Hello,
I'm surprised by your comment. Simply looking at this thread I have addressed jurisprudential issues as they relate to, and in support of, Proposition 8. These included: judicial overreach, the invention of rights claims, errors in equity claims and the ability of religious groups to participate in the political process. None of these explanatories have been refuted.
By judicial overreach, I assume you mean that the Supreme Court should not have overturned a law voted into effect by the majority of voters. If you mean something else, you'll have to clarify. If you mean this, it's been done many times. The Supreme Court is there specifically to make sure all laws are constitutional. Voters can't just pass any old law they want. It still has to follow the guidelines of the Constitution. They decided that this law didn't follow those, and so got rid of it.
I assume you mean that marriage is not a right, by your "invention of rights" claim. Again, if that's not what you mean, you'll have to clarify. If it is, then that's fine. It's not a right, it's a priviledge. So, let's take that priviledge away from LDS. It's no big deal, right? Since it's not a right, we can just take it away from anyone we feel doesn't deserve it, without infringing on their basic human rights?
By "errors in equity claims", I assume you mean the gender thing. Again, correct me if that's wrong. It has been shown that "equal" does not mean "exactly the same", it means "of equal value, even though different". There are times when you have to make a distinction based on gender, just as there are times when you have to make distinctions based on other attributes. Those distinctions don't apply in every case. That's like saying "He got off because when he killed someone, he did it in self-defense. I should get off for raping, too, because it was in self-defense". That makes no sense, even though, in the one case, the distinction is perfectly legal and logical. It's the same with saying that gender factors into some separations made by the law, so you can't say it can't be a factor in other distinctions made.
The ability of religious people to participate in the political process has never been denied (and this has been dealt with countless times now). The point is that you can believe whatever you want, but you can't make it legal if it goes against the Constitution. I don't care what you think of homosexuality. I only care that you try to impose your beliefs on others. It's the same way you wouldn't want me or anyone else voting for a proposition banning the LDS religion. We have the right to do that, acording to you, but should we? I don't think so. I don't like the fact that a lot of Christians are uptight about sex and only do the missionary position. Would it be fair for me to try to pass a law banning the missionary position, to try to force all of them to try new things?
Everyone has the right to vote as they please according to whatever belief they have. The point is that the belief that homosexuality is immoral does not necessarily lead to the action of trying to ban it for everybody. As long as it doesn't hurt anyone, you have no right to tell others that they can't do it, and, not only that, but you have no grounds Constitutionally to do that.
(racist / bigotry / sexist if you can only handle your own kind...)
