Proposition 8: The Day In Court

[Pink Bat Maxine]

(03-05) 12:20 PST SAN FRANCISCO --

California Supreme Court justices directed sharp questioning today at attorneys seeking to overturn Proposition 8, the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing lasted three hours and 10 minutes, wrapping up just after noon. Now the court has 90 days to issue a ruling.

Justice Joyce Kennard, one of the justices in the majority of the 4-3 ruling last year that legalized gay and lesbian marriages - a decision that voters overturned in approving Prop. 8 in November - said at one point that opponents of the measure would have the court choose between "two rights ... the inalienable right to marry and the right of the people to change the constitution as they see fit. And what I'm picking up from the oral argument in this case is this court should willy-nilly disregard the will of the people."

Kennard was the only justice who voted in November not to hear the challenge to Prop. 8, which was brought by several same-sex couples and by local governments led by the city of San Francisco.

Shannon Minter, an attorney representing the same-sex couples, was the first lawyer to deliver arguments when today's court hearing got under way at 9 a.m. in San Francisco.

He told the justices that their decision last year legalizing gay and lesbian marriages was "a resounding and eloquent affirmation of our Constitution's foundational guarantee of equal citizenship. It is today's case that will determine whether future generations of Californians can continue to count on that guarantee."

"Relegating same-sex couples to domestic partnership does not provide them with everything but a word," Minter said. "It puts those couples in a second-class status. It marks them as second-class citizens. It deprives them of equal liberty, dignity and privacy."

The attorney for the Prop. 8 proponents, Kenneth Starr, began his arguments before the justices at 11 a.m.

"Rights are ultimately defined by the people," said Starr, representing Protect Marriage, the group that put the constitutional amendment on the ballot. He said proponents of Prop. 8 want to "restore the traditional definition that has been in place since this state was founded."

Starr, the former Whitewater special prosecutor and now dean of Pepperdine University law school, said Prop. 8 does not eliminate the civil rights of gays and lesbians, noting that they are afforded domestic-partnership rights by the state.

"People do have the raw power to define the rights," Starr said. "That's the nature of the consent of the government."

Also at issue in the case, potentially, is the future of 18,000 same-sex marriages performed in California before the November election. If the court upholds Prop. 8, it must decide whether those marriages will be legally recognized.

Kennard focused on that issue in her questioning of Therese Stewart, who was arguing the case for the San Francisco city attorney's office. Kennard suggested that Prop. 8 "buried" language indicating that the marriages should not be retroactively recognized, and thus voters might not have intended to undo the unions.

Also arguing before the court this morning was Christopher Krueger, senior assistant attorney general under Attorney General Jerry Brown.

Brown took the unusual step of urging the court to overturn the initiative, saying the "inalienable" rights listed in the beginning of the state Constitution shouldn't be subject to majority whim.

Opponents of Prop. 8 argue that the initiative prevents judges from protecting the rights of a minority - racial, religious, political or sexual.

The same-sex couples and local governments, but not Brown's office, also argue that Prop. 8 made such a radical change to the state Constitution that it amounted to a revision, not an amendment. Revisions require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature or an act of a constitutional convention to be put on the ballot.

Protect Marriage, the leading coalition defending Prop. 8, contends that voters have the power to define marriage under the state Constitution and the court must accept their decision.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Man, Kenneth Starr: WHAT a dildo.

[Flamebird]

Every damn time I read this shit I get more pissed off.

And I don't even live there.

Frankly, if prop 8 is upheld; I would love it if every couple that got married that is affected, sues the fuck out of both the state and those fucking "Protect Marriage" assholes.

[Hurricane]

Sometimes I hate this country.

[Hurricane]

Every damn time I read this shit I get more pissed off.

And I don't even live there.

Frankly, if prop 8 is upheld; I would love it if every couple that got married that is affected, sues the fuck out of both the state and those fucking "Protect Marriage" assholes.

Yeah, didn't they have to pay for marriage licenses and all that? If their marriages are overturned, would they be given their money back? That seems like it would be a LOT of money for the state to have to give up.

[Flamebird]

Yeah, didn't they have to pay for marriage licenses and all that? If their marriages are overturned, would they be given their money back? That seems like it would be a LOT of money for the state to have to give up.

During a recession yet. :rolleyes:

I just want them to sue those "protect marriage" pricks, for not protecting their marriages.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

During a recession yet. :rolleyes:

I just want them to sue those "protect marriage" pricks, for not protecting their marriages.

I'd rather riot.

[Paul McEnery]

Man, Kenneth Starr: WHAT a dildo.

Nice to see him come right out and say it. He's the kind of fascist prick who thinks you can take people's rights away on a vote.

[thehod]

Man, Kenneth Starr: WHAT a dildo.

Get yourself a huge group of people to proposition a change to the consitution that anyone who chooses to spell the surname Star with two rr's is clearly setting themselves up as something special, and should therefore be brought down a peg or two on a daily basis by having their gonads covered in jam and then having it licked off by a rapid rottweiler with a suspect impulse control problem.

Its not discriminatory. Its the will of the people.

[Flamebird]

I'd rather riot.

I gots some heavy duty shit-kickers and some torches and pitchforks if ya need 'em.

[4thHorseman]

I'd rather riot.

Why not both? You would get more money to afford pitchforks.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Nice to see him come right out and say it. He's the kind of fascist prick who thinks you can take people's rights away on a vote.

Heh.

Guess what? He might be right about this.

The challenges are an enormous long shot by anyone's estimation.

[Flâneur]

I don't know how much of an impact this has but the Senate passed a resolution against Prop 8 :

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=9717

[Pink Bat Maxine]

California Supreme Court appears likely to uphold gay marriage ban
By Howard Mintz

California Supreme Court today appeared inclined to uphold Proposition 8, but showed obvious reluctance to void thousands of same-sex marriages already in place when voters restored a ban on gay marriage last fall.

During three hours of arguments in San Francisco, the justices peppered lawyers opposing Proposition 8 with questions that suggested they do not believe they have the authority to trump the will of the voters.

At the same time, even justices who voted against striking down California's previous ban on gay marriage indicated that Proposition 8 should not wipe out an estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place last year. Those couples mobilized around the state to obtain marriage licenses

"Is that really fair to people who depended on what this court said was the law?" Justice Ming Chin asked Ken Starr, the former Clinton impeachment prosecutor who argued that same-sex marriages shouldn't be recognized under Proposition 8.

The justices are considering a high stakes legal challenge to the validity of the measure, which was approved by voters last fall and restored California's ban on gay marriage. The ballot measure, enacted by a 52 to 48 percent vote, erased last May's historic state Supreme Court ruling finding California's prior ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional because it deprived gay couples of the equal right to wed.

Proposition 8 amended the California Constitution to confine marriage to heterosexual couples, and its backers insist that the Supreme Court cannot overturn the will of the voters if they choose to change the state constitution.

During today's arguments, the majority of the court remarked that the current case is very different than last year's, primarily because the voters amended the constitution the court is bound to follow. "I stand by what I said in the marriage cases," Justice Joyce Kennard, a key vote in legalizing gay marriage last year, said at one point. "But this case is different. We're dealing with the power of the people.''

Justice Carol Corrigan, who dissented in last year's decision, remained reluctant to interfere with voters and legislators.

"Is the essence of your argument that the people have the right to amend their constitution as long as it isn't done in a way the Supreme Court doesn't like?'' Corrigan asked one civil rights lawyer.

Civil rights groups, same-sex couples and a number of local governments, including Santa Clara County and San Francisco, sued to block enforcement of Proposition 8, arguing that it was an improper method of amending the constitution and targets a minority group by depriving gay couples of the right to marry. Attorney General Jerry Brown also has refused to defend the law, saying it is unconstitutional and conflicts with last year's state Supreme Court ruling.

Christoper Krueger, the senior deputy assistant attorney general who argued for Brown, had the roughest ride during arguments, as all of the justices appeared poised to reject his argument that last year's ruling created an "inalienable right'' for same-sex couples to wed. "What I'm picking up from the argument is that the court should willy, nilly disregard the will of the people,'' Kennard told him. "As judges, our powers are limited."

If the court upholds Proposition 8, the justices must still determine whether existing gay marriages are valid across the state. On that point, even Starr, now dean of the Pepperdine University law school, found himself on the defensive, particularly from Chin and Corrigan, two justices who voted against legalizing gay marriage in the prior case. When Starr tried to maintain the measure had to be read as voiding the marriages, Corrigan shot back, "But this court had said "this is the law in California."

The justices agreed to review the case in November, producing an avalanche of legal arguments from all sides of the gay marriage debate. The Supreme Court now has 90 days to rule in the case, ensuring the fate of Proposition 8 will be determined before summer begins.

The Supreme Court was divided 4-3 in last year's ruling, and gay marriage opponents have vowed a political campaign against justices who vote to overturn the ban on same-sex marriage, adding to the intrigue surrounding the high court's handling of the controversial issue.

Chief Justice Ronald George, who wrote last year's majority opinion, told a gathering of reporters in December that he ignores such political considerations when he's deciding a hot-button case. George was joined in the prior ruling by Justices Joyce Kennard, Carlos Moreno and Kathryn Mickle Werdegar. Justices Marvin Baxter, Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan dissented in that case, saying it is up to voters and legislators, not the courts, to change laws governing same-sex marriage.

[Matt Algren]

One bit Jerry Brown put up on Twitter today (I refuse to call them you-know-whats):

Ken Starr says (http://twitter.com/JerryBrown2010/status/1284675719) the power of the people includes the right to eliminate free speech under the California constitution.

So yeah, what an Un-American dickhead.

That said, I honestly can't see the court ruling against Prop 8, just for practical reasons. They know how Teh Homosexuals will react if they uphold it. Reaction from the bigots is a big unknown with Dobson and Warren waiting in the wings to lead a revolt.

[Solaris]

If I read that right, so did the House.

Never thought I'd say this, but "Yay, Legislature!"

BTW, speaking of costs (as someone above did)... has anyone calculated an estimate of how much *other* costs will be, if the existing marriages are revoked? I'm talking about stuff like the change forcing couples and insurers to re-do all that insurance paperwork, HR departments having to re-do paperwork on employees (as in, no longer married status for benefits etc.), costs for re-doing *any* paperwork that would require filing stuff again, if the marital status is revoked.

I also want to know, if someone got married, and then adopted a child (either jointly, or one partner becoming a legal parent to the other partner's child)... what happens with that? If the marriage gets revoked, does it affect the legal parental status of the adopting partner(s)?

Going back to the core topic, the Prop 8 people are dicks. It doesn't matter how they sugarcoat it---the bottom line is, they really don't care about this minority's rights... no, rather, they actively *reject* this minority's rights---and don't give a good goddamn about the wreckage Prop 8 causes in homes and families affected by it.

[Matt Algren]

If I read that right, so did the House.

Never thought I'd say this, but "Yay, Legislature!"

BTW, speaking of costs (as someone above did)... has anyone calculated an estimate of how much *other* costs will be, if the existing marriages are revoked? I'm talking about stuff like the change forcing couples and insurers to re-do all that insurance paperwork, HR departments having to re-do paperwork on employees (as in, no longer married status for benefits etc.), costs for re-doing *any* paperwork that would require filing stuff again, if the marital status is revoked.

I also want to know, if someone got married, and then adopted a child (either jointly, or one partner becoming a legal parent to the other partner's child)... what happens with that? If the marriage gets revoked, does it affect the legal parental status of the adopting partner(s)?

Going back to the core topic, the Prop 8 people are dicks. It doesn't matter how they sugarcoat it---the bottom line is, they really don't care about this minority's rights... no, rather, they actively *reject* this minority's rights---and don't give a good goddamn about the wreckage Prop 8 causes in homes and families affected by it.
Yes, both houses sent a resolution. The only reason Prop 8 went through as an amendment instead of a revision is that a revision requires a 2/3 majority vote in the legislature. They knew that wasn't going to happen, so they called it an amendment, which it isn't.

But whatever.

[Solaris]

One bit Jerry Brown put up on Twitter today (I refuse to call them you-know-whats):

Ken Starr says (http://twitter.com/JerryBrown2010/status/1284675719) the power of the people includes the right to eliminate free speech under the California constitution.

So yeah, what an Un-American dickhead.

That said, I honestly can't see the court ruling against Prop 8, just for practical reasons. They know how Teh Homosexuals will react if they uphold it. Reaction from the bigots is a big unknown with Dobson and Warren waiting in the wings to lead a revolt.


Ken Starr is the Johnny Cochran of the Republican Party. 'Nuff said.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Going back to the core topic, the Prop 8 people are dicks.

Succinct and dead-on right.

How can anyone sleep at night being such an evil asshole? 'Cause in their hearts, they have to know they are. I truly wish I knew this.

[Matt Algren]

By the way, am I the only person who's heard of Matt Alber? OMG HE'S THE BEST! (http://blog.mattalgren.com/2009/02/valentine-videos/)

[Tommy]

All people should be behind the revoking of Prop 8. As long as Prop 8 stands it means that this country is not a democracy, it is an oligarchy of 51% of whomever is let into the system.

[Linkara]

All people should be behind the revoking of Prop 8. As long as Prop 8 stands it means that this country is not a democracy, it is an oligarchy of 51% of whomever is let into the system.

Now wait a second - I hate prop 8 as much as anyone else with half a brain, but a Democratic vote was taken. Just because we didn't like the way the vote turned out doesn't mean the people who voted for it doesn't mean they didn't have the right to express their opinion in the voting booth, nor does it mean that they should be denied the system.

Hell, if I believed that for a second, I'd hate every single person who voted for Obama, since I didn't vote for him.

That being said, I also believe and hope that the California Supreme Court will smack that stupid amendment out of court, as is THEIR authority.

[Cam63]

Why are some people so worried about de gays anyway ?

This shit is primitive.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Now wait a second - I hate prop 8 as much as anyone else with half a brain, but a Democratic vote was taken. Just because we didn't like the way the vote turned out doesn't mean the people who voted for it doesn't mean they didn't have the right to express their opinion in the voting booth, nor does it mean that they should be denied the system.

Hell, if I believed that for a second, I'd hate every single person who voted for Obama, since I didn't vote for him.

That being said, I also believe and hope that the California Supreme Court will smack that stupid amendment out of court, as is THEIR authority.

What I take from this is that any constitution that can be altered by a simple majority vote realllllllly should be rethought.

Also, that people are assholes.

[Matt Algren]

Now wait a second - I hate prop 8 as much as anyone else with half a brain, but a Democratic vote was taken. Just because we didn't like the way the vote turned out doesn't mean the people who voted for it doesn't mean they didn't have the right to express their opinion in the voting booth, nor does it mean that they should be denied the system.

Hell, if I believed that for a second, I'd hate every single person who voted for Obama, since I didn't vote for him.

That being said, I also believe and hope that the California Supreme Court will smack that stupid amendment out of court, as is THEIR authority.
Then we need to go back to niggers not getting in the way of my kids getting a good education with their goddamn ghetto bullshit smelly asses pulling the class down like we KNOW they do. And I never want to see another wop getting his disgusting arm hair all over my salami at the deli or a gibber gabbering Mexican taking jobs from normal Americans.






What? As long as 50%+1 say that's right, then that's the way it should be, right?




RIGHT?

[Paul McEnery]

What I take from this is that any constitution that can be altered by a simple majority vote realllllllly should be rethought.

Also, that people are assholes.

Starr's argument is stupid, and that judge is stupid for the line "willy-nilly".

The point is that genuine rights are inalienable, and the court's job is to protect them regardless of the majority -- that's the whole point of recognizing (NOT imposing) a right.

If 51% of the voters said all redheads have to leave California, nobody would call the decision "willy-nilly" to shoot it down, because it would deny redheads equal protection.

And that's what's really at issue here.

[Tommy]

Now wait a second - I hate prop 8 as much as anyone else with half a brain, but a Democratic vote was taken. Just because we didn't like the way the vote turned out doesn't mean the people who voted for it doesn't mean they didn't have the right to express their opinion in the voting booth, nor does it mean that they should be denied the system.

Hell, if I believed that for a second, I'd hate every single person who voted for Obama, since I didn't vote for him.

Obama's election is not a matter of rights. Everyone who voted was treated in an equal manner afterwords.

Proposition 8 was a matter of rights. One group used its majority power to remove rights and legal protections from another group. Which sets the precedent that all rights and legal protections are gifts from the majority which can be revoked upon a whim. Where, exactly, does this stop? What, if any, lines can't be crossed?

If Prop 8 stands it means that an oligarchy of 51% of people who haven't had their rights taken away (at the given point in time) get to dictate what rights all other citizens have. The fear of such a system was what lead to the creation of Bill of Rights in the first place.

[Gilda Dent]

My prediction is that Prop. 8 will be upheld in a narrow decision and the marriages will be held to be valid by a solid majority.

What is needed then is to put a new proposition on the ballot every election cycle that would overturn Prop. 8 until it has been disposed of. This is an area in which I don't see opinions favoring fully equal rights doing anything but growing over time. As of the last election cycle, we only need another 2% to shift.

[Paul McEnery]

My prediction is that Prop. 8 will be upheld in a narrow decision and the marriages will be held to be valid by a solid majority.

What is needed then is to put a new proposition on the ballot every election cycle that would overturn Prop. 8 until it has been disposed of. This is an area in which I don't see opinions favoring fully equal rights doing anything but growing over time. As of the last election cycle, we only need another 2% to shift.

Not even that. The vote didn't - at least as far as the polls go - represent California's view, which is 55% in favour of marriage between gays.

Last time, the homophobes got the vote out, that's all.

Which again makes a mockery of the idea that the constitution and the rights contained therein can be altered by simple majority, or by the idiocy of proposition voters.

[Gilda Dent]

Not even that. The vote didn't - at least as far as the polls go - represent California's view, which is 55% in favour of marriage between gays.

Last time, the homophobes got the vote out, that's all.

Which again makes a mockery of the idea that the constitution and the rights contained therein can be altered by simple majority, or by the idiocy of proposition voters.

I've never been much of a fan of initiative-based amending of the constitution. Statutory laws that are then subject to judicial review, sure, no problem. Constitutional amendments should require a much higher standard than a simple majority vote.

[Paul McEnery]

I've never been much of a fan of initiative-based amending of the constitution. Statutory laws that are then subject to judicial review, sure, no problem. Constitutional amendments should require a much higher standard than a simple majority vote.

If I were king of the jungle, I'd get rid of initiatives and propositions entirely; or at best, limit them to an advisory role.

The mass of people are not positioned to make good law; that's why we elect representatives and employ civil servants.

[Linkara]

What? As long as 50%+1 say that's right, then that's the way it should be, right?

RIGHT?
That is NOT what I said at all. I'm saying we shouldn't demonize or take away rights from people who didn't vote the way you wanted. Of course it's a matter of rights, of course their choice is stupid and idiotic and we should do everything in our power to put things right.

But saying that this country isn't a democracy simply because a vote didn't go the way you wanted or how it should've gone on an ethical level is not a legitimate argument.

[Dazzler]

That is NOT what I said at all. I'm saying we shouldn't demonize or take away rights from people who didn't vote the way you wanted. Of course it's a matter of rights, of course their choice is stupid and idiotic and we should do everything in our power to put things right.

But saying that this country isn't a democracy simply because a vote didn't go the way you wanted or how it should've gone on an ethical level is not a legitimate argument.

Then you've obviously never had the validity of your very existence voted on by the public, have you?

I mean, why should how *I* choose to live and love the way I do be put up to a fucking vote anyway?

It's not about whether or not people vote the way I want them to, it's the fact that they feel they CAN vote on my life in the first place.

Jesus. I can't believe you don't see the difference. You can bet your goddamn underpants I'll demonize every fucker as evil who voted for it.

--Dazz

[Linkara]

Then you've obviously never had the validity of your very existence voted on by the public, have you?

I mean, why should how *I* choose to live and love the way I do be put up to a fucking vote anyway?

It's not about whether or not people vote the way I want them to, it's the fact that they feel they CAN vote on my life in the first place.

Jesus. I can't believe you don't see the difference. You can bet your goddamn underpants I'll demonize every fucker as evil who voted for it.

--Dazz

OF COURSE it should never have to be put to a fucking vote. But listen to yourself when you write that - MY GOD.

You're attacking me because I had the GALL to say that maybe our enemies on this may be human beings, too, with their own foibles and biases and misconceptions and ignorance, and maybe they have the right to have an opinion. I don't give two fucks if someone has an opinion, even if it's a hateful, horrible one. It's when they act on it in a way that's physically harmful that I care about. Of course them voting to take away the right to marriage is wrong. People are acting as if I'm somehow saying it's okay they did it. You should sure as hell be angry at them, you should sure as hell yell until someone finally hears you and understands.

But my God, the fact that it's up in the California Supreme Court at all shows that the war is far from over. People are still so fucking bogged down in a battle they've lost (preventing Prop 8 from passing) that they've forgotten the war can still be won.

When you demonize them like that, you become just like the fuckers who demonize homosexuals and transgendered and the like and say that they shouldn't be allowed to have the same rights.

[Tommy]

But saying that this country isn't a democracy simply because a vote didn't go the way you wanted or how it should've gone on an ethical level is not a legitimate argument.

Democracy only exists within the framework of the law treating everyone equally. If some are more equal than others, then it is an oligarchy. The entire point of the Bill of Rights was to prevent such entrenchment.

[Paul McEnery]

That is NOT what I said at all. I'm saying we shouldn't demonize or take away rights from people who didn't vote the way you wanted. Of course it's a matter of rights, of course their choice is stupid and idiotic and we should do everything in our power to put things right.

But saying that this country isn't a democracy simply because a vote didn't go the way you wanted or how it should've gone on an ethical level is not a legitimate argument.

Which misses the point.

The thing about rights is that they're not up for a vote.

[section 8]

Is this Kenneth Starr as in the "where did Clinton put his winky? " Kenneth Starr?

[Paul McEnery]

OF COURSE it should never have to be put to a fucking vote. But listen to yourself when you write that - MY GOD.

You're attacking me because I had the GALL to say that maybe our enemies on this may be human beings, too, with their own foibles and biases and misconceptions and ignorance, and maybe they have the right to have an opinion. I don't give two fucks if someone has an opinion, even if it's a hateful, horrible one. It's when they act on it in a way that's physically harmful that I care about. Of course them voting to take away the right to marriage is wrong. People are acting as if I'm somehow saying it's okay they did it. You should sure as hell be angry at them, you should sure as hell yell until someone finally hears you and understands.

But my God, the fact that it's up in the California Supreme Court at all shows that the war is far from over. People are still so fucking bogged down in a battle they've lost (preventing Prop 8 from passing) that they've forgotten the war can still be won.

When you demonize them like that, you become just like the fuckers who demonize homosexuals and transgendered and the like and say that they shouldn't be allowed to have the same rights.

Hey, guess what. They don't have the right to take away other people's rights.

[Linkara]

Democracy only exists within the framework of the law treating everyone equally. If some are more equal than others, then it is an oligarchy. The entire point of the Bill of Rights was to prevent such entrenchment.

Except we DON'T treat everyone equally in this country. Rights can be taken away for any number of reasons, usually because a crime is committed. In this case, while some rights are being denied, the right to change that and give back the rights that they deserve has not been taken away. One person, one vote. When they try to take away the right to vote from homosexuals, transgendered, and etc., then I'll cry oligarchy.

[Paul McEnery]

Is this Kenneth Starr as in the "where did Clinton put his winky? " Kenneth Starr?

That's Kenneth Starr as in "wasted the people's time and money trying to subvert the people's vote for the President of their choice", yes.

Makes it a bit rich him standing up for voting as an important thing, doesn't it.

What he really means is: if you step out of line with me and my crew of nutballs, we'll fuck with you.

[Dazzler]

OF COURSE it should never have to be put to a fucking vote. But listen to yourself when you write that - MY GOD.

You're attacking me because I had the GALL to say that maybe our enemies on this may be human beings, too, with their own foibles and biases and misconceptions and ignorance, and maybe they have the right to have an opinion. I don't give two fucks if someone has an opinion, even if it's a hateful, horrible one. It's when they act on it in a way that's physically harmful that I care about. Of course them voting to take away the right to marriage is wrong. People are acting as if I'm somehow saying it's okay they did it. You should sure as hell be angry at them, you should sure as hell yell until someone finally hears you and understands.

But my God, the fact that it's up in the California Supreme Court at all shows that the war is far from over. People are still so fucking bogged down in a battle they've lost (preventing Prop 8 from passing) that they've forgotten the war can still be won.

When you demonize them like that, you become just like the fuckers who demonize homosexuals and transgendered and the like and say that they shouldn't be allowed to have the same rights.

Whatever dude. Yeah, they're people. People who are fucking idiots who think they can step all over other people just BECAUSE.

They DO NOT have the right to block MY happiness because of their pettiness and opinions.

When I vote to keep straight hatemongers from being able to get married, adopt, live happily and comfortably, THEN you tell me they and I are the same.

Until then....

--Dazz

[Dazzler]

Except we DON'T treat everyone equally in this country. Rights can be taken away for any number of reasons, usually because a crime is committed. In this case, while some rights are being denied, the right to change that and give back the rights that they deserve has not been taken away. One person, one vote. When they try to take away the right to vote from homosexuals, transgendered, and etc., then I'll cry oligarchy.

Being alive, law abiding, taxpaying and wanting to live a certain way is NOT THE SAME AS COMMITTING A CRIME.

There's no just and rational precedence for taking away rights from an entire group of people just because they're unpopular.

--Dazz

[Paul McEnery]

Except we DON'T treat everyone equally in this country.

Wrong.

Rights can be taken away for any number of reasons, usually because a crime is committed.

Yes, and everyone is entitled to equal protection in that circumstance.

In this case, while some rights are being denied, the right to change that and give back the rights that they deserve has not been taken away. One person, one vote.

Restricting people's rights on a temporary basis is the nature of punishment, and it applies to everyone equally.

When they try to take away the right to vote from homosexuals, transgendered, and etc., then I'll cry oligarchy.

They weren't happy about giving the vote to coloureds and women. We had to claw that from them. On the basis of genuine natural rights.

The right to vote isn't the only natural right in the toolbox.

Oh, and yes, we've taken away people's right to vote on the basis of felonies. Which is bullshit, of course; because that's just the opportunity to look at a class of people, make what they do illegal, and then take their vote away for it.

[section 8]

That's Kenneth Starr as in "wasted the people's time and money trying to subvert the people's vote for the President of their choice", yes.

Makes it a bit rich him standing up for voting as an important thing, doesn't it.

What he really means is: if you step out of line with me and my crew of nutballs, we'll fuck with you.

Dude is just a-steady racking up them "Asshole" points, ain't he?

[Matt Algren]

That is NOT what I said at all. I'm saying we shouldn't demonize or take away rights from people who didn't vote the way you wanted. Of course it's a matter of rights, of course their choice is stupid and idiotic and we should do everything in our power to put things right.

But saying that this country isn't a democracy simply because a vote didn't go the way you wanted or how it should've gone on an ethical level is not a legitimate argument.
It's exactly what you said. In other words: "They have a right to withhold other people's rights. They voted for it, so golly I guess we'll have to go along. Whaddaya gonna do?"

Let me be clear. THAT IS NOT THE WAY "THE SYSTEM" WORKS. Otherwise, all the other minority groups best watch out, because it's open season on civil rights.

You really think the people who voted to take away Maxine's and my rights are going to stop with us? Really?

[Linkara]

Restricting people's rights on a temporary basis is the nature of punishment, and it applies to everyone equally.
As far as I know, you DON'T get the right to vote back again after a felony, even if you're released.

They weren't happy about giving the vote to coloureds and women. We had to claw that from them. On the basis of genuine natural rights.
Yes, and I notice that was still decided in the courts and the legislature by people who were not screaming their heads off over how evil the other side was.

[Linkara]

It's exactly what you said. In other words: "They have a right to withhold other people's rights. They voted for it, so golly I guess we'll have to go along. Whaddaya gonna do?"

Let me be clear. THAT IS NOT THE WAY "THE SYSTEM" WORKS. Otherwise, all the other minority groups best watch out, because it's open season on civil rights.

You really think the people who voted to take away Maxine's and my rights are going to stop with us? Really?

When the FUCK did I say let's go along with it!? I said they had their say, now let's do what we can to fix this.

[Dazzler]

Yes, and I notice that was still decided in the courts by people who were not screaming their heads off over how evil the other side was.

When the day comes where YOU get treated like total shit by a concerted effort of being made to be the villain, child corrupter, threat to society, and people make it seem like a reasonable reason to LEGALLY deny you rights, then see if you want to play patty-cake with them.

You're really showing your privilege here.

--Dazz

[sk716]

Then you've obviously never had the validity of your very existence voted on by the public, have you?

I mean, why should how *I* choose to live and love the way I do be put up to a fucking vote anyway?

It's not about whether or not people vote the way I want them to, it's the fact that they feel they CAN vote on my life in the first place.

Jesus. I can't believe you don't see the difference. You can bet your goddamn underpants I'll demonize every fucker as evil who voted for it.

--Dazz

Dazz, I agree with you. But I'd prefer this thread not reach it's explosive potential.

Deep calming breaths and plans to help make sure a proposition to strike down Prop 8 makes it onto every ballot until Prop 8 is struck down would be a much better way to channel your fury.

[Matt Algren]

Except we DON'T treat everyone equally in this country. Rights can be taken away for any number of reasons, usually because a crime is committed. In this case, while some rights are being denied, the right to change that and give back the rights that they deserve has not been taken away. One person, one vote. When they try to take away the right to vote from homosexuals, transgendered, and etc., then I'll cry oligarchy.

DOT DOT DOT



Are you for real? Did you actually just compare being gay to committing a crime?

And if you don't think marriage is a civil right (which the California Supreme Court said it was last year), who else should it be taken away from? Seriously, what other law abiding people can have that right taken away? Blacks? (You do know that before slavery was abolished, blacks married "till death or distance do you part" so the slave owners could split the set, right?)

Maybe we should withhold the right for naturalized citizens. Sure, they're Americans now, but can they be trusted with marriage?

I just...

WOW.

[Paul McEnery]

As far as I know, you DON'T get the right to vote back again after a felony, even if you're released.

Depends which state you live in.

And yes, that's an evil bit of nonsense I don't see Kenneth Starr shouting about.

After all, who loses those rights? Why, it's only the working class. Never mind, then.


Yes, and I notice that was still decided in the courts and the legislature by people who were not screaming their heads off over how evil the other side was.

Excuse me?

1) Yes, it was decided by the courts, and on the basis of inalienable constitutional rights, thank you very much.

2) Dear oh dear oh dear. Yes, I will cheerfully say that the bigots who opposed the civil rights movements were an evil bunch of shitbags, and their descendents are still with us today.

[Linkara]

Dazz, I agree with you. But I'd prefer this thread not reach it's explosive potential.

Deep calming breaths and plans to help make sure a proposition to strike down Prop 8 makes it onto every ballot until Prop 8 is struck down would be a much better way to channel your fury.

Now that I can get behind. Is there anything we can do to help either the legal team in the Supreme Court Case or a new proposition to strike it down? Donations? Petitions? Hell, a web signature?

[Matt Algren]

When the FUCK did I say let's go along with it!? I said they had their say, now let's do what we can to fix this.

Which is exactly the point. "They" should never have had "their say." THAT'S NOT HOW WE DO THINGS IN AMERICA! It was an argument against Prop 8 last summer and the CA SC told everybody to make that argument after the vote. That's what we're doing.

[Matt Algren]

Dazz, I agree with you. But I'd prefer this thread not reach it's explosive potential.

Deep calming breaths and plans to help make sure a proposition to strike down Prop 8 makes it onto every ballot until Prop 8 is struck down would be a much better way to channel your fury.
Hell and no. Sugar and spice got us this far and I'm not about to keep doing it when someone pats my head and says that my (and your, IIRC) rights are debatable. No.

[Dazzler]

Dazz, I agree with you. But I'd prefer this thread not reach it's explosive potential.

Deep calming breaths and plans to help make sure a proposition to strike down Prop 8 makes it onto every ballot until Prop 8 is struck down would be a much better way to channel your fury.

I've been doing that since before this crap became law.

It's only made it much more frustrating, enraging, and frightening to be right in the middle of it, fighting it and living with it day in and day out.

Don't worry. I'm not touching this thread again, seeing as how I'm the lightning rod for trouble.

--Dazz

[sk716]

Hell and no. Sugar and spice got us this far and I'm not about to keep doing it when someone pats my head and says that my (and your, IIRC) rights are debatable. No.

And essentially screaming about it hasn't helped a single one of us yet.

I'm stuck in the middle of the fucking Bible Belt! I have to hold my breath and wait for California to yank their heads out of their asses before I can even begin to hope for change on a federal level, because I can assure you the State of Arkansas is never going to voluntarily offer me the option of marrying my girlfriend.

So, yeah, I'm a little more concerned with overturning Prop 8 than arguing with Linkara.

[Linkara]

Are you for real? Did you actually just compare being gay to committing a crime?

And if you don't think marriage is a civil right (which the California Supreme Court said it was last year), who else should it be taken away from? Seriously, what other law abiding people can have that right taken away? Blacks? (You do know that before slavery was abolished, blacks married "till death or distance do you part" so the slave owners could split the set, right?)

Maybe we should withhold the right for naturalized citizens. Sure, they're Americans now, but can they be trusted with marriage?

I just...

WOW.

Oh, sweet buttery crap... Okay, since I'm sick of having words get put in my mouth, allow me to make my position as perfectly clear as possible:

-The people in California, by their constitution, should be allowed to put ANYTHING they want as a proposition. I think it's a ridiculously stupid system, but fine, it's how they do things.
-On that note, even if what they say is a bigoted, hurtful, harmful, horrible thing, yes, by their consitution, they should be allowed to put it to vote.
-What SHOULDN'T have happened was that the Proposition NEVER SHOULD HAVE WON. It NEVER should have fucking won and while I say that they can put any goddamned proposition they wanted, no removal of rights should EVER be allowed to occur, which is why I'm happy it's in the freaking California Supreme Court right now where I hope they'll say "This is a bullshit proposition and we're going to strike it down."
-Shall I call the people who voted for it assholes and bigots? Oh, fuck yes. But as I said, they should still be allowed to say their hateful bullshit and cast their vote for their bigoted, prejudiced piece of shit legislation, because as an American I believe in free speech and yes, freedom of opinion and ideas, even if I hate the opinion and ideas.
-Will I be horribly disappointed and angry and want to strangle something if the Supreme Court DOESN'T throw it out? Oh, you'd better goddamn believe it. But if the battle's been lost, you move on to the next battle until you finally WIN THE WAR.

And the war will be over when the very idea of denying homosexual marriage is so ridiculous that anyone who introduces such a thing will be laughed at until even they realize how stupid the idea is.

[Michael P]

Linkara, I get what you're saying, but you're diving into a pool of acid here.

Just walk away.

[Linkara]

Linkara, I get what you're saying, but you're diving into a pool of acid here.

Just walk away.

I am now. I'm calming down and now and I'm going to see if I can do anything constructive to help strike down Prop 8.

[Matt Algren]

Oh, sweet buttery crap... Okay, since I'm sick of having words get put in my mouth, allow me to make my position as perfectly clear as possible:

-The people in California, by their constitution, should be allowed to put ANYTHING they want as a proposition. I think it's a ridiculously stupid system, but fine, it's how they do things.
-On that note, even if what they say is a bigoted, hurtful, harmful, horrible thing, yes, by their consitution, they should be allowed to put it to vote.
-What SHOULDN'T have happened was that the Proposition NEVER SHOULD HAVE WON. It NEVER should have fucking won and while I say that they can put any goddamned proposition they wanted, no removal of rights should EVER be allowed to occur, which is why I'm happy it's in the freaking California Supreme Court right now where I hope they'll say "This is a bullshit proposition and we're going to strike it down."
-Shall I call the people who voted for it assholes and bigots? Oh, fuck yes. But as I said, they should still be allowed to say their hateful bullshit and cast their vote for their bigoted, prejudiced piece of shit legislation, because as an American I believe in free speech and yes, freedom of opinion and ideas, even if I hate the opinion and ideas.
-Will I be horribly disappointed and angry and want to strangle something if the Supreme Court DOESN'T throw it out? Oh, you'd better goddamn believe it. But if the battle's been lost, you move on to the next battle until you finally WIN THE WAR.

And the war will be over when the very idea of denying homosexual marriage is so ridiculous that anyone who introduces such a thing will be laughed at until even they realize how stupid the idea is.
You say that "no removal of rights should EVER be allowed to occur". IT ALREADY HAS OCCURRED. Rights have already been removed. The SC might vote to return them, but for the last four months, rights were in fact removed.

And I say again, if voting to deny the rights of one group is okay (even if it's only for a few months), then it's okay for all of them. So line up all the other demonized minorities that the bigots are bigoted toward and decide which one is next.

[Charles RB]

Proposition 8 was a matter of rights. One group used its majority power to remove rights and legal protections from another group. Which sets the precedent that all rights and legal protections are gifts from the majority which can be revoked upon a whim.

And I hope that argument is being used by the opponents in the court right now.


What is needed then is to put a new proposition on the ballot every election cycle that would overturn Prop. 8 until it has been disposed of.

Oh, that would be great if it was pulled off - democratic concensus for an equal right. The ramifications could be huge.

Unfortunately, I can't help but feel you're going to see rioting and aggro instead. A section of the population getting told it can't have an equal right because other people clubbed together to deny it and the government is upholding that - that is a great way to get violent, angry people on the streets.


When you demonize them like that, you become just like the fuckers who demonize homosexuals and transgendered and the like and say that they shouldn't be allowed to have the same rights.

Well not really, since the guys he's demonising are actively taking something away from him, whereas LGBTs aren't.

[Matt Algren]

I am now. I'm calming down and now and I'm going to see if I can do anything constructive to help strike down Prop 8.
I don't believe you.

[Paul McEnery]

When the FUCK did I say let's go along with it!? I said they had their say, now let's do what we can to fix this.

I think your political affiliations are blinding you to the real issue at stake here, as the Starr's of this world are all too aware of the real issue.

It's all very well that we can easily reverse Prop 8 in the vote. But doing so, treats the right to marriage as a matter of majority approval, which therefore strongly implies that all rights are simply a matter of majority approval.

This is not the case.

The American Constitution may not be perfect, but the intent behind it is. The intent is to establish natural rights at the core of citizenship, and to dispose of phony "rights" such as the divine right of kings.

And that's a matter of principled thought, not a matter of a mob of nutbags shouting people down.

Ken Starr is here, as he was with the Clinton Witch Hunt, acting as the voice of the mob, demanding that rights mean nothing when the mob says they mean nothing.

That's unacceptable.

[Matt Algren]

Linkara, I get what you're saying, but you're diving into a pool of acid here.

Just walk away.
Don't condescend, Michael. If it's a pool of acid, it's a righteous pool. This is not a question of two opposing viewpoints of equal value where the decision doesn't affect anyone so let's just talk it out you guys.

It's a case of right and wrong, nothing less.

[Paul McEnery]

Oh, sweet buttery crap... Okay, since I'm sick of having words get put in my mouth, allow me to make my position as perfectly clear as possible:

-The people in California, by their constitution, should be allowed to put ANYTHING they want as a proposition. I think it's a ridiculously stupid system, but fine, it's how they do things.
.

It is a ridiculously stupid system and it should be repealed.

The only reason it's there in the first place is to back the mob rule mentality of a single authoritarian politician who couldn't get his way otherwise.

[Matt Algren]

Oh, that would be great if it was pulled off - democratic concensus for an equal right. The ramifications could be huge.

Unfortunately, I can't help but feel you're going to see rioting and aggro instead. A section of the population getting told it can't have an equal right because other people clubbed together to deny it and the government is upholding that - that is a great way to get violent, angry people on the streets.
Civil rights are never offered by the citizenry. They are always won from the courts, then the legislature.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Well, my student Miss A, after a night of eagerly watching last night's Anti-Prop 8 march on every channel, drew this and gave it to me today:

http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk260/pinkbatmaxine/MissAProp8March.jpg

Miss A rocks.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Is this Kenneth Starr as in the "where did Clinton put his winky? " Kenneth Starr?

One and the same.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Linkara, I know you for a decent chap.

But you are wrong on this issue for the reasons listed by others.

Try to take any derision out of the posts you're reading, and get to the kernel of the argument, which is that it's our system to guarantee the right of all, against the tyranny of the majority.

Gay marriage was allowed, because our constitutions.... state and federal.... outlined that rights need to be given equally, and that denying gays the right to marry was a constitutional violation.

The thing is, even with Prop 8's new language.... that core principle is still in place, so that what Prop 8 did was rewrite the constitution to be in conflict with itsself.

Yeah, you can fly any prop you want, but if you write the very constitution to conflict with ITSSELF, as a document, that's a crisis and can't be allowed to stand.

The only way to 'fix' this for the pro-prop-8 folk is to remove equal protection from the state, and ultimately the federal constitution.

Given that every public official swears to uphold the constitution, in a perfect world this would be seen as an open and shut case.

[CaptainCanada]

Gay marriage was allowed, because our constitutions.... state and federal.... outlined that rights need to be given equally, and that denying gays the right to marry was a constitutional violation.
On a legal level, I don't believe the federal constitution enters into this; nobody wants this to go to the Supreme Court, because there's (at most) four votes for the idea that gay marriage is a Constitutionally-protected right.

The idea of amending a constitution by simple majority does strike me as counter-intuitive (but then, in Canada, our system's really different; there's only one constitution, the federal one, and amending it requires the consent of fourteen different legislative bodies and a referendum; though, for certain sections, any individual legislative body can just use the Notwithstanding Clause).

[Pink Bat Maxine]

On a legal level, I don't believe the federal constitution enters into this; nobody wants this to go to the Supreme Court, because there's (at most) four votes for the idea that gay marriage is a Constitutionally-protected right.

Absolutely. Pragmatically, nobody wants it to go there.

However, the principles of equal protection STILL stand, and of course enter into it.

It's just sad when we can't depend on our judiciary to interpret the constitution correctly.

[Linkara]

Linkara, I know you for a decent chap.

But you are wrong on this issue for the reasons listed by others.

Try to take any derision out of the posts you're reading, and get to the kernel of the argument, which is that it's our system to guarantee the right of all, against the tyranny of the majority.

Gay marriage was allowed, because our constitutions.... state and federal.... outlined that rights need to be given equally, and that denying gays the right to marry was a constitutional violation.

The thing is, even with Prop 8's new language.... that core principle is still in place, so that what Prop 8 did was rewrite the constitution to be in conflict with itsself.

Yeah, you can fly any prop you want, but if you write the very constitution to conflict with ITSSELF, as a document, that's a crisis and can't be allowed to stand.

The only way to 'fix' this for the pro-prop-8 folk is to remove equal protection from the state, and ultimately the federal constitution.

Given that every public official swears to uphold the constitution, in a perfect world this would be seen as an open and shut case.
And of course I agree with you, Pinky, if one rereads my post where I tried to outline what I meant as clearly as possible, I would hope that they would notice the part where I said it never should have passed. They want to introduce it? Fine, it's a bigoted piece of legislation just like any other that tries to deny rights.

The fact that it succeeded is disgusting and as I said, I really hope the California supreme Court recognizes the fact that something that denies rights and as you said is in completely contradiction with the constitution is complete and utter shit and will rightfully strike it down.

What I took offense to initially in this thread is the accusation that those who voted in favor of Prop 8 have their rights denied to, or that a democratic process wasn't in action. We all agree that Prop 8 is bullshit, but it was still something they introduced and they voted, as is THEIR right. Was their proposition complete crap? Yes! Is being able to vote on denying rights to people complete and utter bullshit that shouldn't be allowed? Yes! Should we do everything in our power to eradicate it? Yes! But was it a democratic decision? Unfortunately yes, but that doesn't mean that's the end of the discussion, either.

[Linkara]

Absolutely. Pragmatically, nobody wants it to go there.

However, the principles of equal protection STILL stand, and of course enter into it.

It's just sad when we can't depend on our judiciary to interpret the constitution correctly.

I'm still confused about why no one has tried to bring it to the National level by invoking the Full Faith and Credit Clause, thus making ALL states have to recognize gay marriage.

[CaptainCanada]

It's just sad when we can't depend on our judiciary to interpret the constitution correctly.
Not that I don't support your interpretation, but it's just that, an interpretation. There are different legal philosophies.

Originalism (while I find it to be generally inconsistently applied by its practitioners on the current court) is a valid doctrine of constitutional theory; I don't think it's the most productive one, but that's open for disagreement. You're clearly of what Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin called the "living tree" philosophy (as am I), which is also valid.
I'm still confused about why no one has tried to bring it to the National level by invoking the Full Faith and Credit Clause, thus making ALL states have to recognize gay marriage.
Frankly, the US Constitution is kind of a mess in that respect. States are given the right to define their own marriage law, which has historically was intended as permission to set their own standards, but Full Faith and Credit basically makes that irrelevant. It's a very uneasy dynamic.

[Dazzler]

EDIT: Never mind. Whatever.

--Dazz

[Paul McEnery]

We all agree that Prop 8 is bullshit, but it was still something they introduced and they voted, as is THEIR right..

Who says it's their right? Nobody has the right to vote down someone else's civil liberties.

And in particular, I'm really sure that the two massive religious organizations that are based outside the state that bankrolled the proposition really don't have any rights in this matter.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

I'm still confused about why no one has tried to bring it to the National level by invoking the Full Faith and Credit Clause, thus making ALL states have to recognize gay marriage.

Because of a hostile Supreme Court.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Don't condescend, Michael. If it's a pool of acid, it's a righteous pool. This is not a question of two opposing viewpoints of equal value where the decision doesn't affect anyone so let's just talk it out you guys.

It's a case of right and wrong, nothing less.

.......kiss me.

[Linkara]

Because of a hostile Supreme Court.

Are we really sure about that? The Supreme Court isn't a bunch of yokels who decide abritrarily based on their own biases beforehand how a case is going to go. These are intelligent, thoughtful people who do consider the constitution, the rights of Americans, and the law as a whole.

Unless of course there are statements some have made about it that I'm not aware of.

[CaptainCanada]

Who says it's their right? Nobody has the right to vote down someone else's civil liberties.
The dispute is over what percentage of the vote is required (which, I agree, should be higher than 50%+1; the Clarity Act on separatist referenda here makes the clear case that on really vital matters of law, a bare majority doesn't suffice).

And in particular, I'm really sure that the two massive religious organizations that are based outside the state that bankrolled the proposition really don't have any rights in this matter.
Under the Constitution, they have the same rights as anyone else anywhere in the country.
Are we really sure about that? The Supreme Court isn't a bunch of yokels who decide abritrarily based on their own biases beforehand how a case is going to go. These are intelligent, thoughtful people who do consider the constitution, the rights of Americans, and the law as a whole.

Unless of course there are statements some have made about it that I'm not aware of.I know Scalia has written at some point that he doesn't agree with that view of Full Faith and Credit, and he's generally typical of the conservative bloc; of course, the real question would be what Kennedy thinks. He's been reasonably active for gay rights in the past (he wrote Lawrence v. Texas, for example).

[Cam63]

And essentially screaming about it hasn't helped a single one of us yet.

I'm stuck in the middle of the fucking Bible Belt! I have to hold my breath and wait for California to yank their heads out of their asses before I can even begin to hope for change on a federal level, because I can assure you the State of Arkansas is never going to voluntarily offer me the option of marrying my girlfriend.

So, yeah, I'm a little more concerned with overturning Prop 8 than arguing with Linkara.

I'm surprised the Bible belt allows heterosexual sex.

[Linkara]

I'm surprised the Bible belt allows heterosexual sex.

Only in the one position, and never if people enjoy it. :tongue:

Oh, but I kid the Bible belt.

[CaptainCanada]

I'm surprised the Bible belt allows heterosexual sex.
Only certain kinds.

[Tommy]

Are we really sure about that? The Supreme Court isn't a bunch of yokels who decide abritrarily based on their own biases beforehand how a case is going to go. These are intelligent, thoughtful people who do consider the constitution, the rights of Americans, and the law as a whole.

Unless of course there are statements some have made about it that I'm not aware of.

All five justices who struck down Lawrence v. Texas are still on it.

Kennedy (the nominal swing vote) has traditionally been a strong advocate of gay rights. He authored both Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas.

[Linkara]

All five justices who struck down Lawrence v. Texas are still on it.

Kennedy (the nominal swing vote) has traditionally been a strong advocate of gay rights. He authored both Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas.

Okay, wikipedia's article is saying Lawrence v. Texas was a good thing... I think... that eliminated anti-sodomy laws, and considering the case was won in 6-3, having five of those same justices should be a good thing, shouldn't it?

...I'm really getting confused. Could someone break it down to the non-law student? ^^;

[Cam63]

Only in the one position, and never if people enjoy it. :tongue:

Oh, but I kid the Bible belt.

You do have keep your clothes on ...and wear a hat with a flower in it.

[Reverend Smooth]

So it's someone else's right to take my rights away if there are more of them than I? Nice. What a civilised country this is.

But, last I knew, the US constitution and the fact that it's a representative republic says that's bullshit. The US is NOT a pure democracy and is NOT actually supposed to be run by mob rule.

[a. non]

You do have keep your clothes on and a hat with a Belt Buckle on it.

Fixed it for you.


It's things like these that make my misanthropy return.

[Dazzler]

It's things like these that make my misanthropy return.
Agreed.

--Dazz

[CaptainCanada]

So it's someone else's right to take my rights away if there are more of them than I?
Well, as a matter of law I have to say that depending on how many more of them there are, yeah, it is; if two-thirds of both Houses of Congress and two-thirds of the states vote to ban gay marriage nationwide, they can.

As I said, a 50%+1 popular vote shouldn't be enough, though. Subverts the whole idea behind a constitution, that it should be hard to change.

[Reverend Smooth]

It's pretty barbaric.

[Paul McEnery]

The dispute is over what percentage of the vote is required (which, I agree, should be higher than 50%+1; the Clarity Act on separatist referenda here makes the clear case that on really vital matters of law, a bare majority doesn't suffice).


See, that's what arseholes like Starr want us to think, sure. But it's crap. Because you don't toss a natural right away on the basis of a vote, or kingly edict, or some bunch of goosestepping fuckwits deciding that their need to boss people around is more important than you getting to live your life like a normal person. That's not what America stands for, is it.

50%, 66%, 99 and a half %, even 100% -- none of those is enough to wish away the compelling arguments for a natural right.

[Kyuubi]

Anyone who seeks to deny Gay marriage should be ashamed to call themselves U.S. citizens and will be remembered in the future the same way slave owners and those that approved of slavery are remembered today.

[Dazzler]

To me this stuff is like voter-approved psychological abuse.

Listening to this crap for my entire life makes it hard for me to do just about anything.

But that's what they want, to petrify with fear, so generally, I just power through shit.

--Dazz

[section 8]

It's pretty barbaric.



http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x57/mk_moose/Viking.jpg

"What's In YOUR Rectum?"

Honestly,
I do not think that is accurate

the definitions of Barbarian is

n.
A member of a people considered by those of another nation or group to have a primitive civilization.
A fierce, brutal, or cruel person.
An insensitive, uncultured person.

The Native Americans were once considered "Barbaric" Yet homosexuality was so commonly accepted that many tribes had no word for it in the old tongues.

Also "Barbarians, have no interest in things that do not concern them,

Not to mention the word doesn't fit as Barbarians are "Uncivilized" yet Prop 8 is state sponsored oppression. the very opposite of Barbarism.

So I'm offended as both an Indian and a Boorish brute

[Reverend Smooth]

Fortunately, my ethnic group didn't call indians barbarians. :)

[Flâneur]

So I'm offended as both an Indian and a Boorish brute

You're from India?

[Lester C.]

You're from India?

Native American.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

To me this stuff is like voter-approved psychological abuse.

Listening to this crap for my entire life makes it hard for me to do just about anything.

But that's what they want, to petrify with fear, so generally, I just power through shit.

--Dazz

With a spring in your step and lightness in your loafers.

[CaptainCanada]

See, that's what arseholes like Starr want us to think, sure. But it's crap. Because you don't toss a natural right away on the basis of a vote, or kingly edict, or some bunch of goosestepping fuckwits deciding that their need to boss people around is more important than you getting to live your life like a normal person. That's not what America stands for, is it.

50%, 66%, 99 and a half %, even 100% -- none of those is enough to wish away the compelling arguments for a natural right.
Natural rights are meaningless.

They sound romantic and all on the page, but in actual human society, they don't have any real value. Americans have as many rights in practice as they tolerate being written or read into the US Constitution.

Which is, really, the only way society can work. There has to be a critical mass of approval for a right's existence, otherwise, by the amending formula, it can/will be removed (and even if it stayed, it would be no more real than the law against jaywalking). At some point as a matter of law, you must define what rights are; people can't just declare themselves to have a right free of any wider approval, particularly when the rights in question are contingent on the approval of the wider populace and government.

The idea that rights are self-evident and natural is a comfortable fiction of philosophers on a theoretical level. In practice, rights are made and granted.

EDIT - The concept has value as a motivator for human political activity, of course.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Canada, you're being a very realpolitik pragmatist, which certainly has it's place.

But, for me, I look to ideals, because they exist to guide social movement, to show us the way we should be moving, rather than the way we are moving. We can look to our ideals to ask ourselves, are we doing the right thing by our nation's promise, or the wrong thing.

The best statement of what America means and the best guide toward how to be a good American, and the nature of rights to any individual comes from that non-legally-binding old piece of paper, our very own Declaration of Independence, which states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Of course we've often failed this promise, that's not even debatable. However, I like to think that the arc of American History tends toward this eloquent sentiment.

Now, looking at Paul's statements in light of these ideals, we not only see vindication for the same, but we see them spelled out quite clearly, and if we take the above to be correct, it follows that we must agree with his sentiments on what the natural rights of the individual MUST in order to work toward a just society.

And what did Prop 8 do? It violated these principles, rather violently. "All Men Are Created Equal?" Nope. That goes in the trash. "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Well, so far we're still allowing the right to life. But Liberty, and most CERTAINLY the persuit of happiness have been destroyed for a whole segment of American society.

So we may talk abut the Prop 8 supporter's right to vote. But at the same time, we must talk about what they did and what they are. What they did is violate the promise of America, it's Un-American to the core. And what they are?

What they are is piss-poor excuses for Americans.

[Matt Algren]

With a spring in your step and lightness in your loafers.
Zip-a-dee-doo-dah, zip-a-dee-ay!
My, oh, my, what a wonderful day!

[the4thpip]

Is this Kenneth Starr as in the "where did Clinton put his winky? " Kenneth Starr?

Yes. Clearly, Satan is running low on foot soldiers.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

It doesn't shock me that , the ass clown known as Ken Starr is leading to strip peoples rights away. Remember , this is a guy who had a woman wire tap her phone to listen to secrets about an affair. Just to bring someone down.

[beetlebum]

I've never been much of a fan of initiative-based amending of the constitution. Statutory laws that are then subject to judicial review, sure, no problem. Constitutional amendments should require a much higher standard than a simple majority vote.

I completely agree. From an LA Times Op-Ed Piece:

California's initiative amendment process is simple. To get one on the ballot, you have to gather signatures on petitions -- the number required is 8% of the votes cast for all candidates in the last gubernatorial race. There are businesses that will meet this requirement for a fee. It's a little higher hurdle than getting a regular statute on the ballot by initiative (that requires fewer signatures, 5% of the votes cast for all candidates in the last gubernatorial election).

Legislators also can send constitutional amendments to the electorate to ratify, but such measures must first win the votes of two-thirds of the Assembly and the state Senate. A legislative constitutional amendment is theoretically possible but practically difficult because of the two-thirds-vote requirement. Often the only practical solution is a subsequent initiative amendment -- adding yet more technicalities and detritus to the document.

Most other states that allow lawmaking by ballot dealt with the issue long ago. Many simply do not allow use of the initiative for constitutional amendments. Nevada allows it but requires a majority vote at two elections. Also worthy of consideration is requiring something more than a simple majority for final approval.


If I were king of the jungle, I'd get rid of initiatives and propositions entirely; or at best, limit them to an advisory role.

The mass of people are not positioned to make good law; that's why we elect representatives and employ civil servants.

It's a good thing that you're not, then. It's one thing if you want to talk about making it harder, or to eliminate making amendments to the constitution - and about voting on taking away rights - but getting rid of the ballots and initiatives entirely? That's crazy talk.

The Propositions have had some positive results in the past; amongst them being : Proposition 215 (medical marijuana), Proposition 65 (which prevents chemicals known to cause cancer from being in drinking water) Proposition 13 (which puts a cap on property tax), Proposition 65 (on notification of hazardous materials) and Proposition 98 (which guarantees an annual increase for school funding). The point is: just because a few idiots decided it would be a good idea to put other peoples' rights up to popular vote, and just because a bunch of people voted for the horrid proposition doesn't mean that we should do away with the process of ballots and initiatives entirely. To be quite frank with you: I rather like having a say on how my money is spent.



The only reason it's there in the first place is to back the mob rule mentality of a single authoritarian politician who couldn't get his way otherwise.

Talk about distortion. First of all, yes, the system is complicated. And Hiram Johnson wasn't "authoritative"* (though he was wrong about the Alien Land Law), nor was he single-handedly responsible for implementing the initiatives and referendums; the Progressives played apart in this, as well.

*Amongst Hiram Johnson's many accomplishments: He pushed for women's suffrage in California, permitted popular election of U.S. Senators (which stripped away the sole franchise of the California State Legislature), he allowed candidates the right to register in more than one political party, and recall to the state government, giving California a degree of direct democracy unmatched by any other U.S. state. So yeah, in other words, he was like totally authoritative. [rollseyes]

The point of the reforms was to wanted to supplement and allow circumvention of the Legislature, if need be*, what with its (often times) time-consuming processes of deliberation and compromise. It was also not to foster "mob rule", but to give voters a greater degree of power, in order to counter the corrupting influence of money on elected officials. It was also an attempt to erode away at the influence that railroad companies had on local and state government. The initiative and referendum were pushed through to permit, and give people a greater say on new reforms, and as a public safety net.

*Though it should be noted that the reforms were not meant to bypass the Legislature completely.

The problem with the amendment system is it is a two-edged sword; on the one hand, eliminating the process effectively, leaves that power in the hands of legislatures, - who, in turn - may be slow or reluctant to honour the wishes of a clear majority of the population on subjects like medical marijuana.

But on the other hand, in order to fix a cyclical problem (e.g., budgeting issues) you end up creating a structural problem (a constitution that prevents the government from obtaining the tax revenues it needs to fulfill basic functions, or discriminatory tax policy.)

The point is: The system has been abused at times, but what system doesn't have its kinks? The solution is not to eliminate it entirely, but to reform it.

[beetlebum]

Frankly, the US Constitution is kind of a mess in that respect. States are given the right to define their own marriage law, which has historically was intended as permission to set their own standards, but Full Faith and Credit basically makes that irrelevant. It's a very uneasy dynamic.

Whether, and how the Full Faith and Credit clause applies to state recognition of marriage is an open and difficult question.

The Full Faith and Credit clause is interpreted according to the "public policy doctrine," by which state courts may hold that marriages contracted in other states will not be honoured if they violate the strong statutory (or common-law) public policy of the state to which a married couple moves.

However, if a Full Faith and Credit case concerning same sex marriage were to present itself, it is most likely that each states' interests in defining marriage consistent with its own values would trump the national interest of the Full Faith and Credit norm.

Natural rights are meaningless.

The idea that rights are self-evident and natural is a comfortable fiction of philosophers on a theoretical level. In practice, rights are made and granted.


Not necessarily. I believe that there are certain rights we are born with, but we temper them due to our contractual obligations to our fellow human beings, and a societal contract.

It's true that the judicial and executive branches do play apart in implementation, and upholding those rights, but the fact that people will fight like a dog if you try to take them away shows that rights have more to them than being mere constructs.

[the4thpip]

Natural rights are meaningless.

They sound romantic and all on the page, but in actual human society, they don't have any real value.


I disagree... I think the reason why those kinds of rights have been dubbed "natural" and "inalienable" is that the founders of our various societies realize that a peaceful coexistence in a society is impossible in the long run unless those rights are protected. THAT is their value. There IS not civil society without them.

In the German constitution that was written after WW 2, the experiences of the Third Reich led to a so-called "eternity clause" that states that certain aspects of the constitution, like the rule of law, can't be changed under any circumstance and by no majority of any kind. Even if the will of the people (god forbid) should one day be to give a Fascist Party absolute control over parliament, those provisions could not be changed.

[CaptainCanada]

It's true that the judicial and executive branches do play apart in implementation, and upholding those rights, but the fact that people will fight like a dog if you try to take them away shows that rights have more to them than being mere constructs.
Certainly, people perceive their own rights a certain way; there's just a natural conflict between the way in which people want to decide what their own rights are and whether society recognizes them (Michael Ignatieff's The Rights Revolution is an excellent book on how this affects the political discourse).

[Charles RB]

And what did Prop 8 do? It violated these principles, rather violently. "All Men Are Created Equal?" Nope. That goes in the trash. "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Well, so far we're still allowing the right to life. But Liberty, and most CERTAINLY the persuit of happiness have been destroyed for a whole segment of American society.

That's the worrying bit. If your state supreme court does allow it to stand, there is now a defended legal precedent for taking rights from a minority group and for ignoring the country's Bill of Rights - the United States of America, the much-trumpeted Land of the Free, will have a legal precedent that its own core ideological beliefs can be ignored if enough people don't like some other guy.

What group or right is going to be next?

[Paul McEnery]

It's a good thing that you're not, then. It's one thing if you want to talk about making it harder, or to eliminate making amendments to the constitution - and about voting on taking away rights - but getting rid of the ballots and initiatives entirely? That's crazy talk.

For the most part, Propositions wind up either irrelevant (the car insurance one) or bad bad bad.

I can't believe you included in Prop 13, which has bankrupted the state. Prop 98 is the right idea the wrong way -- there's no point in guaranteeing a percentage of general fund so long as nobody's filling the general fund; it was a gutless way to talk about the shortfall caused by Prop 13. Prop 65 does a job that needs doing very badly indeed, since the way it's set up allows for private citizens to attack businesses for personal gain rather than for the gain of the community.


Talk about distortion. First of all, yes, the system is complicated. And Hiram Johnson wasn't "authoritative"* (though he was wrong about the Alien Land Law), nor was he single-handedly responsible for implementing the initiatives and referendums; the Progressives played apart in this, as well.

*Amongst Hiram Johnson's many accomplishments: He pushed for women's suffrage in California, permitted popular election of U.S. Senators (which stripped away the sole franchise of the California State Legislature), he allowed candidates the right to register in more than one political party,

Which is a really shit idea that subverts parliamentary democracy.

and recall to the state government, giving California a degree of direct democracy unmatched by any other U.S. state.

Balls it does. Direct democracy is no such thing. As we saw with the subversion of the democratically elected Davis administration over absolutely nothing.

So yeah, in other words, he was like totally authoritative. [rollseyes]

Roll eyes indeed. The word would be authoritarian. :tongue:


The point of the reforms was to wanted to supplement and allow circumvention of the Legislature, if need be*,

Yup -- mob rule trumps representative democracy.


what with its (often times) time-consuming processes of deliberation and compromise.

Oh noes. Not time consuming processes of deliberation and compromise!


It was also not to foster "mob rule", but to give voters a greater degree of power, in order to counter the corrupting influence of money on elected officials.

Funny how it's done the exact opposite, then, giving power to whomever can fund a Proposition, and then buy the votes.


It was also an attempt to erode away at the influence that railroad companies had on local and state government. The initiative and referendum were pushed through to permit, and give people a greater say on new reforms, and as a public safety net.

And if they were just advisory, I could live with that, but it's a bloody stupid way to put law into place.


*Though it should be noted that the reforms were not meant to bypass the Legislature completely.

Oh really.


The problem with the amendment system is it is a two-edged sword; on the one hand, eliminating the process effectively, leaves that power in the hands of legislatures, - who, in turn - may be slow or reluctant to honour the wishes of a clear majority of the population on subjects like medical marijuana.

Which is still illegal, as it happens. That's what I mean about the toothlessness of Propositions that come from the people. The Feds can run roughshod through them, the corporations can break them with better-funded lawyers or by taking their ball home till the legislature capitulates.

But on the other hand, in order to fix a cyclical problem (e.g., budgeting issues) you end up creating a structural problem (a constitution that prevents the government from obtaining the tax revenues it needs to fulfill basic functions, or discriminatory tax policy.)

And there's Prop 13.


The point is: The system has been abused at times, but what system doesn't have its kinks? The solution is not to eliminate it entirely, but to reform it.

It doesn't just have kinks, it barely works at all, and when it does work, it works against the interests and rights of the people.

[CaptainCanada]

That's the worrying bit. If your state supreme court does allow it to stand, there is now a defended legal precedent for taking rights from a minority group and for ignoring the country's Bill of Rights
Again, the Bill of Rights doesn't enter into this ruling; it's a matter of state law. If they wanted to file a complaint under the Bill of Rights, it would be in the federal court system (they'd probably have a pretty good shot with the Ninth Circuit, actually, but it'd go to the Supremes after that, where it's up in the air).

[Paul McEnery]

Certainly, people perceive their own rights a certain way; there's just a natural conflict between the way in which people want to decide what their own rights are and whether society recognizes them (Michael Ignatieff's The Rights Revolution is an excellent book on how this affects the political discourse).

Nope.

The point of defining rights philosophically is to give them a genuine foundation (as opposed to "we have casual Friday -- it's our right!").

The only genuine foundation is the "natural rights" -- everything else is subsidiary or derivative.

Certainly there's going to be a popular usage of subsidiary or derivative rights, shortening it to just "rights". And in many cases, that usage is just hunky-dory. But when it gets down to cases, we have to revert to first principles to see what the rights actually are.

And of course all rights return to the Bill of Rights, whether they're federal or not; all politics at all in the US return to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as the foundation of the nation.

[CaptainCanada]

And of course all rights return to the Bill of Rights, whether they're federal or not; all politics at all in the US return to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as the foundation of the nation.
We're discussing a matter of law, and state law, in particular. The Bill of Rights has not been ignored in this case because none of the parties have filed a suit stating that their rights under said bill have been encroached on; at that point, the courts would determine whether that is true or not. But they haven't been asked that.

[Paul McEnery]

We're discussing a matter of law, and state law, in particular. The Bill of Rights has not been ignored in this case because none of the parties have filed a suit stating that their rights under said bill have been encroached on; at that point, the courts would determine whether that is true or not. But they haven't been asked that.

Except that's exactly what Kenneth Starr spoke to, the idea that rights can be arsed around with by the popular vote.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE ISSUE IS!

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Relevant quotes:

The Framers of the Bill of Rights did not purport to "create" rights. Rather, they designed the Bill of Rights to prohibit our Government from infringing rights and liberties presumed to be preexisting. ~Justice William J. Brennan, 1982



"A guarantee of equality that is subject to exceptions by the majority is no guarantee at all." - Therese Stewart, San Francisco chief deputy city attorney, arguing that Prop. 8 violates equal-rights principles in the state Constitution



"Every segment of our population, and every individual, has a right to expect from his government a fair deal." Harry S. Truman Speech to Congress 6th September 1945.


You are a human being. You have rights inherent in that reality. You have dignity and worth that exists prior to law. ~Lyn Beth Neylon


Be as beneficent as the sun or the sea, but if your rights as a rational being are trenched on, die on the first inch of your territory. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson


I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. ~Barry Goldwater


I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights. ~Bishop Desmond Tutu, quoted in You Said a Mouthful edited by Ronald D. Fuchs


Give to every human being every right that you claim for yourself. ~Robert Ingersoll


Of equality - As if it harm'd me, giving others the same chances and rights as myself - As if it were not indispensable to my own rights that others possess the same. ~Walt Whitman


Silence never won rights. They are not handed down from above; they are forced by pressures from below. ~Roger Baldwin


I am the inferior of any man whose rights I trample underfoot. ~Horace Greeley


"It takes no compromising to give people their rights. It takes no money to respect the individual. It takes no survey to remove repressions." --Harvey Milk, in a 1973 speech during his first unsuccessful run for supervisor


The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are different from other men." Lyndon B. Johnson--- Speech, Washington D.C. 6th August 1965. Ironic, ain't it?

[Charles RB]

Again, the Bill of Rights doesn't enter into this ruling; it's a matter of state law.

The Bill of Rights covers the entire US, doesn't it? That was always my understanding - it doesn't say in it "we hold these principles to be applicable if a state government wants them to be".

[Pink Bat Maxine]

The Bill of Rights covers the entire US, doesn't it? That was always my understanding - it doesn't say in it "we hold these principles to be applicable if a state government wants them to be".

Correct.

The Bill Of Rights enter into everything.

[Tommy]

The Bill of Rights covers the entire US, doesn't it? That was always my understanding - it doesn't say in it "we hold these principles to be applicable if a state government wants them to be".

The Civil War decided that.

[CaptainCanada]

The Bill of Rights covers the entire US, doesn't it? That was always my understanding - it doesn't say in it "we hold these principles to be applicable if a state government wants them to be".
You misunderstand. It covers the entire US, but only the federal court system can apply it, and they haven't been appealed to here. They only act when petitioned. State courts interpret state constitutions, and only state constitutions.

Actually, the original Bill of Rights was created to bind the federal government. State governments were, until the 20th century, free to make whatever laws they liked infringing on religion, freedom of speech, etc. It was only the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868 (and a few decades' worth of legal interpretation of it) that the Bill of Rights was determined to now apply to state government. Even now, in fact, there is considerable legal debate about which portions of the Bill of Rights apply to the states and which don't.
Except that's exactly what Kenneth Starr spoke to, the idea that rights can be arsed around with by the popular vote.
Which it can; the question here is rather whether the percentage of the vote Prop 8 got meets the threshold to do so under the Constitution (a change like this would, I believe, require the higher threshold to amend).
Relevant quotes:

The Framers of the Bill of Rights did not purport to "create" rights. Rather, they designed the Bill of Rights to prohibit our Government from infringing rights and liberties presumed to be preexisting. ~Justice William J. Brennan, 1982
Which is nice and all, but it's crap. Americans now have far more "rights" than they did when the Framers wrote the document 250+ years ago. Where'd those come from? They were created.

[Paul McEnery]

Which it can; the question here is rather whether the percentage of the vote Prop 8 got meets the threshold to do so under the Constitution (a change like this would, I believe, require the higher threshold to amend).


You don't get to vote people's rights away; and if you think that's fine and dandy, then you're a shitty human being.

For that matter, if you don't follow the argument on natural rights, then you're a pretty dumb human being, too.

And the people making this argument -- Starr, that is -- are the classic combination of shitty and dumb: the far right.

So if I were you, I'd reexamine my point of view.


Which is nice and all, but it's crap. Americans now have far more "rights" than they did when the Framers wrote the document 250+ years ago. Where'd those come from? They were created.

Yup. Dumb as a post. We've been through this. They're subsidiary rights that respond to circumstances according to the fundamental principles.

Here's the simple one for boneheaded people who really don't want to accept the point:

Fundamental principle: The right to autonomous self-determination as individuals and as a community in a manner that provides equal protection for all.

Applied to the cultural tradition of marriage:
Should there be marriage between two people, which extends a number of legal PRIVILEGES as defined by law over married couples, then the fundamental principle says that these BY RIGHT apply to ALL consenting adults pursuing marriage.

See how what you're defining as a RIGHT is actually a PRIVILEGE extended on the basis of a genuine NATURAL RIGHT?

Which is to say exactly the same thing as this: everyone has the right to earn their living, since denying that to someone impinges on their autonomy; therefore, should there be a code of conduct for employment, it must apply to everyone equally.

Or again: It may be necessary to pursue employment to own and drive a vehicle; there is a code of conduct applying to vehicle use, on the basis that poor vehicle use threatens the lives of others; that code must apply to everyone equally.

This is not rocket science.

Sorry to bellow at you in capital letters, but you're being extremely willfully obtuse.

[CaptainCanada]

You don't get to vote people's rights away;
Except that you can, in any society with a procedure for amending the constitution. That's the whole idea behind having an amending procedure for a constitution.
and if you think that's fine and dandy, then you're a shitty human being.
You sink to ad hominem attacks rather easily.

And no, I don't think it's fine and dandy, but it's legal.

I've never had much use for "natural rights", particularly the kind based on Locke, whose philosophy was centred around an extremely fanciful idea of what a state of nature constituted (Hobbes, though he used it as a wrongheaded apologia for absolute monarchy, came much closer to what that is). Certainly, most of what are considered natural rights are a good idea, but they realistically derive from societal consensus about what its members' rights are.

The idea remains, of course, a great motivator for political action when the societal consensus hasn't recognized you yet (the civil rights movement).

[Pink Bat Maxine]

[Edit: oh, nemmind.]

[CaptainCanada]

Yeah, honestly, on certain points here we're going in circles.

I do hope the CSSC rules your way (we've already got gay marriage here, and things have been going along quite nicely). Though, even if they do, demographically it's only a matter of time before the voter base is there for repeal (well, actually, it's probably here now, if the No on 8 side had run a better campaign and the Yes on 8 people hadn't been so effectively disingenuous).

[section 8]

Fortunately, my ethnic group didn't call indians barbarians. :)

I don't doubt that.


But the use of the term "Barbaric" was usually invoked throughout history as a justification used by "Civil folks" (read "White, Male Christians) to kill/ rob/ enslave another people, no matter how peaceful they were.

Think about it, Native Americans, Aborigines, Hindus, Arabs, Africans/ African Americans.

Were all labeled as "Primitive" or "Barbaric"By the very people who would soon kill/rob/enslave them (Irony)

Or at the very least the object was to use misinformation to hype fear in any way possible.

Some examples of misinformation survive to this day, for example:

Vikings, "the Barbarians of the North" are known primarily as raiders, and savage warriors. However the Vikings were also really traders, for whom raiding was a last resort, and had an interestingly complex society based on values and morality. The vikings were also instrumental in the formation of many modern nations (including Russia and England)

Pirates are another good example
Most Pirate ships were more civil and democratic than any Royal Navy vessel at the time, which made recruiting British sailors a breeze.

Sorry, I don't mean to get on a rant but it is some really interesting stuff.

My point is, Prop 8 today is just another example of "Civil Folks" using fear, and misinformation to excuse their oppression of another people.

I hope this makes my reasoning more clear.

You're from India?
*Facepalm*
A direct descendent of the indigenous Pre-Colombian inhabitants of the North American continent.

Specific enough for ya?

[Charles RB]

Correct.

The Bill Of Rights enter into everything.

Correction - it used to enter into everything, but now it's apparently optional if a large enough group doesn't like a smaller group.

USA! USA! USA!

[Calybos]

Actually, Captain Canada's right in one regard. A glaring fault in our Constitutional system is that, with enough votes to pass an amendment, you really CAN vote away people's rights.

That shouldn't be possible, but there's nothing in place to prevent it--just to make it very difficult. And that sucks.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Correction - it used to enter into everything, but now it's apparently optional if a large enough group doesn't like a smaller group.

USA! USA! USA!

Who's next?

I say we go after them Mexicans with thier foriegn jibber jabber and thier.... thier piñatas.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

I gots some heavy duty shit-kickers and some torches and pitchforks if ya need 'em.

I'll fly you out. We can use 'em together.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Hell and no. Sugar and spice got us this far and I'm not about to keep doing it when someone pats my head and says that my (and your, IIRC) rights are debatable. No.

Oh hey, I didn't read this before.

Kiss me.

[Solaris]

You know what gets me? I am SO sick and tired of hearing people say "We can't have laws that allow, or endorse, or promote, sin."

That is such bullshit in so many directions it boggles the mind.

First, that's religious persecution. Hey Mr. Christian (speaking to those particular ones), we live in a country with freedom of religion---and gay marriage and gay sex and just being gay is NOT a sin in every religion in this country. What gives YOU the right to ignore religious protections and freedoms, just because something is a "sin" in YOUR particular faith?

Second, excuse me? Doesn't your particular version of your faith say things like pornography are sins? Don't some of you say gambling is a sin... strip clubs... or even DANCING? Yet it seems to me that those things are permitted by law in many places. For that matter, I saw a recent study which found that the use of online pornography is highest in RED states---yep, those "Bible-thumpin" states. Guess which state was Number 1 on the list? Utah. IIRC, it was Utah, Alaska, and Texas as the top three.

Looks like there's a whole lotta sinnin' going on, right in their own back yards. Gee, I wonder why? Maybe it's because, in a culture that's so strict and conservative, there's an awful lot of people being human anyway... and maybe in Blue states, where the local culture is less concerned about their *neighbor's* sin and more open to letting people be themselves, there's less need and desire to seek out porn illicitly (and, hey, maybe the sex is better too, so less desire for porn).

I love that study in particular because it points a great big finger at the Mormans (most prevalent in Utah), who spearheaded and financed and supported the Prop 8 campaign. They look under other people's skirts and condemn what they see---but they're too busy to worry about their own members who are hiding sin up their *own* skirts. Stick to Utah, fellas, and take care of your OWN sins.

I am SICK AND TIRED of hearing people carp about homosexual marriage being A SIN. Boo-yah. It's NOT a sin in my faith; it's NOT a sin in a lot of people's faiths, and OTHER PEOPLE NOT FOLLOWING THE TENETS OF YOUR RELIGION IS THEIR RIGHT. So grow up and quit peeking into other people's lives, and tend to your OWN damn business.
:mad:

[Charles RB]

Who's next?

LGBT people who want to foster or adopt.

And then single people who want to foster or adopt.

And then people who aren't the same race or religion (especially religion, and if the foster/adoptive parent's non-white) as the children they want to foster or adopt.

And then they'll go gunning for adoption and divorce laws.

And maybe eventually the interracial marriage laws.

More people will probably go "hey, hang ON!" and revolt over the last one, maybe.

[Reverend Smooth]

I don't doubt that.


But the use of the term "Barbaric" was usually invoked throughout history as a justification used by "Civil folks" (read "White, Male Christians) to kill/ rob/ enslave another people, no matter how peaceful they were.

Think about it, Native Americans, Aborigines, Hindus, Arabs, Africans/ African Americans.

Were all labeled as "Primitive" or "Barbaric"By the very people who would soon kill/rob/enslave them (Irony)

Or at the very least the object was to use misinformation to hype fear in any way possible.

Some examples of misinformation survive to this day, for example:

Vikings, "the Barbarians of the North" are known primarily as raiders, and savage warriors. However the Vikings were also really traders, for whom raiding was a last resort, and had an interestingly complex society based on values and morality. The vikings were also instrumental in the formation of many modern nations (including Russia and England)

Pirates are another good example
Most Pirate ships were more civil and democratic than any Royal Navy vessel at the time, which made recruiting British sailors a breeze.

Sorry, I don't mean to get on a rant but it is some really interesting stuff.

My point is, Prop 8 today is just another example of "Civil Folks" using fear, and misinformation to excuse their oppression of another people.

I hope this makes my reasoning more clear.


*Facepalm*
A direct descendent of the indigenous Pre-Colombian inhabitants of the North American continent.

Specific enough for ya?

I know all this. My ethnic group was also subjected to genocide, deportation, relocation, and slavery, and I'm quite aware of all of these things. You're preaching to the choir.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

LGBT people who want to foster or adopt.

And then single people who want to foster or adopt.

And then people who aren't the same race or religion (especially religion, and if the foster/adoptive parent's non-white) as the children they want to foster or adopt.

And then they'll go gunning for adoption and divorce laws.

And maybe eventually the interracial marriage laws.

More people will probably go "hey, hang ON!" and revolt over the last one, maybe.

Yeah, but hell..... it can possibly be taken on a state-by-state basis, can't it? I'm sure SOME state can sink to it.

[Tommy]

LGBT people who want to foster or adopt.

And then single people who want to foster or adopt.

Already happened some places.

[CaptainCanada]

Actually, Captain Canada's right in one regard. A glaring fault in our Constitutional system is that, with enough votes to pass an amendment, you really CAN vote away people's rights.

That shouldn't be possible, but there's nothing in place to prevent it--just to make it very difficult. And that sucks.
There has to be some mechanism for changing all aspects of the constitution. No less a person than Thomas Paine, one of the chief intellectual founders of the American revolution, said quite explicitly that no parliament or generation can forever bind the hands of future parliaments. He wrote that in response to Edmund Burke, who was of the opinion that the French peasantry had no right to "revise" their system of government (ie, the French Revolution) because past generations had established it and by changing it they were taking from future generations their ancestral right.

In this instance, it would be nice if it were impossible, but one group of people categorically cannot decide, for the rest of a nation's history, what the law will be. Just imagine if that doctrine had been in place from 1789 onward, what America would look like today. You would never have been able to ban slavery, to cite the most glaring example.

Unrelatedly, one of the things I find rather telling about the politics of this case is that virtually all the major statewide officials in California have, in spite of the popular majority vote, supported the challenge to Prop 8, most notably the instance of Jerry Brown. Brown clearly is planning on running for governor again in two years, but he's been quite forward in arguing it should be opposed. Indicates he thinks the majority support for this is soft.

[Linkara]

Schwarzanegger is against Prop 8 too, isn't he?

Indeed, constitutional amendments need the ability to be revoked sometimes, not for the first ten, mind you, but then you have stuff like Prohibiton that got added to it there needs to be a system in place to take away unfounded ones.

[CaptainCanada]

Yeah, the Governator, in another of his "what exactly makes you not a Democrat?" moments, spoke out in favour of overturning it (of course, he's not running again, so he can say whatever he wants).

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Yeah, the Governator, in another of his "what exactly makes you not a Democrat?" moments, spoke out in favour of overturning it (of course, he's not running again, so he can say whatever he wants).

Yeah, now that he's term-limited out, he's suddenly changed his tune on the issue.

Turd.

[Solaris]

Yeah, now that he's term-limited out, he's suddenly changed his tune on the issue.

Turd.


Grabl the iron, because he's a waffle.

Heh.

There has to be some mechanism for changing all aspects of the constitution. No less a person than Thomas Paine, one of the chief intellectual founders of the American revolution, said quite explicitly that no parliament or generation can forever bind the hands of future parliaments. He wrote that in response to Edmund Burke, who was of the opinion that the French peasantry had no right to "revise" their system of government (ie, the French Revolution) because past generations had established it and by changing it they were taking from future generations their ancestral right.

In this instance, it would be nice if it were impossible, but one group of people categorically cannot decide, for the rest of a nation's history, what the law will be. Just imagine if that doctrine had been in place from 1789 onward, what America would look like today. You would never have been able to ban slavery, to cite the most glaring example.

Unrelatedly, one of the things I find rather telling about the politics of this case is that virtually all the major statewide officials in California have, in spite of the popular majority vote, supported the challenge to Prop 8, most notably the instance of Jerry Brown. Brown clearly is planning on running for governor again in two years, but he's been quite forward in arguing it should be opposed. Indicates he thinks the majority support for this is soft.


Most of the time, Constitutional Amendments are accomplished by the *legislative* branch... after all, creating laws *is* why they're called "legislative." Heh.

While I understand the need, on rare occasion, for popular vote to have a say in laws, this whole deal stinks. I think the lawyers are right in that Prop 8 isn't a constitutional *amendment*, but rather a *revision*. And from what I've seen here, a popular vote for revision of the CA state constitution takes a lot more votes than an amendment.

I hope the courts rule in agreement with this position, striking down Prop 8... so if the Utah Mormons and other Prop 8 supporters want to try again to make gay marriage illegal, they have to garner that many *more* votes... honestly, with all the crap and broken promises (as in the Prop 8 people telling voters they *wouldn't* go after existing gay marriages, and now they ARE), I don't think they'd have a snowball's chance in hell of getting the majority vote they'd need to do a constitutional *revision.*

BTW---all this has caused me to rethink my position on the Mormon Church (plus some other things that have come to light about said church). If you've detected a note of hostility in my posts toward them... your ears are working *just* fine. :evilsmile:

[Linkara]

BTW---all this has caused me to rethink my position on the Mormon Church (plus some other things that have come to light about said church). If you've detected a note of hostility in my posts toward them... your ears are working *just* fine. :evilsmile:

As with any church (except possibly Scientology), it has those who are assholes and those who are not. I know plenty of mormons who want Prop 8 struck down, and the Mormon church itself has its own denominations and factions.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

While I understand the need, on rare occasion, for popular vote to have a say in laws, this whole deal stinks. I think the lawyers are right in that Prop 8 isn't a constitutional *amendment*, but rather a *revision*. And from what I've seen here, a popular vote for revision of the CA state constitution takes a lot more votes than an amendment.

IIRC, it takes a two-third vote of the legislature just for the vote to be put to the people to revise the constitution.

And no, I'm not a legal expert. But it sure seems like a revision to me. It's a very cogent argument, and I honestly can't see how removing protections from one group of people in a document that's meant to guarantee protections to all citizens alike is less than a revision.

But the Supremes don't seem to see it, and that's what counts.

It's so fucking depressing it's hard to get out of bed in the morning.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

As with any church (except possibly Scientology), it has those who are assholes and those who are not. I know plenty of mormons who want Prop 8 struck down, and the Mormon church itself has its own denominations and factions.

Just as there aren't are Catholics who are non-homophobic.

However, when the Pope speaks out against homosexuals, then it's fair to hold the church as a whole accountable. The Mormon Church as an institution raised funds to shovel through Proposition 8. The Mormon Church can take the heat. And I only hope individual Mormons appeal to their own consciences to determine what the right thing for THEM to do is. I have no doubt that some are.

[Lester C.]

Yeah, now that he's term-limited out, he's suddenly changed his tune on the issue.

Turd.

Take your allies where you can get them Pink, especially if you are fighting a losing battle. He's still the governor and is in a position to do incredible good or harm for your cause.

[PatrickG]

There has to be some mechanism for changing all aspects of the constitution. No less a person than Thomas Paine, one of the chief intellectual founders of the American revolution, said quite explicitly that no parliament or generation can forever bind the hands of future parliaments. He wrote that in response to Edmund Burke, who was of the opinion that the French peasantry had no right to "revise" their system of government (ie, the French Revolution) because past generations had established it and by changing it they were taking from future generations their ancestral right.

But the thing both sides in this debate miss is that the constitution does not grant rights nor is any government or document the source of them. If it must be granted, it cannot be a right.

Governments grant rights which exist whether recognized or not.

Given that marriage is a consentual arrangement between two people as we understand it, nothing consentual can be banned in a cellular society where the authority of government is understood to come from the people. Enlightenment political philosophy, taken to an extreme, recognizes that even a monarch or a tyrant gets his power from the consent of the governed.

The authority to rule is granted by the individual and anything which is not an impediment to the coexistence of individuals must be a right, recognized or not.

Constitutions cannot grant or restrict rights. Any attempt to do so invalidates the constitution which attempts it.

For some, allowing gay marriage may invalidate marriage but constitutionally banning it invalidates the constitution.

I'd go so far as to say that the 18th and 21st amendments need to be struck from the record as well since they both serve to invalidate and de-legitimize the U.S. constitution, that either banning or permitting sales of a specific commodity tarnish the higher calling of a nation's guiding document.

[CaptainCanada]

That right there is the kind of "pure philosophy" approach that I have little use for. If you follow that train of thought, everyone is a law unto themselves and is under no obligation to recognize any law they consider a violation of their own self-defined rights.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

That right there is the kind of "pure philosophy" approach that I have little use for. If you follow that train of thought, everyone is a law unto themselves and is under no obligation to recognize any law they consider a violation of their own self-defined rights.

Me, I find them essential. WIthout them, politics becomes a purely cynical game, the 'art of the possible' as they say. Certainly, you can't legislate abstracts, but you have to let them guide you. Certainly, I think they're essential to the American mindset, and the history of law here.

[PatrickG]

Me, I find them essential. WIthout them, politics becomes a purely cynical game, the 'art of the possible' as they say. Certainly, you can't legislate abstracts, but you have to let them guide you. Certainly, I think they're essential to the American mindset, and the history of law here.

The inability to legislate abstracts is precisely the difference between what legal code should be and what a constitution should be.

A constitution should exist in a minimalist form to guide what we are. It is literally the constitution or being of a nation, expressed in words, an attempt to create a kind of legal poetry which governs the pharisee-like nature of codified law.

In Christian doctrine, the word of God and particular of Jesus are the constitution and theology and code are the law. In Judaism, there also seems to be a similar distinction though I wouldn't quite know the terms for it except to say that, again, there is the spirit of law as divinely expressed and there is the letter of law as prescribed by holy men.

And even in a non-religious context, I think any code or system or even relationship must have both a "spirit" and a "flesh", a noun and a verb, a mission statement and action, code and executable. And the two must be reconciled and the source and permissions of both must be deliberated and expounded upon constantly.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

The inability to legislate abstracts is precisely the difference between what legal code should be and what a constitution should be.

A constitution should exist in a minimalist form to guide what we are. It is literally the constitution or being of a nation, expressed in words, an attempt to create a kind of legal poetry which governs the pharisee-like nature of codified law.

In Christian doctrine, the word of God and particular of Jesus are the constitution and theology and code are the law. In Judaism, there also seems to be a similar distinction though I wouldn't quite know the terms for it except to say that, again, there is the spirit of law as divinely expressed and there is the letter of law as prescribed by holy men.

And even in a non-religious context, I think any code or system or even relationship must have both a "spirit" and a "flesh", a noun and a verb, a mission statement and action, code and executable. And the two must be reconciled and the source and permissions of both must be deliberated and expounded upon constantly.

Yes, this. Exactly this. Very nicely put.

[CaptainCanada]

The inability to legislate abstracts is precisely the difference between what legal code should be and what a constitution should be.

A constitution should exist in a minimalist form to guide what we are. It is literally the constitution or being of a nation, expressed in words, an attempt to create a kind of legal poetry which governs the pharisee-like nature of codified law.

Most of the US Constitution (and all constitutions) are very strict definitions of the nation's political and legal framework; what you're describing is a very small part of what a constitution does.

The "poetry" idea though, does recall the key issue that the Constitution's rights provisions are interpretive; originalists, for example, don't want to assign it any new meanings apart from the ones the words had when originally written, which is a perfectly logical (and safe) way of doing things. "Living tree" types see the constitution's provisions as an expanding body.

[Paul McEnery]

That right there is the kind of "pure philosophy" approach that I have little use for. If you follow that train of thought, everyone is a law unto themselves and is under no obligation to recognize any law they consider a violation of their own self-defined rights.

Well duh!

Except that it isn't about "self-defined rights" at all. It's about natural rights. And a law that proceeds from natural rights is about well-defining the boundaries about when your exercise of natural rights steps on mine, and adjudicating which (if either) should take priority.

Point being that the Constitution itself is thoroughly grounded in that pure philosophy, and if you toss out the pure philosophy, the Constitution itself falls.

And without that guiding intelligence, we have nothing at all except for brute force and mob rule.

[Matt Algren]

.......kiss me.

Oh hey, I didn't read this before.

Kiss me.
Jeez. I'm getting behind.

http://www.ourspacer.com/images/graphics/sexy/a-kiss-from-me-to-you.gif

[beetlebum]

Balls it does. Direct democracy is no such thing. As we saw with the subversion of the democratically elected Davis administration over absolutely nothing.

Right, let's completely ignore the fact that Davis was removed from office because of his part in the energy crisis, and the fact that Davis accepted $2,000,000 from the California Correctional Peace Officers Association and used his political connections to pass an estimated $5,000,000,000 raise for them in upcoming years. Not to mention that Davis had managed to alienate himself from members of both political parties.

And if they were just advisory, I could live with that, but it's a bloody stupid way to put law into place.

Upon thinking it over, I'd say I agree with you to a certain extent. The problem with the amendments is that it is too easy to amend the constitution, and things like civil rights should never be put up to vote.

The thing is though, the legislators of this state are prone to the same forces that seem to "subvert" democracy amongst the rest of the populace. The Props have had their fair share of problems (problems that would still be there, even if the amendments were passed by a legislative body). I do think that the public is, for the most part, capable of deciding what's in their best interest (at least in terms of bonds and how money is spent) and that it is not "mob rule" to give people more of a say in how things are run. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that issue.

Which is still illegal, as it happens. That's what I mean about the toothlessness of Propositions that come from the people. The Feds can run roughshod through them, the corporations can break them with better-funded lawyers or by taking their ball home till the legislature capitulates.
.

And yet despite the fact that the feds did raid a few places that sold medical marijuana, Prop 215 still stands, and medical marijuana is still used and consumed in this state.

[the4thpip]

Except that you can, in any society with a procedure for amending the constitution. That's the whole idea behind having an amending procedure for a constitution.



Except, you can't, as I've pointed out to you before - when the wording of the constitution makes clear that certain basics cannot be changed.

[darkhanamaru]

T
Prop 13 didn't bankrupt the state, though it did make it harder to raise taxes. Financial mismanagement did. Instead, things like "borrowing binges", made possible by complex financial schemes (such as the one implemented by Oxnard) and the implementation of nontraditional debt vehicles (instead of general-obligation bonds) and the higher interest rates are what led to debt.


I have to say I am surprised that as a young person in this state who I think attends a California public college would give prop 13 a pass. It was a horrible self-interested law that shifted the tax burden to young people away from older homeowners and corporate entities. About 60% of the benefit actually went to businesses: talk about the law of unintended consequences caused by the general public not understanding the ripple effects of what they do when they pass law.

And a lot of that non-traditional borrowing you are talking about is because of local government's inability to raise revenue on the local level. Yes there has been financial mismanagement and there needs to be oversight but you can't tie a local government's hands, expect them to fund roads and schools, and not expect them to borrow and hit you with user fees and other non-progressive taxes.

[beetlebum]

I have to say I am surprised that as a young person in this state who I think attends a California public college would give prop 13 a pass. It was a horrible self-interested law that shifted the tax burden to young people away from older homeowners and corporate entities. About 60% of the benefit actually went to businesses: talk about the law of unintended consequences caused by the general public not understanding the ripple effects of what they do when they pass law.
.

I wasn't giving it a pass; I did say that it made it harder to raise taxes, and mention the effects it had on our constitution.

And fine, maybe Prop 13 wasn't the best example. I think I'll just let this drop now cos I don't have the energy to debate this.

[the4thpip]

Letter from Barack Obama went Unused by 'No on Prop 8' Campaign

Over the weekend, fury re-erupted across the gay blogosphere following a report on the recent "No on 8" Town Hall in the Bay Area Reporter. The fury is centered around a letter to the Alice B. Toklas club from Barack Obama expressing the candidate's disapproval of Proposition 8. It was a letter that was never used. Revelations emerged from the meeting about the decision not to use the letter:

Smith Bay Area Reporter: "[Consultant Steve] Smith also acknowledged that the campaign should have used then-presidential candidate Barack Obama's stated opposition to Prop 8. Instead, little use was made of Obama's opposition in a letter last June to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club, and right before Election Day the Yes on 8 campaign sent out a mailer featuring Obama's image and quotes that he is opposed to same-sex marriage. 'That was a close call,' Smith said. 'Maybe we should have.' Smith said that people outside the Bay Area wouldn't know what the Alice Club was, but club Co-Chair Susan Christian spoke up and said that in fact, Obama's letter to the club been widely reported, including in the New York Times. 'I think we lost this campaign because of an approach that didn't recognize 'we are everywhere,'' Christian said."

The revelation prompted outrage from blogger/activist Michael Petrelis who wrote: "How nauseating to know that Smith, whose firm received hundreds of thousands of gay dollars for their expertise, is such a lazy thinker. Instead of touting who the letter was from, all Smith saw was who the Obama was addressed to. It shouldn't have mattered who received the letter, just that it was from our likely next president and would have done much to influence minority and independent voters to cast no ballots on Prop 8."

Dan Savage of Slog had harsher words for Smith: "YEAH, THAT MIGHT'VE BEEN A GOOD FUCKING IDEA, YOU STUPID ASSHOLE."



http://www.towleroad.com/2009/03/letter-from-barack-obama-went-unused-by-no-on-prop-8-campaign.html

[Charles RB]

Oh for fuck's sake, what was this guy smoking?

[Solaris]

Alice Club was, but club Co-Chair Susan Christian spoke up and said that in fact, Obama's letter to the club been widely reported, including in the New York Times.

Apparently it wasn't widely reported enough.

If the case is that it was reported in a few newspapers, but wasn't on every piece of literature they put out after he sent it... yeah, they screwed the pooch. *Especially* after the Prop 8 folks started throwing into their ads etc. the lie that Obama opposed same sex marriage.

I know hindsight is 20/20, but jeez. You've got an actual letter from the man expressing his support, and you don't use it to counter the opposition lying and saying that *they* have his support?

*head desk*

[Linkara]

Apparently it wasn't widely reported enough.

If the case is that it was reported in a few newspapers, but wasn't on every piece of literature they put out after he sent it... yeah, they screwed the pooch. *Especially* after the Prop 8 folks started throwing into their ads etc. the lie that Obama opposed same sex marriage.


Erm, I thought he WAS opposed to same sex marriage? Or was that just Biden?

[Solaris]

Erm, I thought he WAS opposed to same sex marriage? Or was that just Biden?

The letter from Obama expressed disapproval of Prop 8.

[Lester C.]

http://www.towleroad.com/2009/03/letter-from-barack-obama-went-unused-by-no-on-prop-8-campaign.html


What do you expect? That Smith guy looks like John Byrne who no doubt infiltrated the organization and sabotaged them from within.

[Lester C.]

Do we know if Obama's people asked Smith to be silent on the issue of Prop 8? During his campaign Obama never vocally opposed Prop 8 and didn't make too much of a stink when pro Prop 8 people started using a statement he made to show that he (falsely) supported their bill.

[Gilda Dent]

Erm, I thought he WAS opposed to same sex marriage? Or was that just Biden?

Both Biden and Obama said during debates that they opposed gay marriage. It was one issue on which both candidates from both parties were in agreement.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Kids feel the impact of Prop 8

NEWS
Published 03/05/2009

by Seth Hemmelgarn

s.hemmelgarn@ebar.com

Patty Stanton, Susan Berston, and son Sam Berston share a moment in San Francisco City Hall. Photo: Courtesy Susan Berston


Print this Page
Send to a Friend

Last November, Joanne Genet's 11-year-old daughter, Alexi, was watching TV with her family when they heard the election results on Proposition 8. She burst into tears.

"I don't understand why it's other people's business whether my moms can be married or not," Genet recalls her daughter saying.

The next day, Alexi took No on 8 stickers to give to her friends at school. She came home crying after encountering a student whose family had supported the measure, which eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.

"Her family voted against our family being married," Alexi told her mother.

Genet, who got teary while recalling the story, said Alexi now examines people's bumper stickers and asks, "Do you think that's a Yes on 8 family, Mom? I'll bet those people don't like us."

Alexi, whose family lives in the East Bay town of Lafayette, is well aware of what marriage means. In 2004, she waited in line for two days with her parents – Genet and her partner of almost 25 years, Cindy Horvath – before they could get married, and she demonstrated against Prop 8.

Genet reassures her daughter "that things will change" and noted that many kids have supported Alexi, but said, "I think this is much harder on the children ... than it is on us adults. They don't have as much of a shield up."

As the state Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments today (Thursday, March 5) in the effort to repeal Prop 8, many children of same-sex couples are at least as dismayed as their parents that the measure passed, and are doing what they can to speak out.

The birth of a lobbyist

Sam Berston, 11, wears an "'I Do' support the freedom to marry" button and confidently sits up straight on the edge of his chair as he recalls how he and other kids hand-delivered letters to some Republican state legislators' offices during a Lobby Day in February, urging them to support House Resolution 5 and Senate Resolution 7. The two bills, shepherded by San Francisco Democrats Assemblyman Tom Ammiano and Senator Mark Leno, respectively, put the Legislature on record as supporting the repeal of Prop 8.

Both resolutions, which do not require the governor's signature, passed their respective legislative bodies on Monday.

In a letter to Assemblyman Michael Duvall (R-Yorba Linda), Berston wrote, "I live with my two mommies and they love me like any other straight family. I would really like it if you would vote yes on [HR 5] so my two mommies can get married. I wouldn't rather have straight parents if I got the chance. Thank you sooooo much!"

"He really, really is a lobbyist," said Susan Berston, who lives in San Francisco with her son and Patty Stanton, her partner of nine years. The women have not yet married, but are domestic partners.

Sam Berston predicts that "maybe in a couple years" when same-sex couples can get married, people will think, "that was so dumb of us" not to support same-sex marriage.

In Los Angeles, 12-year-old Abby Bergman said she repeated to herself that Prop 8 wasn't going to pass, as if she could will it away, and felt "really surprised and let down by the people of California" when it passed.

She said she's also afraid of what might be coming.

"What's going to happen to my family?" she said. "What are they going to try to pass through next?"

In school, Bergman made a silkscreen for a T-shirt that shows an eight with a line through it, calling for the elimination of "H8." She said she's going to be involved with Prop 8 "until we get it un-passed."

Abby's mother Kim Bergman wrote in an e-mail that after Prop 8 passed, "It helped to have her see that in her lifetime anyone will be able to marry – we talked to her about how it used to be that people of different races couldn't get married and how silly that seems now."

She added that she and her wife told their daughters "to forgive the people who were swayed by hate and ignorance and not to hate them back, but to keep telling people who we are to help change their hearts and minds."

Bergman and her wife, Natalie, married in Canada in 2006 and have been together for 26 years.

A challenge to tetherball

Connor Keegan-Lloyd, 10, lives in Los Angeles with her parents, Tom Keegan and Davidson Lloyd, who married in July.

Connor recalled a recent car trip with a friend who asked her father, "So are you married yet?"

"My dad said, 'We're always going to be married, no matter what. They have not divorced us, and no matter what, we'll stay married for life.'"

"That was kind of nice to hear," said Connor. She said she wasn't worried that her parents, who've been together for 31 years, would break up, but she's still troubled.

Prop 8 "is unfair, and it's against our constitution," said Connor, who said she's been teased "a little bit" at school for having two gay men as parents.

Connor said the teasing is "quite disappointing," but she has her own way of dealing with people. Sometimes, she challenges them to a game of tetherball. When she wins, the other person can't say anything about gay couples.

In the East Bay town of Orinda, Trish McDermott's son Liam, who's 6, started crying when he learned of Prop 8's passage, and asked if it meant they weren't a family anymore. The child still asks about Prop 8.

"We've explained to him that we are a family no matter what ... the real question is the legality of our marriage, but not the love or strength of our marriage itself." When Liam hears something about Prop 8 on the news, "he zeroes in on it," said McDermott. Besides Liam, McDermott and her partner have three other children, all of whom were present at the couple's wedding in September.

Once, people down the street were demonstrating in support of Prop 8. Her children saw it, and talked about it with their parents. McDermott discussed it with the neighbors, who then surprised the family by organizing a No on 8 protest.

Seventy-five neighbors showed up and stood on the Highway 24 overpass with the family, holding No on 8 signs. At least half the demonstrators were kids.

But not everybody's been supportive.

As was previously reported in the Bay Area Reporter, according to a search of campaign contributions to Prop 8, Orinda Mayor Sue Severson and her family donated a total of $11,000 toward the Yes on 8 campaign. McDermott invited Severson to dinner, but that dinner still hasn't happened, she said.

In January, Marriage Equality USA released "Prop 8 Hurt My Family – Ask Me How," a compilation of findings from community forums and online surveys showing some of the effects of Prop 8's passage. To view the report, which includes links to counseling and community resources, go to http://www.marriageequality.org.

[Flamebird]

Apparently it wasn't widely reported enough.

If the case is that it was reported in a few newspapers, but wasn't on every piece of literature they put out after he sent it... yeah, they screwed the pooch. *Especially* after the Prop 8 folks started throwing into their ads etc. the lie that Obama opposed same sex marriage.

I know hindsight is 20/20, but jeez. You've got an actual letter from the man expressing his support, and you don't use it to counter the opposition lying and saying that *they* have his support?

*head desk*

Erm, I thought he WAS opposed to same sex marriage? Or was that just Biden?

Not a lie. He did and still does oppose gay marriage. He has went so far as to say his opposition means nothing in the long run as it will inevitably happen eventually.
But he wants nothing to do with it.

Way to "reach across" and build a better nation, huh?

Meanwhile, he wants to abolish "don't ask, don't tell"?
So it will be, sure you can't have full rights, but we can still draft you and let you die for the country that hates you?

Fuck that .

[Flying Saucers Over Oz]

Semi-related note: It was inevitable. Tabloid headline: 'OBAMA'S SECRET GAY LIFE!'

Yep, they're finally down to that. Oh, and either that paper or a rival did a hand-wringing article about donations to The Boy Scouts being way down because of their barring of Gays.

America is such a country, ain't it? Minus the 'try,' of course...

[Charles RB]

Kids feel the impact of Prop 8

Well damn it, the emotional harm done to children and their fear that their family will break up is just collatoral damage to protect... er... kids and families...

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Not a lie. He did and still does oppose gay marriage. He has went so far as to say his opposition means nothing in the long run as it will inevitably happen eventually.
But he wants nothing to do with it.

Way to "reach across" and build a better nation, huh?

Meanwhile, he wants to abolish "don't ask, don't tell"?
So it will be, sure you can't have full rights, but we can still draft you and let you die for the country that hates you?

Fuck that .

Yeah, we have a tradition of 'you can die for your country but don't let that make you think you have equal rights.'

Fuck you too, Mr. President.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Well damn it, the emotional harm done to children and their fear that their family will break up is just collatoral damage to protect... er... kids and families...

After Prop 8 they no longer have the right to call themselves 'pro-family.' Clearly thier agenda is to destroy families.

[FalconX2000]

I can confirm that Obama originally said on the campaign trail that he opposed same sex marriage. After reading the letter, I'm beginning to think the main thing for him is that he views the issue as too small on his agenda to bother with. He may support it or oppose it. Whatever the case, with what he has on his plate now he wants to treat it like marijuana.




Dear Friends,

Thank you for the opportunity to welcome everyone to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club's Pridc Breakfast and to congratulate you on continuing a legacy of success, stretching back thirty-six years. As one of the oldest and most influential LGBT organizations in the country, you have continually rallied to support Democratic candidates and causes, and have fought tirelessly to secure equal rights and opportunities for LGBT Americans in California and throughout the country.

As the Democratic nominee for President, I am proud to join with and support the LGBT community in an effort to set our nation on a course that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law. That is why I support extending fully equal rights and benefits to same sex couples under both state and federal law. That is why I support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, and the passage of laws to protect LGBT Americans from hate crimes and employment discrimination. And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.

For too long. issues of LGBT rights have been exploited by those seeking to divide us. It's time to move beyond polarization and live up to our founding promise of equality by treating all our citizens with dignity and respect. This is no less than a core issue about who we are as Democrats and as Americans.

Finally, I want to congratulate all of you who have shown your love for each other by getting married these last few weeks. My thanks again to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club for allowing me to be a part of today's celebration. I look forward to working with you in the coming months and years, and I wish you all continued success.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

[Flamebird]

I can confirm that Obama originally said on the campaign trail that he opposed same sex marriage. After reading the letter, I'm beginning to think the main thing for him is that he views the issue as too small on his agenda to bother with. He may support it or oppose it. Whatever the case, with what he has on his plate now he wants to treat it like marijuana.

Gee, a letter that someone in his campaign camp wrote for him, or his own words?

Obama on gay marriage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K9dS9wl7U)

A few nice buzz words and give em civil unions crap aside; his religion dictates that he can't support us?
Once again, fuck that.

[FalconX2000]

Gee, a letter that someone in his campaign camp wrote for him, or his own words?

Obama on gay marriage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K9dS9wl7U)

A few nice buzz words and give em civil unions crap aside; his religion dictates that he can't support us?
Once again, fuck that.

I followed Obama's news nearly everyday since January. I don't even need to see the clip to know what you're talking about.

Obama displays deep intelllectual introspective tendencies and has spoken out in favour of gay rights on many occasions. He also says he opposes gay marraige. Bottom line, just don't count on him in the fight. Whatever his position is, he wants to stay away from this issue.

You can call him a coward if you want, and you're certainly more affected by the issue at hand than me, but with what he's trying to push through in his career I am unwilling to do so.

[Kyuubi]

This is about the basic human rights of U.S. Citizens. No matter how small a percentage they are, every gay American deserves the same rights as everyone else.


I'm a huge Obama supporter. I donated to his campaign twice. If he doesn't do something about this, I will consider his presidency a failure.

[Major Comma]

Well, Obama cant do anything about Prop 8,
ButI understand he is looking into changing the militarys dont ask dont tell policy .

[Kyuubi]

I don't mean Prop 8, I meant the country as a whole. I'm also realistic. I know it would take a lot to get this changed.


I don't care so much that he tries and fails, I just care that he tries.

[Major Comma]

Kyuubi,
I am sure he will do what he can,
Its going to take time ,
But I believe it IS possible.

[Flâneur]

You can call him a coward if you want, and you're certainly more affected by the issue at hand than me, but with what he's trying to push through in his career I am unwilling to do so.
i.e I'm willing to push the gays under the bus in the name of progress!

[Charles RB]

After Prop 8 they no longer have the right to call themselves 'pro-family.' Clearly thier agenda is to destroy families.

In order to save the family, they had to destroy it.

Gee, a letter that someone in his campaign camp wrote for him, or his own words?

It's nearly always going to be a letter someone wrote for him, but politicians do have this stuff checked before they sign it.

[Tommy]

In Obama's 1996 run for the Illinois State Senate, Obama quite literally said, "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages."

It was only once he jumped to the federal level that he said he was only in favor of civil unions.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

I followed Obama's news nearly everyday since January. I don't even need to see the clip to know what you're talking about.

Obama displays deep intelllectual introspective tendencies and has spoken out in favour of gay rights on many occasions. He also says he opposes gay marraige. Bottom line, just don't count on him in the fight. Whatever his position is, he wants to stay away from this issue.

You can call him a coward if you want, and you're certainly more affected by the issue at hand than me, but with what he's trying to push through in his career I am unwilling to do so.

Then allow me.
He's being a coward.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Well, Obama cant do anything about Prop 8,
ButI understand he is looking into changing the militarys dont ask dont tell policy .

He can do as much as the California Governor and Legislature can.... He can clearly state his position. Nonbinding, but influential nonetheless.... If not to the court (whose members may just want a US supreme court nod someday) then to the continuing fight.

[Solaris]

Obama can't be everything to everybody. No one can.

I could wish that he'd step up with an approval of gay marriages, rather than just civil unions... and perhaps he may change his mind/position on that at a later date. But he *has* come out for repealing DOMA (which, being at the federal level, gives *strong* moral support to anti-gay factions) and repealing the "don't ask/don't tell" policy.

Not the huge step we'd like him to take, no---but both these smaller steps *would* help in improving the rights of gays... and it's a helluva lot more than we got under the Shrub, who helped *further* anti-gay agendas.

I know all that is small comfort... but I *do* take some comfort that we're at least headed in the right direction now, where our President is concerned... even if we aren't getting there as fast as I'd like.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

We're at a moment of clear and vital significance to civil rights in this country, the like of which hasn't happened in decades. Obama can rise to meet history's challenge. So far, he's not. That's not an issue of. 'being everything to everyone'. That sounds trivializing. Civil rights are never about catering to a small fringe group. They're about everyone.

Like you, I like a lot of what the man's done. I'm actually very impressed so far. But he doesn't deserve a pass on everything as a result. Civil rights are right and wrong, and until he does something right, he's in the wrong. I love ya like a cousin I did dirty things with in the loft of the barn, but I disagree with this assessment with every fiber in my being.

[Matt Algren]

We're at a moment of clear and vital significance to civil rights in this country, the like of which hasn't happened in decades. Obama can rise to meet history's challenge. So far, he's not. That's not an issue of. 'being everything to everyone'. That sounds trivializing. Civil rights are never about catering to a small fringe group. They're about everyone.

Like you, I like a lot of what the man's done. I'm actually very impressed so far. But he doesn't deserve a pass on everything as a result. Civil rights are right and wrong, and until he does something right, he's in the wrong. I love ya like a cousin I did dirty things with in the loft of the barn, but I disagree with this assessment with every fiber in my being.
At the risk of being a Kool-Aid drinker, my take on his position is that civil rights are already guaranteed by the Constitution. All we're missing is the Supreme Court stating it outright. Adding a law is unnecessary and irrelevant, akin to adding a law that blacks can sit in the front of buses. The law is unnecessary because it's duplicating content.

That's my hopeful side.

My cynical self keeps reminding people that we know where President Obama stands on The Gays. He showed us that with the Rick Warren mess that our rights and our struggle are expendable if there's political capital to be (net) gained by leaving us behind.

[Ethan Van Sciver]

It's going to happen eventually, and whomever grabs this issue now is the party that can brag about how obvious it was 20 years from now.

I see good reasons why Republicans should get behind this, while going hard to the right fiscally in 2010. Oh, how awesome would that be? :)

[Flamebird]

It's going to happen eventually, and whomever grabs this issue now is the party that can brag about how obvious it was 20 years from now.

I see good reasons why Republicans should get behind this, while going hard to the right fiscally in 2010. Oh, how awesome would that be? :)

It would be cool; but the idea of Sarah Palin on my side kinda creeps me out. :wink:

[Spackling Compound]

At the risk of being a Kool-Aid drinker, my take on his position is that civil rights are already guaranteed by the Constitution. All we're missing is the Supreme Court stating it outright. Adding a law is unnecessary and irrelevant, akin to adding a law that blacks can sit in the front of buses. The law is unnecessary because it's duplicating content.

That's my hopeful side.

My cynical self keeps reminding people that we know where President Obama stands on The Gays. He showed us that with the Rick Warren mess that our rights and our struggle are expendable if there's political capital to be (net) gained by leaving us behind.

That rascally Obama standing on "teh Gayz". If only he'd drink the Kool-Aid.

[Ethan Van Sciver]

It would be cool; but the idea of Sarah Palin on my side kinda creeps me out. :wink:

But she is on your side, you just haven't realized it yet. :)

Anyhow, conservatives are all about "family values", and what is better to that end than acknowledging that gays can create safe family situations for themselves and children? Plus, it eliminates how ever many divorces may come from closeted gays trying to maintain heterosexual marriages for however many years, and finally breaking the family they've created apart. It's all about the desire to have a family that's recognized as legitimate and mainstream. It helps society.

And then we'd have Mitt Romney in 2012.

[Stressfactor]

But she is on your side, you just haven't realized it yet. :)

Anyhow, conservatives are all about "family values", and what is better to that end than acknowledging that gays can create safe family situations for themselves and children? Plus, it eliminates how ever many divorces may come from closeted gays trying to maintain heterosexual marriages for however many years, and finally breaking the family they've created apart. It's all about the desire to have a family that's recognized as legitimate and mainstream. It helps society.

And then we'd have Mitt Romney in 2012.You know, this is something I just don't GET about the "Evangelical Right Wing" -- WHY do they hate this idea so much? I mean, if gays can marry, what does it hurt them? Do they honestly think gays getting married is going to bring about the apocalypse?

Sometimes I wonder how many gay people they know because I'm convinced that once someone meets a lot of gay and lesbian couples they will realize that they're just PEOPLE! They go to work, they go home, they mow their lawns in the summer, they take their kids to school, etc.

[Matt Algren]

You know, this is something I just don't GET about the "Evangelical Right Wing" -- WHY do they hate this idea so much? I mean, if gays can marry, what does it hurt them? Do they honestly think gays getting married is going to bring about the apocalypse?
Short answer: Yes. Seriously. Yes.

Slightly less short answer: Yes, and hating generates a lot of income.

[Ethan Van Sciver]

You know, this is something I just don't GET about the "Evangelical Right Wing" -- WHY do they hate this idea so much? I mean, if gays can marry, what does it hurt them? Do they honestly think gays getting married is going to bring about the apocalypse?

Sometimes I wonder how many gay people they know because I'm convinced that once someone meets a lot of gay and lesbian couples they will realize that they're just PEOPLE! They go to work, they go home, they mow their lawns in the summer, they take their kids to school, etc.

It's the term "marriage", which has religious connotations. It's also the idea that making gay marriage legal might force religious institutions that believe it's a sin to perform marriage ceremonies or face discrimination lawsuits.

In general, as a conservative, I'm hesitant to get behind drastic changes in society. But I've given this a lot of thought and feel like as long as churches can't be sued for refusing to perform gay marriages, it's a no-brainer and will happen. So might as well get on the right side of it now.

That being said, politically, is it worth it? Will it swing votes from left to right?

[Stressfactor]

Well, already churches reserve the right NOT to marry people and can't be sued over it. I've known more than a few couples who were living together before marriage and wanted to get married only to have the church REFUSE to marry them unless they lived separate from one another for anywhere from three months to six months. And I've never heard of any of those couples trying to sue the church over it.

In the not so distant past the Catholic church would even refuse to marry a couple unless BOTH parties were Catholic -- and no one tried to sue the church over it.

I think too many churches are acting out of an illegitimate fear. If a church does not support homosexuality then chances are good that no homosexuals are even going to TRY to ask that a religious wedding ceremony take place. Instead, if the couples want a religious ceremony they will find a church that supports homosexuality.

I mean, everyone KNOWS what the biggest Baptist Church Synod's stand on homosexuality is so the very idea that a homosexual couple is going to approach some Baptist pastor to try to get him to perform a ceremony is just silly.

[Solaris]

We're at a moment of clear and vital significance to civil rights in this country, the like of which hasn't happened in decades. Obama can rise to meet history's challenge. So far, he's not. That's not an issue of. 'being everything to everyone'. That sounds trivializing. Civil rights are never about catering to a small fringe group. They're about everyone.

Like you, I like a lot of what the man's done. I'm actually very impressed so far. But he doesn't deserve a pass on everything as a result. Civil rights are right and wrong, and until he does something right, he's in the wrong. I love ya like a cousin I did dirty things with in the loft of the barn, but I disagree with this assessment with every fiber in my being.


I love you too, and it's okay that we disagree on this one. :smile: And I've been known to have my perspective change in the past, many times; it may again.

[Spackling Compound]

You know, this is something I just don't GET about the "Evangelical Right Wing" -- WHY do they hate this idea so much? I mean, if gays can marry, what does it hurt them? Do they honestly think gays getting married is going to bring about the apocalypse?


I think they believe that one "deviant" sexual behavior being normalized will lead to normalizing polyamory, pedophilia and



I love ya like a cousin I did dirty things with in the loft of the barn, but I disagree with this assessment with every fiber in my being.

...incest.

[Calybos]

I suggest that only civil ceremonies get to use the word "marriage." This contract, with all legal and medical rights and implications that go with it, is equally available to all adult citizens, gay or straight.

Any churches that want to perform a ceremony of their own can call it a "union" or "bonding" or "handfasting" or whatever... they just don't get to call it "marriage." They can have whatever restrictions they want on who's allowed to participate--but they can't call their service a "marriage."

After all--it's just a word, right?

[Dark Galaxy]

A bit off topic, but I thought I'd share this here.

My 13 year old daughter had to give a speech in her English class about a "controversial topic." There was a list of topics to choose from. You could choose which side you believe in, and give a speech defending your position. My daughter chose same-sex marriage.

One of her friends asked her what topic she chose, and my daughter said, "Same sex marriage." The friend said, "Oh. Are you for it, or against it?" My daughter said, "For it." The friend said, "Yeah, I would be for it too, but my church is against it."

When my daughter got home from school she was livid. She started ranting about it, and said, "So, in her heart she knows that it is the right thing to do, but because her religion says something, she has to be against it?? That doesn't even make sense!"

I just thought it was a very untainted, honest and open reaction, to something that doesn't make sense to me either.

[Calybos]

That's why sending kids to a church is questionable parenting. It's about a half-step away from brainwashing.

You shouldn't be exposing kids to bizarre superstitions and fiction-treated-as-truth until they're old enough to evaluate them rationally.

[Charles RB]

You shouldn't be exposing kids to bizarre superstitions and fiction-treated-as-truth until they're old enough to evaluate them rationally.

That happens if you take them to their grandparents, let them watch Sesame Street, tell them about Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy, etc etc.

[beetlebum]

And of course, Calybos will disregard that in order to make a binary, inductive statement about churches in general.

Actually, I'm fine with the Neighborhood of Make-Believe... as long as the kids KNOW it's make-believe.

Your brain can't think in terms that aren't binary, now can it?

Dismissing a set of beliefs just because you don't like it; how very roll your eyes worthy.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

And of course, Calybos will disregard that in order to make a binary, inductive statement about churches in general.

Oh, yes.... can we please, please, PLEASE not turn this thread into that thread?!??

[Samurai]

It's the term "marriage", which has religious connotations. It's also the idea that making gay marriage legal might force religious institutions that believe it's a sin to perform marriage ceremonies or face discrimination lawsuits.

In general, as a conservative, I'm hesitant to get behind drastic changes in society. But I've given this a lot of thought and feel like as long as churches can't be sued for refusing to perform gay marriages, it's a no-brainer and will happen. So might as well get on the right side of it now.

That being said, politically, is it worth it? Will it swing votes from left to right?

I don't think it'd swing many votes to the Republicans at all, and it would probably cost them many, many more votes among the religious. It'd be a net loss for the party.

[Calybos]

That happens if you take them to their grandparents, let them watch Sesame Street, tell them about Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy, etc etc.


Actually, I'm fine with the Neighborhood of Make-Believe... as long as the kids KNOW it's make-believe.

[Samurai]

Actually, I'm fine with the Neighborhood of Make-Believe... as long as the kids KNOW it's make-believe.

It may be make-believe to you, but to the religious, their faith is not make-believe. It is their values, morals, and beliefs, and they see it as perfectly natural to pass on values, morals, and beliefs to their children without telling them in the next breath that it's all BS and they should just do whatever they want. Wouldn't you pass on your values, morals, and beliefs to your child, at least a foundation of them?

[Solaris]

Look, Calybos and Samurai, if you wanna degenerate the thread to atheist vs. religious, why don't you boys take it somewhere else? The rest of us here are trying to have a grown up discussion about Prop 8.

And as to Dark Galaxy's daughter's comment, I think it hits a very valid point:

If in your heart you believe your religion is wrong on something, why do you agree to go along with it? For that matter, why do people agree to go along with any group they believe is wrong (religion or otherwise)?

She put a spotlight on a core issue: why does the individual sacrifice their own sense of right and wrong, in favor of a group, and support that group even though they believe the group's official decision on the matter to be wrong?

THAT's the key issue---it wasn't the opening pass for a knockdown drag-out on whether religious faith is fact or fairy tale. Either get over it and pay attention, or take your squabbles to a different thread.

[Lester C.]

I have a question. Even if the California Supreme Court rules Proposition 8 unconstitutional, can't they just draft a new Proposition with different language and pass it all over again?

[Tommy]

I have a question. Even if the California Supreme Court rules Proposition 8 unconstitutional, can't they just draft a new Proposition with different language and pass it all over again?

They can't for two years, which makes it less likely to pass. And it would probably get thrown out for similar reasons.

[Draconomicon]

That being said, politically, is it worth it? Will it swing votes from left to right?

Isn't that the wrong way of thinking though?
It should not be "what can we get out of this." It should be "lets do what's right."

[Charles RB]

She put a spotlight on a core issue: why does the individual sacrifice their own sense of right and wrong, in favor of a group, and support that group even though they believe the group's official decision on the matter to be wrong?

Probably the same herd instinct that makes people do the same with political parties, or any other group they're part of and where being In The Group is considered important to their identity or social situation. (You might STOP being In The Group otherwise!)

[Dark Galaxy]

Look, Calybos and Samurai, if you wanna degenerate the thread to atheist vs. religious, why don't you boys take it somewhere else? The rest of us here are trying to have a grown up discussion about Prop 8.

And as to Dark Galaxy's daughter's comment, I think it hits a very valid point:

If in your heart you believe your religion is wrong on something, why do you agree to go along with it? For that matter, why do people agree to go along with any group they believe is wrong (religion or otherwise)?

She put a spotlight on a core issue: why does the individual sacrifice their own sense of right and wrong, in favor of a group, and support that group even though they believe the group's official decision on the matter to be wrong?

THAT's the key issue---it wasn't the opening pass for a knockdown drag-out on whether religious faith is fact or fairy tale. Either get over it and pay attention, or take your squabbles to a different thread.


Thanks Solaris. That's what I was trying to get at. I wasn't trying start any sort of debate, or derail the thread onto a religion rant. I was just sharing something I thought was very honest.

You know...from the mouths of babes, and all that.

[Flamebird]

Isn't that the wrong way of thinking though?
It should not be "what can we get out of this." It should be "lets do what's right."

That would be nice, but it's pretty rare that politics and "what's right" even have a nodding acquaintance with each other.
Politics are about one group "winning" over another.

[Solaris]

Isn't that the wrong way of thinking though?
It should not be "what can we get out of this." It should be "lets do what's right."

Sadly, that's often the professional politician's and politico's viewpoint, though.

It's like, for most, it's become all about who wins, not about the issues and doing the right thing as best you can.

[Solaris]

Thanks Solaris. That's what I was trying to get at. I wasn't trying start any sort of debate, or derail the thread onto a religion rant. I was just sharing something I thought was very honest.

You know...from the mouths of babes, and all that.

Exactly.

And we all do it, at times---modify our behavior to appease the group, out of (as Charles pointed out) fear that we'll lose group acceptance.

But I have to wonder... if more people would stand up to the group and say, "I think this is wrong, and I won't be a part of it," would the original groups over time change and improve? Or would those people have to leave and form new groups of like-minded people?

In a way, I think both are happening now... but not as much as we need, to see the kind of changes our society needs to grow, and to grow up.

[Stressfactor]

Sadly, that's often the professional politician's and politico's viewpoint, though.

It's like, for most, it's become all about who wins, not about the issues and doing the right thing as best you can.Ah, Utilitarianism.. the lovely slippery slope.

I would think (and I could be wrong) that a lot of politicians think this way:

Politican: Hey, I really think I could do a lot of good for a lot of people. I really think I could turn this [city, state, country] around BUT in order to do that I have to get elected and in order to get elected I've got to ignore or screw over a certain segment of the population.

In the end it becomes a question of which is stronger -- sticking to one's guns and doing what one believes is right and risking not getting elected or re-elected by those who hate the stand you took and then not being able to do the stuff you believe will help the vast majority of the population OR swallowing your values and ignoring/screwing over people in order to be able to do something for the wider population.

I understand the frustration in the homosexual community, I understand the feelings of betrayal, of being thrown under the bus BUT, I'm also a realist. If Obama had come out TOTALLY pro-gay marriage he would have lost a LOT of moderate voters -- maybe even enough to make him lose the election. To HIS way of thinking people as a whole would be better off with him in the White House than his opponent and so it meant swallowing some principles in order to win. And he wants to win again. Make no bones about it that man or at least those close to him are already thinking four years down the road.

It's a horrible way to win, no question about it but the fact of the matter is that there are still too many frightened rabbits in the hutch. There are still too many people who are open minded to a point but that point stops with: Homosexuality.

The problem is that the rabbits are hard to convince. They're skittish and scared and they flee at a moment's notice. One has to try to get the rabbits to sit still and tame them down first.

[Solaris]

Ah, Utilitarianism.. the lovely slippery slope.

I would think (and I could be wrong) that a lot of politicians think this way:

Politican: Hey, I really think I could do a lot of good for a lot of people. I really think I could turn this [city, state, country] around BUT in order to do that I have to get elected and in order to get elected I've got to ignore or screw over a certain segment of the population.

In the end it becomes a question of which is stronger -- sticking to one's guns and doing what one believes is right and risking not getting elected or re-elected by those who hate the stand you took and then not being able to do the stuff you believe will help the vast majority of the population OR swallowing your values and ignoring/screwing over people in order to be able to do something for the wider population.

I understand the frustration in the homosexual community, I understand the feelings of betrayal, of being thrown under the bus BUT, I'm also a realist. If Obama had come out TOTALLY pro-gay marriage he would have lost a LOT of moderate voters -- maybe even enough to make him lose the election. To HIS way of thinking people as a whole would be better off with him in the White House than his opponent and so it meant swallowing some principles in order to win. And he wants to win again. Make no bones about it that man or at least those close to him are already thinking four years down the road.

It's a horrible way to win, no question about it but the fact of the matter is that there are still too many frightened rabbits in the hutch. There are still too many people who are open minded to a point but that point stops with: Homosexuality.

The problem is that the rabbits are hard to convince. They're skittish and scared and they flee at a moment's notice. One has to try to get the rabbits to sit still and tame them down first.

It's true that, to get into office and make the changes, often even the most high-minded of politicians have to "suck it up" and go silent, or even be nominally against, something that they privately support. Whether or not that's the case with Obama on gay marriage, I don't know.

But when I stop and think about where we'd be right now, and where we'd be headed, if McCain had won... I shudder uncontrollably.

You're right that a lot of "moderates" would've made that the sticking point and *not* voted for him, and it might well have cost him the election. I hate it, but there it is. The American People have yet to step up to the plate en masse, to do the right thing, where gay rights are concerned. I think more and more are coming to common sense about it---just look at how hard the hate-mongers are spewing lies and fears and disinformation: they're SCARED. They KNOW we're close to the turning point, and they're giving it everything they've got to try to keep us in the dark ages.

But many of them are also aging out and dying... and the young upcoming generation has a LOT more people who are comfortable with and unafraid of gays. This worm WILL turn... the question is "How fast?"

Getting back to the politics of dealing with big blocks of voters who are scared of gays and "gayness", my sincerest hope is that, after Obama's gotten past the next election and won (yep, I fully expect the win), he's going to pull the gay rabbit out of his hat and say, "This isn't right, and it's the right time to address it---we need to fix this, NOW."

And, by that point, if he still doesn't do it, I will be very very disappointed in him.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

The American People have yet to step up to the plate en masse, to do the right thing, where gay rights are concerned.

Civil rights protections have never been given in this country at all by the People stepping up to the plate en masse. Never. That's why we need courts and politicians to be brave enough to do the right thing. And that's why those who DO step up to the plate are remembered with greatness, and those who fail to do so are remembered with mediocrity.

[Corrina]

It may be make-believe to you, but to the religious, their faith is not make-believe. It is their values, morals, and beliefs, and they see it as perfectly natural to pass on values, morals, and beliefs to their children without telling them in the next breath that it's all BS and they should just do whatever they want. Wouldn't you pass on your values, morals, and beliefs to your child, at least a foundation of them?

Not if they were hateful and classed a whole group of people as 'the other' and less worthy of human rights.

[Matt Algren]

Civil rights protections have never been given in this country at all by the People stepping up to the plate en masse. Never. That's why we need courts and politicians to be brave enough to do the right thing. And that's why those who DO step up to the plate are remembered with greatness, and those who fail to do so are remembered with mediocrity.
...which is why the opposition bangs the voter drum so loudly. They know the score. They know that when it happens it'll be through a court. All this stuff about Prop 8 is laying groundwork for the uprising they're hoping for when the Supreme Court finally gets the case and says, "Uh, you can't do that, guys. Duh."

[Charles RB]

I would think (and I could be wrong) that a lot of politicians think this way:

Politican: Hey, I really think I could do a lot of good for a lot of people. I really think I could turn this [city, state, country] around BUT in order to do that I have to get elected and in order to get elected I've got to ignore or screw over a certain segment of the population.

That would be it.

The depressing fact is, so it seems from the outside, that a large number of politicians are far too compromised once they're in - or compromise further to get even more power - to the point they don't or can't do the good they set out to do (possibly because they're now locked into doing it the way the party wants rather than what will work best).

With Obama, I can see the logic beyond his stance on gay marriage changing and being crappy during the election. If he continues that position now he's in the position to do some good, that will be a problem. Sadly, that seems to be where he's going atm.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

That would be it.

The depressing fact is, so it seems from the outside, that a large number of politicians are far too compromised once they're in - or compromise further to get even more power - to the point they don't or can't do the good they set out to do (possibly because they're now locked into doing it the way the party wants rather than what will work best).

With Obama, I can see the logic beyond his stance on gay marriage changing and being crappy during the election. If he continues that position now he's in the position to do some good, that will be a problem. Sadly, that seems to be where he's going atm.

Exactly. This is where the true test of his character will take place. He can rise to history's challenge, and may yet. So far, it looks dim. Courage isn't about shying away from a challenge. Courage isn't in waiting until your second term is secure. That's pure self serving cowardace. Courage is doing the right thing and being brave enough to contend with the consequences.

Politicians sure are a superstitious and cowardly lot.

[Stressfactor]

You know what? Better than OBAMA doing this would be CONGRESS doing this.

If Congress pushed this ON THEIR OWN then Obama could sign it free and clear. As it is, though, he'd not only have to sell it to the American people, he'd have to sell it to Congress.

Either that or, as has been pointed out, it will have to go through the Supreme Court and right now the court leans a bit too far to the Right, I think, for something like gay marriage to pass. We need at least one other conservative judge to retire during Obama's tenure so he can appoint a replacement to balance the court.

[Stressfactor]

Also, as Han Solo once pointed out, there is a line between courage and suicide.

Obama could make the "courageous decision" and he could be "well remembered by history" but if he did and it got STRANGLED in congress and then four years from now we end up with a Sarah Palin Republican in office well... Yes, Obama would have made a courageous decision and it would have gained the homosexual community NOTHING.

Sometimes cowards and sneaks win wars. They don't win pretty and they don't win clean but they win and in the end.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

So what we need is someone who won't fight the hard battles?

Bullshit. You're giving him a pass.

Guess it's just not a big deal when it's not your dream being deferred, huh?

[Stressfactor]

So what we need is someone who won't fight the hard battles?

Bullshit. You're giving him a pass.

Guess it's just not a big deal when it's not your dream being deferred, huh?What I'm saying is that a sneak attack can be more effective and cause less damage than a straight ahead, full on charge. Charges tend to end up with most of the chargees dead whereas being sneaky ends up with the camel getting the tent and the guy out in the cold.

Even MLK made compromises to get where he wanted to go... he just made sure no one knew about the compromises.

[section 8]

Isn't that the wrong way of thinking though?
It should not be "what can we get out of this." It should be "lets do what's right."


I prefer to think this way:
"Someone will profit from this, might as well be me."

[Briareos]

I love how people talk about this as though it was this universal right that's been taken away. The concept of same sex marriage is something that's really only been seriously considered for the past decade. And El Monterey has been bringing us quality mexican food for over 4 decades now!

[beetlebum]

Oh, yes.... can we please, please, PLEASE not turn this thread into that thread?!??

I just can't let swipes like that go unanswered.

But yes, let's focus on the more important, and emergent issue at hand: the repealing of the proposition.

[Matt Algren]

I love how people talk about this as though it was this universal right that's been taken away.
According to the Constitution of California, marriage is a civil right afforded to all who wish it, including those who would choose a spouse of the same gender.

[Briareos]

According to the Constitution of California, marriage is a civil right afforded to all who wish it, including those who would choose a spouse of the same gender.


Uh where does it say that. That was a made up right created by a few judges. No where in the state constitution is same sex marriage declaired a right. But everyone has a right to great tasting affordable mexican food which you can get in your local freezer isle from El Monterey!

[Kalen O.]

I love how people talk about this as though it was this universal right that's been taken away. The concept of same sex marriage is something that's really only been seriously considered for the past decade. And El Monterey has been bringing us quality mexican food for over 4 decades now!

See, the thing you're missing is that when some of us (those ACTUALLY affected by it, as opposed to those who just feel their opinion needs to have an actual affect on someone else's life) talk about this as though its this universal right that's been taken away...we're not talking about same sex marriage. We're just talking about MARRIAGE. The supposed inalienable universal right everyone's entitled to. The same sex part is just a descriptor, much like Buddhist marriage, Muslim marriage, Jewish marriage, and interracial marriage are all just descriptors as well, only they're socially acceptable desciptors never mind that the marriage of two Hindu's or two Muslims married in America looks nothing like how your average Christian couple view marriage either.

And what part of the 'same sex marriage WAS granted by the courts whether you agree with it or not and then, yes, TAKEN away' situation are you incapable of grasping? It doesn't matter that same sex couples didn't even get the right to get married for a whole year, or that its a relatively new concept or that you don't agree with it. None of that changes the fact that it was still TAKEN AWAY. Stop pretending like that didn't happen just because you prefer not to discuss that part.

But really? Just go away Bri. We all know where you stand, GOD do we know where you stand, and we all know that you're never going to change your stance or that you are even remotely interested in trying. So for fuck's sake will you just go away and leave us alone?

[Matt Algren]

Uh where does it say that. That was a made up right created by a few judges. No where in the state constitution is same sex marriage declaired a right.
According to the Supreme Court, whose job description is "interpret the state Constitution", yes it is. Dismissing them as "a few judges" doesn't change that.

[Briareos]

See, the thing you're missing is that when some of us (those ACTUALLY affected by it, as opposed to those who just feel their opinion needs to have an actual affect on someone else's life) talk about this as though its this universal right that's been taken away...we're not talking about same sex marriage. We're just talking about MARRIAGE. The supposed inalienable universal right everyone's entitled to. The same sex part is just a descriptor, much like Buddhist marriage, Muslim marriage, Jewish marriage, and interracial marriage are all just descriptors as well, only they're socially acceptable desciptors never mind that the marriage of two Hindu's or two Muslims married in America looks nothing like how your average Christian couple view marriage either.

And what part of the 'same sex marriage WAS granted by the courts whether you agree with it or not and then, yes, TAKEN away' situation are you incapable of grasping? It doesn't matter that same sex couples didn't even get the right to get married for a whole year, or that its a relatively new concept or that you don't agree with it. None of that changes the fact that it was still TAKEN AWAY. Stop pretending like that didn't happen just because you prefer not to discuss that part.

But really? Just go away Bri. We all know where you stand, GOD do we know where you stand, and we all know that you're never going to change your stance or that you are even remotely interested in trying. So for fuck's sake will you just go away and leave us alone?

I won't agree that the legal definition of marriage was changed then changed back. I don't think marriage is a right anyways. Marriage is a concept that concept said "a man and a woman forming a family unit through a commitment". That is what is trying to be changed.

This isn't really about marriage anyways. This is about a step so the homosexual lobby can use the law to force people to accept their lifestyle or at least don't speak out against it. Already we've seen in Canada and Arizona the Homosexual lobby try to use the law to silence religious critics of the lifestyle or even people who didn't want to participate in the furthering of that lifestyle as it went against their beliefs.

That's wrong people should never be forced to further the lifestyle choice of others. People should have the right to live their lifestyle. They should also respect other people's rights to not want to promote it. But you won't have to force me to promote El Monterey mexican foods!

[That JonoGuy]

That's wrong people should never be forced to further the lifestyle choice of others.

It's a good thing then that being gay isn't a lifestyle choice.

[Kyuubi]

I won't agree that the legal definition of marriage was changed then changed back. I don't think marriage is a right anyways. Marriage is a concept that concept said "a man and a woman forming a family unit through a commitment". That is what is trying to be changed.

This isn't really about marriage anyways. This is about a step so the homosexual lobby can use the law to force people to accept their lifestyle or at least don't speak out against it. Already we've seen in Canada and Arizona the Homosexual lobby try to use the law to silence religious critics of the lifestyle or even people who didn't want to participate in the furthering of that lifestyle as it went against their beliefs.

That's wrong people should never be forced to further the lifestyle choice of others. People should have the right to live their lifestyle. They should also respect other people's rights to not want to promote it. But you won't have to force me to promote El Monterey mexican foods!



You are a terrible excuse for a human being.

[Cam63]

I won't agree that the legal definition of marriage was changed then changed back. I don't think marriage is a right anyways. Marriage is a concept that concept said "a man and a woman forming a family unit through a commitment". That is what is trying to be changed.

This isn't really about marriage anyways. This is about a step so the homosexual lobby can use the law to force people to accept their lifestyle or at least don't speak out against it. Already we've seen in Canada and Arizona the Homosexual lobby try to use the law to silence religious critics of the lifestyle or even people who didn't want to participate in the furthering of that lifestyle as it went against their beliefs.

That's wrong people should never be forced to further the lifestyle choice of others. People should have the right to live their lifestyle. They should also respect other people's rights to not want to promote it. But you won't have to force me to promote El Monterey mexican foods!

You really are a twit.

[beetlebum]

You are a terrible excuse for a human being.

.............With a severely limited intellect.

[Cam63]

...and his mouth smells like feet.

[Flâneur]

See, the thing you're missing is that when some of us (those ACTUALLY affected by it, as opposed to those who just feel their opinion needs to have an actual affect on someone else's life) talk about this as though its this universal right that's been taken away...we're not talking about same sex marriage. We're just talking about MARRIAGE. The supposed inalienable universal right everyone's entitled to. The same sex part is just a descriptor, much like Buddhist marriage, Muslim marriage, Jewish marriage, and interracial marriage are all just descriptors as well, only they're socially acceptable desciptors never mind that the marriage of two Hindu's or two Muslims married in America looks nothing like how your average Christian couple view marriage either.

And what part of the 'same sex marriage WAS granted by the courts whether you agree with it or not and then, yes, TAKEN away' situation are you incapable of grasping? It doesn't matter that same sex couples didn't even get the right to get married for a whole year, or that its a relatively new concept or that you don't agree with it. None of that changes the fact that it was still TAKEN AWAY. Stop pretending like that didn't happen just because you prefer not to discuss that part.

But really? Just go away Bri. We all know where you stand, GOD do we know where you stand, and we all know that you're never going to change your stance or that you are even remotely interested in trying. So for fuck's sake will you just go away and leave us alone?
Amen. <3 Kalen posts.
I won't agree that the legal definition of marriage was changed then changed back. I don't think marriage is a right anyways. Marriage is a concept that concept said "a man and a woman forming a family unit through a commitment". That is what is trying to be changed.
It's a right in the constitution, in pretty much every constitution, everywhere.

This isn't really about marriage anyways. This is about a step so the homosexual lobby can use the law to force people to accept their lifestyle or at least don't speak out against it. Already we've seen in Canada and Arizona the Homosexual lobby try to use the law to silence religious critics of the lifestyle or even people who didn't want to participate in the furthering of that lifestyle as it went against their beliefs.

That's wrong people should never be forced to further the lifestyle choice of others. People should have the right to live their lifestyle. They should also respect other people's rights to not want to promote it. But you won't have to force me to promote El Monterey mexican foods!

LOL

Oh dear. 'Furthering the lifestyle'? What is this furthering of the lifestyle? How is it done? What would you be required to do to further the 'homosexual lifestyle'?

[Kalen O.]

I won't agree that the legal definition of marriage was changed then changed back. I don't think marriage is a right anyways. Marriage is a concept that concept said "a man and a woman forming a family unit through a commitment". That is what is trying to be changed.

This isn't really about marriage anyways. This is about a step so the homosexual lobby can use the law to force people to accept their lifestyle or at least don't speak out against it. Already we've seen in Canada and Arizona the Homosexual lobby try to use the law to silence religious critics of the lifestyle or even people who didn't want to participate in the furthering of that lifestyle as it went against their beliefs.

That's wrong people should never be forced to further the lifestyle choice of others. People should have the right to live their lifestyle. They should also respect other people's rights to not want to promote it. But you won't have to force me to promote El Monterey mexican foods!

Wow.

Just.....wow.

[Briareos]

Amen. <3 Kalen posts.

It's a right in the constitution, in pretty much every constitution, everywhere.



LOL

Oh dear. 'Furthering the lifestyle'? What is this furthering of the lifestyle? How is it done? What would you be required to do to further the 'homosexual lifestyle'?

A wedding photographer in Arizona was recently fined for declining to accept a job at a gay commitment ceremony.

[BnL]

I don't think

Ain't that the truth.

[Briareos]

You are a terrible excuse for a human being.

Why for saying people shouldn't be forced to go against their beliefs. I realize there are some things where you might have to have a certain ethical system for your work (doctors ect) but I'm a Christian are you saying I don't have the right to believe that homosexuality is a sin?

[BnL]

A wedding photographer in Arizona was recently fined for declining to accept a job at a gay commitment ceremony.

Got a link?

[BnL]

Why for saying people shouldn't be forced to go against their beliefs. I realize there are some things where you might have to have a certain ethical system for your work (doctors ect) but I'm a Christian are you saying I don't have the right to believe that homosexuality is a sin?

Gay marriage is MANDATORY! Get with the program! We homosexuals will CRUSH your puny religion under our stilettoed FEET!

[Briareos]

Got a link?

yup:

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=75547

[Briareos]

Gay marriage is MANDATORY! Get with the program! We homosexuals will CRUSH your puny religion under our stilettoed FEET!

NEVER!! I will defend us with my secret Baptist superpowers! *stares at you intently and tries to get you to burst into flame!!!!*

[Kyuubi]

Why for saying people shouldn't be forced to go against their beliefs. I realize there are some things where you might have to have a certain ethical system for your work (doctors ect) but I'm a Christian are you saying I don't have the right to believe that homosexuality is a sin?



I believe your religion should not be used as an excuse to deny the rights of law-abiding citizens of this country.


Believe whatever the fuck you want, just don't try to force it on the legal system.

[Briareos]

I believe your religion should not be used as an excuse to deny the rights of law-abiding citizens of this country.


Believe whatever the fuck you want, just don't try to force it on the legal system.

*shrug* I don't believe that gay marriage is a right.

[Matt Algren]

I won't agree that the legal definition of marriage was changed then changed back.Then you're wrong. It is a fact. I don't think marriage is a right anyways.The California Constitution disagrees with you. For purposes of the state of California, your opinion is irrelevant. Marriage is a concept that concept said "a man and a woman forming a family unit through a commitment".The definition of marriage is not now nor has it been static. Fifty years ago, the concept was "a man and a woman of the same race". Before that it was "a man and a woman of the same race, at the man's discretion", "a man and a woman of the same race, at the slave owner's discretion", and "a man and a woman of the same race, at the man's and the woman's father's discretion".

That is what is trying to be changed.Not changed, recognized.

This isn't really about marriage anyways. This is about a step so the homosexual lobby can use the law to force people to accept their lifestyle or at least don't speak out against it. Already we've seen in Canada and Arizona the Homosexual lobby try to use the law to silence religious critics of the lifestyle or even people who didn't want to participate in the furthering of that lifestyle as it went against their beliefs.Link me to a story within the United States. While you're at it, define "homosexual lifestyle". Show your work.
That's wrong people should never be forced to further the lifestyle choice of others. People should have the right to live their lifestyle. They should also respect other people's rights to not want to promote it.I agree. The problem is that according to you, if that "lifestyle" includes loving and marrying someone of the same gender who feels likewise those rules apparently go out the window.

Which is the textbook definition of hypocritical.

[Chris Hansbrough]

*shrug* I don't believe that gay marriage is a right.

then marriage isn't a right either.

[BnL]

I don't believe that free speech is a right. And since that's my belief, it can't be challenged, which means that I'm right.

That settles THAT!

*saunters away, smugly*