http://mustangdaily.net/same-sex-marriage-supporters-rally-at-mitchell-park/ Cal Poly San Luis Obispo's student news outlet Thu, 11 Mar 2010 04:31:49 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 http://mustangdaily.net/same-sex-marriage-supporters-rally-at-mitchell-park/comment-page-1/#comment-5668 Inside My Head » Changes Mon, 07 Sep 2009 01:10:48 +0000 http://mustangdaily.net/?p=12498#comment-5668 [...] *This is where you can watch a video that shows the rally that Shawno and I went to. [...] [...] *This is where you can watch a video that shows the rally that Shawno and I went to. [...]

]]> http://mustangdaily.net/same-sex-marriage-supporters-rally-at-mitchell-park/comment-page-1/#comment-4244 Gerald Sat, 18 Jul 2009 23:36:04 +0000 http://mustangdaily.net/?p=12498#comment-4244 Dane Senser not homophobic? I know him personally and I can tell you from personal experience that he dislikes anything to do with gay or lesbian, and has shown me that he is homophobic. He is simply a camera hog, looking for attention. If you Google his name you will see that he just goes anywhere he thinks the cameras are so he can be listed on Google. He is good at faking it. Dane Senser not homophobic? I know him personally and I can tell you from personal experience that he dislikes anything to do with gay or lesbian, and has shown me that he is homophobic. He is simply a camera hog, looking for attention. If you Google his name you will see that he just goes anywhere he thinks the cameras are so he can be listed on Google. He is good at faking it.

]]> http://mustangdaily.net/same-sex-marriage-supporters-rally-at-mitchell-park/comment-page-1/#comment-3154 Cameron Shew Sun, 31 May 2009 04:51:03 +0000 http://mustangdaily.net/?p=12498#comment-3154 Keep in mind that this decision *was* made in a state court, and questions of constitutionality will likely arise again on the federal level, probably in the Supreme Court of the United States eventually. Here's my opinion for a libertarian perspective: Normally, in a democracy, the will of the people should prevail (the position of Prop. 8 proponents). However, the people's legislative rights are not absolute: they are still bound by a golden document called the Constitution. The people cannot, for example, reinstate slavery by popular vote because this would violate the 13th Amendment. Similarly, the Equal Protection Clause (Section 1) of the 14th amendment states that "No state shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Now I admit historically this has been interpreted as equal protection by race or sex (for example, when Brown v. Board of Education ended segregated schools), but I think this will eventually be extended to sexual orientation, depending on the views of future justices (and changing public attitudes). Much like our constitution was used to strike down schools that were "separate but equal," I believe the same logic will eventually be applied to end disparities between current domestic partnerships and marriages that are supposedly "separate but equal." Keep in mind that this decision *was* made in a state court, and questions of constitutionality will likely arise again on the federal level, probably in the Supreme Court of the United States eventually. Here’s my opinion for a libertarian perspective: Normally, in a democracy, the will of the people should prevail (the position of Prop. 8 proponents). However, the people’s legislative rights are not absolute: they are still bound by a golden document called the Constitution. The people cannot, for example, reinstate slavery by popular vote because this would violate the 13th Amendment. Similarly, the Equal Protection Clause (Section 1) of the 14th amendment states that “No state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Now I admit historically this has been interpreted as equal protection by race or sex (for example, when Brown v. Board of Education ended segregated schools), but I think this will eventually be extended to sexual orientation, depending on the views of future justices (and changing public attitudes). Much like our constitution was used to strike down schools that were “separate but equal,” I believe the same logic will eventually be applied to end disparities between current domestic partnerships and marriages that are supposedly “separate but equal.”

]]>