their beliefs on me!" (Once I got the crazy guy who started talking about pedophilia being caused by gay people, but he's an outlier...) That or they ignore what I said entirely and restate what they believe with no justification for it, and then go on to question my sexuality over why I like to speak out on this issue. It's not a Christian nation, get over it. And the only reason I've heard on how gay people force their beliefs on others is because they are allowed to have gay pride parades and straight people don't have straight pride parades. Straight people can have a straight pride parade if they really wanted, but there is no reason to because heterosexuality is already accepted. Also, gay people aren't forcing people to get gay married or anything at these parades. I also like how most of the people who use the gay pride parade excuse usually have never seen one. Hopefully all of this uproar over Prop 8 not being overturned will allow the issue to be taken to a high court (US Supreme Court here we come!).

tldr;
If you support Prop 8 you hate gay people.

@Tindomiel I agree with everything you're saying. I think it's horrible that Prop 8 passed in the first place, but the court can only rule on the issue that it was presented. They were asked whether the idea of amending the state constitution by popular vote was constitutional or not (or something along those lines). Whether or not they agree with the amendment is not supposed to have any bearing. I really do think that this issue will just have to keep being proposed or whatever until gay marriage is legal. Now if they go the civil rights angle, and propose that Prop 8 itself is unconstitutional, that's a whole other ball game. That's the way i understand it anyway. My understanding of politics is limited at best.

Posted By: KristiThat's the way i understand it anyway.

Same here, for what it's worth.

I think what I attempted as a very dry philosophical debate, removed from the real world, went way off the rails. Tin made some very valid points about whether or not justice and legality should be the same thing. But we're arguing two different things. My question is that regardless of the issue, should "majority rules" be the answer? If so, then what are the minority to do? And if not, then what should replace our voting system? I am not trying to make any point at all regarding Prop 8, abortion, women's suffrage, or any other issue. As a wise man once said..."I don't like to make political statements."

Well, "majority rules" is probably the best place to start. Even the founders understood that you can't always trust the mob though - it's why all those checks and balances are there in the first place. I don't think a majority vote is ever a final answer, though.