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

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm commencing to doubt that it's possible for some here to rise above question-begging. That's a tribute to the strength of their convictions, but not very helpful for conversation.

But the people of CA set up that very system with the CA state constitution.

And, arguably, the people of California retain their sovereignty within California.

You've let your religious beliefs overcome equal protection and constitutional rights afforded all citizens

That's simply a repetition of the same question-begging assertion.

not just those that jive with your religious dogma.

California and United States citizens retain rights to do many things that don't "jive" with my religious beliefs, and I'm serenely content with that fact.

Don't create yet another straw man, please.

The CA supeme court found it to be just such a fundamental law under the CA state constitution's equal protection clause -- it is the CA supreme court's job to so interpret the CA state constitution.

And yet the judiciary is no more beyond correction than is the legislature or the executive, and the people remain sovereign.

There are checks and balances, and no branch of government is meant to reign supreme over the others, beyond redress. Not even the judiciary.

And please don't lecture me on the possibility of popular tyranny, and of the particular danger that poses to minorities. I'm well aware of it, and I think it's great that our representative government exists in a state of tension between popular will, legislature, judiciary, and executive. But ultimately, when it all comes down to it, final power does rest with the people -- unless you really want to argue that it rests with the executive, or the legislature, or, least democratic of all, the courts. It has to rest somewhere, and, while none of these options is without substantial risk, to suggest that ultimate power flows from the State seems to me profoundly un-American and deeply dangerous.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

But the people of CA set up that very system with the CA state constitution.

And, arguably, the people of California retain their sovereignty within California.

Subject to the CA state constitution.

You've let your religious beliefs overcome equal protection and constitutional rights afforded all citizens

That's simply a repetition of the same question-begging assertion.

It's the truth. The only reason you want to deny a particular segment of society of the constitutional right to marry, is because of your religious beliefs (and instruction of the Brethren). Keep your religious beliefs out of the constitutional rights of citizens.

not just those that jive with your religious dogma.

California and United States citizens retain rights to do many things that don't "jive" with my religious beliefs, and I'm serenely content with that fact.

Why is this any different? Oh, yeah, because the Brethren told ya so. Got it.

And yet the judiciary is no more beyond correction than is the legislature or the executive, and the people remain sovereign.

Subject to the limits of the state constitution.

There are checks and balances, and no branch of government is meant to reign supreme over the others, beyond redress. Not even the judiciary.

And the real "check and balance" is the state constitution.

But ultimately, when it all comes down to it, final power does rest with the people -- unless you really want to argue that it rests with the executive, or the legislature, or, least democratic of all, the courts.

But THE PEOPLE created the state constitution to keep the majority (and gov't )in check. The people can't strip one targeted group of a constitutional right, while letting the others keep it. The only way to do it right is to get rid of equal protection altogether, so the people and gov't can discriminate all they want. Of course, not even the majority in CA is willing to do that.

It has to rest somewhere, and, while none of these options is without substantial risk, to suggest that ultimate power flows from the State seems to me profoundly un-American and deeply dangerous.

States tried the same argument when they wanted to secede from the Union in the 1860's. The federal and state constitution exist (at least the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Rights in the CA state constitution) to guarantee the rights of individual citizens, including equal protection. This is what makes the U.S. so unique -- equal treatment under the law regardless of minorities that the majority may dislike (like the Mormons and homosexuals). Why would you see that as un-American?

[_asbestosman]

You don't know what a right is if you're making this statement. Saying "group X should have right X" is tantamount to saying "group X has right X".

Fine, fine. So who decides those rights--you, the Mormons, the Supreme Court, or the one-eyed one-horned flying purple people eater?

Or are you saying that those rights are axiomatic and accessable to all just like the axioms of mathematics (setting aside questions about the axiom of choice)? Somehow, that doesn't appear to be the case (even though one can find many similarities in fundamentals of various moral and ethical codes throughout history).

[_Sethbag]

No, this doesn't mean that Dred Scott and Plessy vs. Ferguson were rightly decided. But they were decided, and until they were subsequently overturned, they constituted binding precedent in US courts.

And Proposition 8 represents an attempt to overturn a one-vote state supreme court decision that many, in and out of California (myself emphatically included) think was wrongly decided.

I see nothing un-American in declining to genuflect before state and federal supreme courts.

I don't either. Un-Americanism is just a colloquial term which, by interpretation, I take to mean "not consonant with my personal interpretation of American ideals".

"That's un-American!" is therefor, by that definition, one of the very few charges to which "no, it's not!" actually constitutes a fairly complete and reasonable defense.

Luckily for us all, we have the right (excepting such things as treason and breaking the law) to be as un-American as we please. I, for one, find Sen. Chuck Schumer's attitudes towards gun control to be very un-American. Yet, he is as American as I am, and indeed, as one our political elite, is far better situated than me to determine what becomes American law. Oh well.

Daniel, such an obvious strawman argument does not become you. Who here is arguing that one-vote court decisions can never be altered? Nobody. Obviously they can, either by subsequent visitation of the issue by the court, or by constitutional amendment. This is what happened in California, and nobody is arguing that this process in and of itself is bad, or illegal, or un-American.

I don't see it as a strawman. Rollo Tomasi is effectively demanding genuflection before a state supreme court decision.

And so, in effect, do you, by presuming that the decision overturned by Proposition 8 should not have been challenged:

Well, I don't think it should have been challenged. Whether you agree with it or not, that 1-vote majority had established as a fundamental right the right of gay people to get married to each other, and something like over 18,000 gay couples had already availed themselves of that right and received state marriage certificates prior to the election. Prop 8 stands a very good chance of actually nullifying these couples' marriages, indeed I have read that at least one lawsuit has already been filed asking the court to void all these gay marriages (though what standing the plaintiff claims, I have absolutely no idea). I'm very much against that, and think it is not consonant with American ideals of liberty. As such, I regard Prop 8 as un-American.

You may well regard support for gay marriage as un-American. If so, then that's your right.

I don't argue against Prop 8 as illegal. I disagree with it as a matter of principle. Obviously you and I don't agree on this, and however un-American I may regard your attitude toward gays and Prop 8, I recognize that you are just as American as I am, and just as entitled to your beliefs in the matter as I am.

What people are saying is un-American is the unprecedented action by a majority of citizens to remove a right from a minority which has been previously recognized as a matter of law by the court. It is the removal of rights that is seen as un-American, since America has typically, over its history, stood for strong individual rights - not the taking away of such.

You repeatedly declare same-sex marriage to be a "right," yet, since that is precisely the point at issue, you beg the question in doing so.

Not really. As of the handing down of the relevant ruling in the California Supreme Court, the right of same-sex couples in California to marry was established law. That right existed as of the day that ruling went into effect, whether it had existed before or not. Thus, Prop 8 removed a right that did in fact exist under California law during the entire Prop 8 campaign and right up until Election Day 2008. The dispute is over whether this right ought to have been recognized, not whether or not it had been.

[_bcspace]

Well, I don't think it should have been challenged. Whether you agree with it or not, that 1-vote majority had established as a fundamental right the right of gay people to get married to each other, and something like over 18,000 gay couples had already availed themselves of that right and received state marriage certificates prior to the election. Prop 8 stands a very good chance of actually nullifying these couples' marriages, indeed I have read that at least one lawsuit has already been filed asking the court to void all these gay marriages (though what standing the plaintiff claims, I have absolutely no idea). I'm very much against that, and think it is not consonant with American ideals of liberty. As such, I regard Prop 8 as un-American.

You may well regard support for gay marriage as un-American. If so, then that's your right.

I don't argue against Prop 8 as illegal. I disagree with it as a matter of principle.

Just because someone opened the door and let out a few skeletons doesn't mean all skeletons should be let out.

[_asbestosman]

Just because someone opened the door and let out a few skeletons doesn't mean all skeletons should be let out.

First gays come out of the closet, and now skeletons. What else is in the closet and why doesn't Fibber McGee fix it?

[_moksha]

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.

Well, I don't get this. It seems to me that when one group is demeaned we are all diminished.


.

[_Trevor]

I wonder if Tom feels the same way about the Greek Orthodox supporters of Prop 8.

Just sayin'.

[_Droopy]

They chose to party on,

Which is exacly what the overwhelming majority of homosexuals are going to do once they achieve their "right" to marry each other.

The homosexual marriage movement is not about homosexual marriage, as no historical evidence exists indicating that homosexuals, and in particular male homosexuals, were ever interested in any such thing in significant numbers.

The issue is about the redefinition of gender, family, and marriage qua marriage; in other words, about the legitimization of homosexuality itself.

It is quite easy to make the prediction that once the "right" is won, a spate of marriages will follow among a small subset of the homosexual community, followed by the rapid dissolution of those marriages, and a return to normalcy (the cruising and bathhouse culture etc.).

[_Droopy]

I think he was referring to stripping away a consitutional right from a targeted segment of society.

As no such "right" ever existed, stripping it away is both a logical and constitutional impossibility.