Arizona voters approved changing the state constitution to ban same sex marriages, and with 91% of the precincts reporting, California is close to doing the same thing.
I remember asking this before and Rob's answer was that this will prevent the judges from making rulings reversing the decisions and that the only way to strike this down is with a federal lawsuit, having the state constitution declared unconstitutional in the US Supreme Court.
So what is the likelihood that this will happen? If California does pass the amendment, you're going to have a lot of celebrities using their influence to get it overturned, but I can't really see the Supreme Court doing this.
Gay marriage bans
Re: Gay marriage bans
My completely ignorant opinion is this: there's no chance of the current supreme court reversing the decisions. I think the only hope would be to wait to see who retires & who Obama selects to replace them to see if the court might be more open. But I'm not even sure who are the next judges likely to retire - if they're liberals, then it wouldn't make much difference as there would still be a conservative majority.
In California, I imagine the other hope is that the mood tips in a couple of years and someone puts a measure on the ballot to change our constitution back (or better yet to explicitly allow gay marriage.) Since we seem to change our state constitution at the drop of a hat, I'm hopeful that maybe this will happen.
In California, I imagine the other hope is that the mood tips in a couple of years and someone puts a measure on the ballot to change our constitution back (or better yet to explicitly allow gay marriage.) Since we seem to change our state constitution at the drop of a hat, I'm hopeful that maybe this will happen.
Re: Gay marriage bans
I really doubt there is any chance at all that even a newly-reconstituted liberal US Supreme Court would overturn any state's ban on gay marriage. The most they could conceivably do is use the "full faith and credit" clause to say that marriages valid in any other state must be considered valid in all states (which would still not require states to permit gay marriage, only to recognize those performed elsewhere). And even that is very unlikely.
I think that the non-judicial route to full equality is going to be faster than the judicial route. And the non-judicial route is just to keep pushing the issue (by bringing it back up as an initiative in CA, for example). In California, the age groups that were most strongly in favor of keeping gay marriage were the younger ones -- by a fully two-to-one margin. The older generations opposed equality, and their opposition was greater as the age was greater.
Which means that every year, California is going to see more bigots drop off the voting rolls as they pass away, and more supporters of equality join the fight as they reach voting age.
As we've seen, it takes only a simple majority to amend California's constitution. Despite being heavily outspent and heavily out-lied, equality came close to winning this time. It may only take one more election cycle to flip this result.
I think that the non-judicial route to full equality is going to be faster than the judicial route. And the non-judicial route is just to keep pushing the issue (by bringing it back up as an initiative in CA, for example). In California, the age groups that were most strongly in favor of keeping gay marriage were the younger ones -- by a fully two-to-one margin. The older generations opposed equality, and their opposition was greater as the age was greater.
Which means that every year, California is going to see more bigots drop off the voting rolls as they pass away, and more supporters of equality join the fight as they reach voting age.
As we've seen, it takes only a simple majority to amend California's constitution. Despite being heavily outspent and heavily out-lied, equality came close to winning this time. It may only take one more election cycle to flip this result.
Re: Gay marriage bans
A couple of things -
A shockingly high number of Yes voters were young. The bigots targeted Latino, black, and Asian families by telling outrageous lies about how their children would be harmed by gay marriage. (That it would be taught in schools, etc. NOT TRUE.) The No On 8 folks tried to counter it but could not reach as many people, nor could they convince those people their churches were lying to them.
The California supreme court could overturn this since it contradicts the current provision in the constitution for equal protection. There are already three (maybe more) lawsuits filed, all of which claim (among other things) that this is a revision, not an amendment. Revisions require more than the simple majority an amendment needs.
Obviously I am hoping that happens, but if not I agree that another amendment to repeal this one is the best bet.
A shockingly high number of Yes voters were young. The bigots targeted Latino, black, and Asian families by telling outrageous lies about how their children would be harmed by gay marriage. (That it would be taught in schools, etc. NOT TRUE.) The No On 8 folks tried to counter it but could not reach as many people, nor could they convince those people their churches were lying to them.
The California supreme court could overturn this since it contradicts the current provision in the constitution for equal protection. There are already three (maybe more) lawsuits filed, all of which claim (among other things) that this is a revision, not an amendment. Revisions require more than the simple majority an amendment needs.
Obviously I am hoping that happens, but if not I agree that another amendment to repeal this one is the best bet.
Re: Gay marriage bans
That's the thing that gets me, the majority of the opponents to gay marriage are religious groups. Granted, it's been a long time since I actually studied the Bible, but I remember some parts of it fairly well.
1. The only unforgivable sin is blasphemy.
2. Only God can judge sin, it is considered blasphemous when one man judges another for his sins.
3. Revelations states that minions of Satan will assume positions in the church, claiming to be the voice of God, but will teach messages of hatred and leading the masses into sin.
4. God loves all his children, no matter what.
I wonder if these points were pointed out to the masses if it would do any actual good. Calling Billy Graham the devil is just insulting, but pointing out that his teachings are contrary to what the Bible states is another.
1. The only unforgivable sin is blasphemy.
2. Only God can judge sin, it is considered blasphemous when one man judges another for his sins.
3. Revelations states that minions of Satan will assume positions in the church, claiming to be the voice of God, but will teach messages of hatred and leading the masses into sin.
4. God loves all his children, no matter what.
I wonder if these points were pointed out to the masses if it would do any actual good. Calling Billy Graham the devil is just insulting, but pointing out that his teachings are contrary to what the Bible states is another.
X
Re: Gay marriage bans
Leviticus 18:22 Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence (JPS translation)
Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male, as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death - their bloodguilt is upon them. (JPS translation)
recently more liberal jewish groups (mostly reform and conservative) have reread these passages to have slightly different meanings, but orthodox jews and most christians use the one that was used for centuries before of gay==death.
religion is the opium of the masses
Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male, as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death - their bloodguilt is upon them. (JPS translation)
recently more liberal jewish groups (mostly reform and conservative) have reread these passages to have slightly different meanings, but orthodox jews and most christians use the one that was used for centuries before of gay==death.
religion is the opium of the masses
Re: Gay marriage bans
Yes, but Leviticus also says that you should be put to death if you wear a cotton/poly blend suit.
One thing to remember is that Christianity believes that the New Testament overrides the Old Testament. Leviticus should not be followed, according to Christian teachings, if it contradicts with the word of Christ.
One thing to remember is that Christianity believes that the New Testament overrides the Old Testament. Leviticus should not be followed, according to Christian teachings, if it contradicts with the word of Christ.
X
Re: Gay marriage bans
could we please operationally define "word of christ" in this context?if it contradicts with the word of Christ.
Are we talking about the words of christ in the sense of things actually spoke by christ?
or words of christ as written in the gospels?
or words of christ as defined by one of the myriad churches that uses his words?
Granted I have only read the new testament through once, I don't remember anything specific to this issue... that being said, due to chirst's jewishness implicit in everything he said is his belief in the laws of the torah (and likely most other jewish writings of the second temple period (issues with the pharisees aside)). If that is the case then christ contradicts himself (which is another useful thing for a religion to do, safely allows it to say wheatever it wants whenever it wants).
However, if you assume that he is not agreeing with all previous jewish writings and is in fact creating his own new religion (while not technically true it is a belief held by many people who don't realize christianity didn't actually start with jesus), then my previous statement applies...
However, if you believe that the church speaks with any level of divine guidance, then there goes that explanation.
I have no problem believing that gay marriage was banned... I just dislike systems that allow bigotry to stop progression... if this sort of thing could happen on a national level then someone should technically be allowed to bring things like brown v board of education into an election and give the populace the right to decide. Somehow I don't believe it would have passed at the time.