Tom Hanks:"Mormon Supporters of Proposition 8 'Un-American'"

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: Tom Hanks:"Mormon Supporters of Proposition 8 'Un-American'"

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

1) I actually like Tom Hanks, too. He's several cuts above the self-absorbed amoral ignoramuses who set the tone for Hollywood overall.

2) Whether same-sex marriage is actually a constitutional right was and is precisely the question at issue. The fact that a few months had passed since a one-vote majority of a state supreme court had decreed it to be doesn't quite establish it as settled constitutional law.
_Scottie
_Emeritus
Posts: 4166
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 9:54 pm

Re: Tom Hanks:"Mormon Supporters of Proposition 8 'Un-American'"

Post by _Scottie »

Sethbag wrote:I think the political process itself was very American, and the fact that people were able to choose and support the side they wanted was American. It was, as someone mentioned previously, the fact that what was being supported was the stripping away of a right from a persecuted minority that appears to many, including myself, as fundamentally un-American. I'm not sure when I've ever seen a fundamental right, essential to full equality of that minority with the majority, stripped away by constitutional amendment before. It's unsettling.

The problem with this argument is that the pro-traditional-marriage guys are saying that gays are NOT being discriminated against. They have just as much right to marry someone of the opposite sex as anyone else in this country, therefore there is no discrimination.

It's a weak argument, in my opinion. That would be like telling interracial couples who could not marry each other that there was no discrimination because they COULD marry within their race. How ridiculous does that sound now??
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman

I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
_rcrocket

Re: Tom Hanks:"Mormon Supporters of Proposition 8 'Un-American'"

Post by _rcrocket »

"Un-American?" President Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing gay marriage legalized in the states. That Act has been on the books for 13 years. By definition, Prop 8 was "American," bringing California into line with DOMA.

I am a lawyer sworn to uphold the law, so I felt forced to vote in favor of Prop 8.
Last edited by _rcrocket on Fri Jan 16, 2009 7:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_rcrocket

Re: Tom Hanks:"Mormon Supporters of Proposition 8 'Un-American'"

Post by _rcrocket »

Scottie wrote:It's a weak argument, in my opinion. That would be like telling interracial couples who could not marry each other that there was no discrimination because they COULD marry within their race. How ridiculous does that sound now??


Although it is tough to pinpoint the feelings of a particular group of people, by and large the black community takes offense to this comparison. In my presentation to the UCLA Law School on the issue of Prop 8 and Civil Rights, it was pretty well conceded by the gay rights groups there that blacks felt that their struggle for equality is being demeaned by the claims of the gay community.

I agree. I can point to the statements of black leaders on this point, but again, there are blacks who have come out against this theory as well.
_Sethbag
_Emeritus
Posts: 6855
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:52 am

Re: Tom Hanks:"Mormon Supporters of Proposition 8 'Un-American'"

Post by _Sethbag »

Daniel Peterson wrote:2) Whether same-sex marriage is actually a constitutional right was and is precisely the question at issue. The fact that a few months had passed since a one-vote majority of a state supreme court had decreed it to be doesn't quite establish it as settled constitutional law.

Except in California, of course, where it did establish it as settled constitutional law.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: Tom Hanks:"Mormon Supporters of Proposition 8 'Un-American'"

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Sethbag wrote:Except in California, of course, where it did establish it as settled constitutional law.

Maybe.

Maybe not.

That's a point of dispute.

I lean toward No.
_Sethbag
_Emeritus
Posts: 6855
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:52 am

Re: Tom Hanks:"Mormon Supporters of Proposition 8 'Un-American'"

Post by _Sethbag »

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Sethbag wrote:Except in California, of course, where it did establish it as settled constitutional law.

Maybe.

Maybe not.

That's a point of dispute.

I lean toward No.


How can you dispute that in California, the ruling by the Supreme Court of that state in fact established as constitutional law in that state that gays had the right to marry?

Apparently the other Pro-8 people didn't have the same trouble as you understanding this, since they undertook to change the state's constitution specifically to void that ruling and specifically forbid it, thus un-establishing it.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: Tom Hanks:"Mormon Supporters of Proposition 8 'Un-American'"

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Sethbag wrote:How can you dispute that in California, the ruling by the Supreme Court of that state in fact established as constitutional law in that state that gays had the right to marry?

I don't dispute that the state supreme court, by a one-vote margin, determined it to be so.

Whether that settles the question forever or beyond dispute, however, is another matter.

I think Dred Scott was wrongly decided. Don't you?

Sethbag wrote:Apparently the other Pro-8 people didn't have the same trouble as you understanding this, since they undertook to change the state's constitution specifically to void that ruling.

I appreciate the condescension. I really do.

But I have no problem whatsoever "understanding this."

The Pro-8 people took the step they deemed necessary to block future decisions of the kind to which they objected. When a law is wrongly interpreted, the most efficient step is often to rewrite or amend the law rather than to argue interminably about its interpretation.

I have no intention, incidentally, of allowing myself to be dragged into an endless (and pointless) discussion of the merits of gay marriage and Proposition 8. For one thing, I apparently lack the intellectual capacity to engage in such a conversation. But I also lack the interest and the time. And that's a fatal combination.
_Scottie
_Emeritus
Posts: 4166
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 9:54 pm

Re: Tom Hanks:"Mormon Supporters of Proposition 8 'Un-American'"

Post by _Scottie »

rcrocket wrote:Although it is tough to pinpoint the feelings of a particular group of people, by and large the black community takes offense to this comparison. In my presentation to the UCLA Law School on the issue of Prop 8 and Civil Rights, it was pretty well conceded by the gay rights groups there that blacks felt that their struggle for equality is being demeaned by the claims of the gay community.

I agree. I can point to the statements of black leaders on this point, but again, there are blacks who have come out against this theory as well.

I can see how they might be offended by this. After all, their persecution has been far greater and for far longer than gays. Racial equality just happens to be the latest major advancement, so it is often used as a comparison.

However, the point is that we need to continue to evolve as a people. To accept things the way they are, not go by some 2000+ year old men telling us how things should be.

We took a drastic step towards becoming an evolved people when we recognized equal treatment for all races. Lets continue that evolution.
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman

I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
_Sethbag
_Emeritus
Posts: 6855
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:52 am

Re: Tom Hanks:"Mormon Supporters of Proposition 8 'Un-American'"

Post by _Sethbag »

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Sethbag wrote:How can you dispute that in California, the ruling by the Supreme Court of that state in fact established as constitutional law in that state that gays had the right to marry?

I don't dispute that the state supreme court, by a one-vote margin, determined it to be so.

Whether that settles the question forever or beyond dispute, however, is another matter.

I think Dred Scott was wrongly decided. Don't you?

Yes, but it was still "settled" constitutional law for a few years, and binding on all lower courts in the US, until the 13th and 14th Amendments overturned it. Whether it was the law or not isn't about whether I agree with it.

You said "The fact that a few months had passed since a one-vote majority of a state supreme court had decreed it to be doesn't quite establish it as settled constitutional law."

There is no settled constitutional law, if your standard is a decision or principle that cannot ever be changed.

But for all intents and purposes, a supreme court ruling does establish "settled" constitutional law, until either some future court changes it, or the constitution is changed. In this case, the constitution was changed. But on the day that ruling came out, marriage equality was in fact "settled" constitutional law in California.

Sethbag wrote:Apparently the other Pro-8 people didn't have the same trouble as you understanding this, since they undertook to change the state's constitution specifically to void that ruling.

I appreciate the condescension. I really do.

Well sorry about that. I won't try to drag you into an argument about Prop 8 itself. My beef with your post was only that you claimed that SSM wasn't settled constitutional law in California after the SC ruling, and in fact, almost by definition, it was.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
Post Reply