# Fuck You, Prop 8 Supporters! Also: Fuck You, Dishonest News Media **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 6, 2010, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433 "2010-08-06T18:15:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2010, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/21 "2010-08-06T19:42:05Z")
> [@Bearflag70](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > So even the existence of the Fourteenth Amendment is probably viewed as supporting the view that the will of people is opposed to same-sex marriage. > > I don’t follow that. “The will of the people is that there be no same-sex marriage!” “Oh, yeah? Well, the Fourteenth Amendment says otherwise, pal!” “No, it doesn’t! Do you honestly think that if the Fourteenth Amendment had been proposed including the explicit words, ‘…and no state shall deny any two person the right to marry on the basis of their both being the same sex…’ that it would have passed? Of course not! The Fourteenth Amendment never meant that, because the people that passed it didn’t mean that, so same-sex marriage is NOT the will of the people!” That’s the basic argument. ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2010, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/22 "2010-08-06T19:46:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s the basic argument. Gotcha-ya ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2010, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/23 "2010-08-06T19:48:02Z")
> [@Bearflag70](#): > > The people wrote the US constitution to give the courts the power to interpret the US constitution. That is not properly the subject of a California initiative. Not quite. Here’s the sequence of events: [ul][li]California law restricts marriage to man/woman.[/li][li]Aggrieved California gay couples ask courts to overturn law, claiming it violates state constitution.[/li][li]California courts overturn law, saying that the California state constitution provides for equal protection, so that law is invalid.[/li][li]California voters say, “No, that’s NOT what the California Constitution says. Here, I’ll make it crystal clear. No gay marriage.”[/li][/ul] At that point, the courts in California are stuck, they can interpret their own constitution broadly, but not so broadly as to erase the plain command of a just-passed amendment. So now the attention is turned to the federal courts: [ul] [li]Aggrieved California gay couples ask federal court to erase California constitutional provision because the federal constitution forbids it.[/li][li]Federal court does so.[/li][li]Aggrieved opposition appeals, asking higher federal court to undo decision.[/li][/ul] And that’s where we are now. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2010, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/24 "2010-08-06T19:49:47Z")
> [@zoid](#): > > Actually I believe the commonly held position is that a citizen can do anything not specifically outlawed, isn’t that true? Yes. > [@](#): > > If that’s the case then unless you outlaw SSM it’s allowed. Hence Prop 8 tried to outlaw it. > > And if you are in favor of limited government then it follows that you believe the Government has no business sticking it’s nose into making laws restricting who can marry. No. Marriage is a public act. The idea is to force the government to recognize same-sex marriages. Gay people can live together, marry each other in churches or temples or synagogues, etc. But that has no force of law. The propoents of SSM are saying that the government has to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, pay the survivor Social Security benefits, make them go thru divorce court and abide by community property when they split up, and so forth. > [@](#): > > The court actually limited Government in this case basically saying you have no right to expand the governments power into this area. No, just the opposite. The people of the state of California want the government to do nothing to recognize or establish gay marriage. If you are favor of limited government, and the people tell the government “Don’t do this” and the government goes ahead and does it anyway, then you no longer have limited government. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2010, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/25 "2010-08-06T19:52:03Z")
> [@zoid](#): > > Actually I believe the commonly held position is that a citizen can do anything not specifically outlawed, isn’t that true? If that’s the case then unless you outlaw SSM it’s allowed. Hence Prop 8 tried to outlaw it. A citizen can do whatever he likes if it’s not illegal. But this doesn’t involve citizens. Any two citizens may hold a ceremony and declare to themselves they are married. Any ten citizens may do likewise. This is a law about what the government may do. The government needs a law before it can do things. To marry anyone, the government needs a law authorizing it to do so. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2010, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/26 "2010-08-06T19:54:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Not quite. > > Here’s the sequence of events: > > [ul][li]California law restricts marriage to man/woman.[/li][li]Aggrieved California gay couples ask courts to overturn law, claiming it violates state constitution.[/li][li]California courts overturn law, saying that the California state constitution provides for equal protection, so that law is invalid.[/li][li]California voters say, “No, that’s NOT what the California Constitution says. Here, I’ll make it crystal clear. No gay marriage.”[/li][/ul] > > At that point, the courts in California are stuck, they can interpret their own constitution broadly, but not so broadly as to erase the plain command of a just-passed amendment. > > So now the attention is turned to the federal courts: [ul] > [li]Aggrieved California gay couples ask federal court to erase California constitutional provision because the federal constitution forbids it.[/li][li]Federal court does so.[/li][li]Aggrieved opposition appeals, asking higher federal court to undo decision.[/li][/ul] Not quite. Step 1 was 1. Certain people, aided and abetted by many other people from another state, succeed in getting Prop 8 up for a vote. 2. Prop 8 passes, after much sturm und drang. And THEN the rest of your list. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2010, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/27 "2010-08-06T19:58:09Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Not quite. Step 1 was > > 1. Certain people, aided and abetted by many other people from another state, succeed in getting Prop 8 up for a vote. > 2. Prop 8 passes, after much sturm und drang. > > And THEN the rest of your list. No. First the law, then the court decision overturning the law, then Prop 8. Please try to keep up. The impetus to passing Prop 8 was the California courts’ ruling that same-sex marriage was required by the state constiution. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2010, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/28 "2010-08-06T20:00:07Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > We live in a constitutional republic. The government may not do \*\*anything \*\* unless the Constitution explicitly says they can. THe Constitution does not say anything about gay marriage - that is just something that gay-marriage advocates made up, like the right to abortion in Roe v. Wade. > > \ > > If the people wrote the Constitution, then the people get to determine what it says, at least in cases where it isn’t explicit. If I’m reading you right here, you don’t merely have a problem with the merits of the case, you don’t think the federal courts explictly have the power to be the final arbiter in determining whether the people of California are correctly interpreting federal law. If so, your beef isn’t with the current decision - it’s with _Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee_, 14 U.S. 304 (1816). ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2010, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/29 "2010-08-06T20:00:26Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > We live in a constitutional republic. The government may not do \*\*anything \*\* unless the Constitution explicitly says they can. THe Constitution does not say anything about gay marriage - that is just something that gay-marriage advocates made up, like the right to abortion in Roe v. Wade. > > Regards, > Shodan However… In a Republic, _all_ citizens _should_ receive Equal Protection under the law, regardless of whatever sub-classification they fall into, unless those rights/protections have been stripped from them due to cause, and only after due process. That means that gays should have every right to marriage (or “civil unions” which provide all the same material benefits of a classic man/woman marriage) under the law, without some special law/amendment essentially saying, “Yes, that means gays, too.” ---
**Author:** ![Hal\_Briston](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a9a28c/32.png) [@Hal\_Briston](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hal_Briston)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2010, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/30 "2010-08-06T20:10:21Z")
I’d still like to know if any proponent of Prop 8 _seriously_ thinks SSM isn’t 100% slam-dunk inevitable on a nationwide basis? That this _will_ eventually come to be, and that history will look upon them the way we look those who fought for “racial purity” when trying to prevent interracial marriage? Everyone does know this by now, correct? ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2010, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/31 "2010-08-06T20:17:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Please try to keep up. . No! Ain’t gonna do it! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2010, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/32 "2010-08-06T20:17:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@SteveG1](#): > > > > Not quite. Step 1 was > > > > 1. Certain people, aided and abetted by many other people from another state, succeed in getting Prop 8 up for a vote. > > 2. Prop 8 passes, after much sturm und drang. > > > > And THEN the rest of your list. > > No. > > First the law, then the court decision overturning the law, then Prop 8. Please try to keep up. The impetus to passing Prop 8 was the California courts’ ruling that same-sex marriage was required by the state constiution. Actually, you both missed the first step. 1. California joins the union 2. California ratifies the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment says you can’t pass laws discriminating against people. ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2010, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/33 "2010-08-06T20:21:33Z")
Here’s the sequence of events: [ul] [li]The American People adopt the US Constitution, including Due Process under the 5th Amendment[/li][li]The US doctrines regarding judicial review are solidified by law[/li][li]California adopts a California constitution[/li][li]California becomes a state, subject to the US Constitution[/li][li]The American People adopt the US 14th Amendment, applying due process and equal protection to feds and states. At this point, SSM is a federal right, enshrined in the US Constitution.[/li][li]California scraps its state constitution in favor of a new one, which includes California due process, California equal protection, and California judicial review. At this point, SSM is a California right, enshrined in the California Constitution.[/li][li]New California law restricts marriage to man/woman in an effort to remove a constitutional right to SSM.[/li][li]Aggrieved California gay couples ask courts to overturn law, claiming it violates state constitution.[/li][li]California courts overturn law, saying that the California state constitution provides for equal protection, so that law is invalid.[/li][li]California voters say, “We don’t like what our California Constitution says, so we’ll amend it to strip people of their constitutional right to SSM.”[/li][li]The SCOCA says the people of California have the right to “amend” the state constitution to do that. [/li][li]Aggrieved California gay couples ask federal court to strike California constitutional provision because the federal constitution forbids it.[/li][li]Federal court does so.[/li][li]Aggrieved opposition appeals, asking higher federal court to undo decision.[/li][/ul] ETA: **Don’t Call Me Shirley** beat me to it. ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2010, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/34 "2010-08-06T20:22:10Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > If you are favor of limited government, and the people tell the government “Don’t do this” and the government goes ahead and does it anyway, then you no longer have limited government. > > Regards, > Shodan The only way you can say you are for limited government in this situation is to want the government out of all marriages altogether. You want the government getting involved in who can and can’t get married- that’s bigger government. You also want the government to have the power to kill its citizens and tell women what they can and can’t do with their bodies. Everybody uses the “smaller government” argument to apply only to things they disagree with. If it’s something they want, they’re all for it. Also, you’re a fucking tool. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2010, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/35 "2010-08-06T20:29:44Z")
> [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > No. > > > > First the law, then the court decision overturning the law, then Prop 8. Please try to keep up. The impetus to passing Prop 8 was the California courts’ ruling that same-sex marriage was required by the state constiution. > > Actually, you both missed the first step. > > 1. California joins the union > 2. California ratifies the 14th amendment. > > The 14th amendment says you can’t pass laws discriminating against people. This looks like we will turn it into an endless “the chicken or the egg” thing, unless we agree to stop right here. I should find that old quote about one of the functions of the constitution (and the law in general) being one of protecting minorities from the “opression of the majority”. One of my big beefs with Prop 8, aside from the usual and probably expected reasons, was that it got its strongest and most effective support from Utah Mormons. It was pushed by PEOPLE FROM ANOTHER STATE and it was pushed FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS. They should stay in their own shit hole and mind their own damn business. What the fuck. A phony cult started by a convicted swindler, based on some new book only he ever saw, readable only with magic lenses or something, and given by an angel no one had heard of before. What the fuck. ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2010, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/36 "2010-08-06T20:31:56Z")
> [@steveg1](#): > > what the fuck. A phony cult started by a convicted swindler, based on some new book only he ever saw, readable only with magic lenses or something, and given by an angel no one had heard of before. What the fuck. dum dum dum dum dum! ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2010, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/37 "2010-08-06T20:59:43Z")
> [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](#): > > The only way you can say you are for limited government in this situation is to want the government out of all marriages altogether. You want the government getting involved in who can and can’t get married- that’s bigger government. I said “limited” government, not “no” government. > [@](#): > > You also want the government to have the power to kill its citizens and tell women what they can and can’t do with their bodies. Yes, I am in favor of the death penalty. Roe v. Wade was another example of the federal government seizing the right to regulate abortion, instaad of leaving it to the states or the people, as the Tenth Amendment demands. You dumb bitch. > [@ExTank](#): > > However… > > In a Republic, all citizens should receive Equal Protection under the law, regardless of whatever sub-classification they fall into, unless those rights/protections have been stripped from them due to cause, and only after due process. > > That means that gays should have every right to marriage (or “civil unions” which provide all the same material benefits of a classic man/woman marriage) under the law, without some special law/amendment essentially saying, “Yes, that means gays, too.” The notion that “equal protection” means “gays have the right to marriage” is an example of people reading something into the text that isn’t there. The laws about marriage whose protection people are complaining about not having do not now, nor have they ever, meant gay marriage. That is a different kettle of fish. If you want to establish gay marriage, you have to pass a law (or amend the Constitution and get it ratified). That’s how you establish something new. You do not do it by having some judge make it up and stick it in the law. That is not what judges are for. > [@pravnik](#): > > If I’m reading you right here, you don’t merely have a problem with the merits of the case, you don’t think the federal courts explictly have the power to be the final arbiter in determining whether the people of California are correctly interpreting federal law. If so, your beef isn’t with the current decision - it’s with Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816). IANAL, and I am not really arguing that the people of California should be the ones interpreting the US Constitution. I was taking **Bearflag** ’s assertion for granted and arguing based on that. But let’s be honest here - the idea that the Fourteenth Amendment refers to gay marriage is not interpretation, it is interpolation. No federal law, no California state law, nothing in the English common law on which our common law was founded, ever made any suggestion that gay marriage was included in the laws about marriage. That is something the proponents of SSM made up and put in. Sure, they got some fool in a black robe to go along with it, in the teeth of the expressed wishes of the voters of California. That doesn’t make it legitimate. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Punoqllads](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d2c977/32.png) [@Punoqllads](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Punoqllads)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2010, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/38 "2010-08-06T21:14:15Z")
> [@Taenia\_spp](#): > > Bonus (mini) rant: Hello New York Times. Hello KRON 4 News. Hello SF Chronicle, NPR News, and assorted other mainstream media outlets. When will you stop being so dishonest and actually report the news fairly? When you cover the news at the federal courthouse and publishing photo galleries, please remember that there’s not always ‘two sides to every issue’. I was there. Total number of Prop 8 supporters: 5. Number of queer rights supporters: 50+. We outnumbered the bigots at least 10:1, but you had to go ahead and photograph/interview the ‘other side’ to provide a ‘balanced news story’. Fuck you! Do you interview the crazy cat lady throwing feral felines when covering a story about a new animal shelter? No, of course not. Then why interview similarly crazy people (seriously, one guy had this crudely written highlighter sign that made absolutely no sense) when they are in a tiny minority of numbers amidst a crowd of normal, sane people? I strongly disagree with you here. Please, _let_ them crazify all over the TV screen. I feel that there are folks who are on the fence over SSM. On the one hand, they understand at some level the discrimination inherent in the system. On the other hand, their upbringing lets them justify the discrimination to themselves. I feel that showing them the sorts of people they’re allied with can sometimes give them a kick in the pants. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2010, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/39 "2010-08-06T21:16:11Z")
Hey, if the only thing you can say about gay marriage is that it makes big government, then fuck yeah, let the government get all big and huge and fat. Because it is a better, more equal, more just government that is big and can enforce fairness on all people than a small, weak government that’s unintrusive for the sole sake of being unintrusive I love big government when it can tell the shitheads to bend over and take some gay marriage up their ass! That’s my kind of government! ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2010, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/40 "2010-08-06T21:18:54Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The notion that “equal protection” means “gays have the right to marriage” is an example of people reading something into the text that isn’t there. … If you want to establish gay marriage, you have to pass a law (or amend the Constitution and get it ratified). That’s how you establish something new. Not always. The argument can be that something is legal, it is allowed, precisely BECAUSE it was not forbidden, and that is a reasonable argument, UNLESS someone has a stronger argument. The Constitution and Bill Of Rights is not all inclusive. It never was, it never will be, it can’t be. Same for all the constitutions and amendments of all the states. I understand that some of the Founders resisted the very idea of such a “Bill”, for fear that some might say ONLY those rights were protected. So, again, it is a reasonable and maybe a smart tactic to claim a thing is legal and allowed UNLESS it was expressly forbidden. So, it becomes a case of NOT reading something that isn’t there, is exactly what “gives permission”. You seem to be saying we can’t allow something by not reading what isn’t there. That would mean almost everything is illegal unless a law is written to allow it. You don’t need a law on the books to tell you you’re allowed to go to a baseball game for example. Here’s a simple example. Lots of people used to think, and some still do, that drinking is icky. It’s The Devil. But, to stop it, a law (Volstead Act) had to be enacted. Shitty law, but whatever. According to your argument here, drinking would have already been illegal, and people would have to pass “the antiVolstead” in order to start drinking. I don’t agree at all. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433.md?page=3)