quote:

---

California has Proposition 8 on the November ballot that needs to be defeated. If it passes it will add a constitutional amendment in California that will define marriage as only between a man and a woman. Earlier this year California’s Supreme Court struck down a ballot initiative, and made same-sex marriage legal. Now that civil right is under attack, with dire consequences to follow if Prop 8 was to pass.

Up to this point Barack Obama has remained very quiet about Prop 8. He has sent a letter to a gay rights organization opposing passage. But that was back in June, and since then the Democratic nominee has been silent on the matter. Sure, it is politically smart to run from the topic of gay marriage, as it is from handgun control. Neither would be easy sells in some parts of the nation.

But I would hope in this ‘change’ era of politics we might want our future leader to take bold stands and lead on what is morally right. We might want a future President to take an ethical stand on behalf of what the base of the Democratic Party knows is correct, that being the right of gay couples to marry and have the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples. We might want a bold and decisive leader to say that discrimination in all forms is wrong and unacceptable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Max Bialystock:
California is a very safe state for the Democrats. Obama could have come out strongly against passing this bigoted bill, but he was silent on the issue. Shame on him!

http://tinyurl.com/5ukrvz

---

I abso-fucking-ultely agree. Esp considering Obama's faith tour and having homopobic guest speaker/performer in black churches!

[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: babblerwannabe ]

I, like many, have a wait and see attitude about this kind of stuff....remember when running for pres, he had to cater to the u.s "center"....again I'm not saying he's everything progressive, but still.....food for thought.

[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Mojoroad1 ]

quote:

---

A riot is the language of the unheard. MLKjr

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mojoroad1:
Ignorant question: In the U.S, could the appointment of liberal court judges by Obama, following that might it not lead then to a supreme court challenge? or for that matter, even if he said he opposes it, would he really veto a Dem sponsored bill? Or is it strictly a State by State matter?

I, like many, have a wait and see attitude about this kind of stuff....remember when running for pres, he had to cater to the u.s "center"....again I'm not saying he's everything progressive, but still.....food for thought.

[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Mojoroad1 ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Max Bialystock:
California is a very safe state for the Democrats. Obama could have come out strongly against passing this bigoted bill, but he was silent on the issue. Shame on him!
http://tinyurl.com/5ukrvz

---

I know that people get impatient with incrementalism but, prior to the California Supreme Court’s ruling, the progress of GLTB rights in California was already far ahead of where those rights were just 10 or 15 years ago (and certainly relative to, say, 25 or more years ago), with growing and wide-spread acceptance of civil unions (something that would have been absolutely unthinkable not too long ago). I am convinced that the natural progression of that process would have resulted in legislative action in California to establish the legality of SSM in California. Yes, it would have been a battle but I think it would have ultimately been won—and the legitimacy of that victory could not have been reasonably challenged, unlike a judicial fiat.

Instead, the California Supreme Court swooped in and issued, before that evolutionary process was complete, a judicial fiat that declared that California must recognize SSM. Many people react negatively to courts making public policy. And, the result was this lurching, cumbersome counter-move that was just passed yesterday.

I'm curious about how the state bans on gay marriage work given the mobility of the population and the fact that the federal constitution has the "full faith and credit clause". Which basically says that states ahve to recognize marriages from other states. So, for example, my wife and I were married in the state of Virginia. If we were to move to, say, California, then the state of California would have to recognize us as legally married even though we weren't married in that state.

How will it now work given that some states ahve SSM and others don't? So if a gay married couple moves from Vermont to California do they suddenly stop being married when they enter the state?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mojoroad1:
Ignorant question: In the U.S, could the appointment of liberal court judges by Obama, following that might it not lead then to a supreme court challenge? or for that matter, even if he said he opposes it, would he really veto a Dem sponsored bill? Or is it strictly a State by State matter?

---

Those are good questions.

The state constitution could be challenged on the grounds that it violates the U.S. Constitution (and that is something that would ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court).

But, again, assuming the U.S. Supreme Court did overturn the California constitutional provision and did so "before it's time", such a court action could result in another voter backlash to amend the U.S. Constitution to enshrine "marriage" as being between one man and one woman.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
Unfortunately, the California Supreme Court got ahead of the people. The result? A backlash that neither the California Supreme Court nor the California legislature can now reverse. It’s now state constitutional law.

I know that people get impatient with incrementalism but, prior to the California Supreme Court’s ruling, the progress of GLTB rights in California was already far ahead of where those rights were just 10 or 15 years ago (and certainly relative to, say, 25 or more years ago), with growing and wide-spread acceptance of civil unions (something that would have been absolutely unthinkable not too long ago). I am convinced that the natural progression of that process would have resulted in legislative action in California to establish the legality of SSM in California. Yes, it would have been a battle but I think it would have ultimately been won—and the legitimacy of that victory could not have been reasonably challenged, unlike a judicial fiat.

Instead, the California Supreme Court swooped in and issued, before that evolutionary process was complete, a judicial fiat that declared that California must recognize SSM. Many people react negatively to courts making public policy. And, the result was this lurching, cumbersome counter-move that was just passed yesterday.

I am confident that SSM will ultimately have legal recognition in California (and other states). But, the court’s premature meddling has probably pushed that date back by many years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bagkitty:

There already was legislative action, Schwarzenegger vetoed it (and promised to do so repeatedly) until the courts spoke on it.

---

Is Schwarzenegger going to forever be California’s permanent governor? No. And I didn’t say the legislative process would be successful immediately, did I? Please note my use of the word “incrementalism”.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bagkitty:
Please note, unlike here in Canada or in Massachusetts, the legislation that had been passed was NOT in response to a court decision. You have the chronology wrong.

---

I don’t have any chronology wrong. I said that the legislative process (the ongoing debate—which I think would have ultimately resulted in a legislative recognition of SSM) was prematurely interrupted by the court’s action. As a result, the courts and the legislature have now both been removed from the process.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Star Spangled Canadian:
I do have a question, though, for anyone who may know the answer. I've lived in the states long enough that I should probably know this but if anyone is better versed in constitutional law than I am, I'd love to hear from you.

I'm curious about how the state bans on gay marriage work given the mobility of the population and the fact that the federal constitution has the "full faith and credit clause". Which basically says that states ahve to recognize marriages from other states. So, for example, my wife and I were married in the state of Virginia. If we were to move to, say, California, then the state of California would have to recognize us as legally married even though we weren't married in that state.

How will it now work given that some states ahve SSM and others don't? So if a gay married couple moves from Vermont to California do they suddenly stop being married when they enter the state?

And how does it work given that gay couples in California have ALREADY gotten married? Like, does your marriage now expire on a certain day or soemthing?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
I said that the legislative process (the ongoing debate—which I think would have ultimately resulted in a legislative recognition of SSM) was prematurely interrupted by the court’s action.

---

As if the members of the California Supreme Court got together one day and said "I know. Let's stick our noses into gay marriage!". I can hear the phrase "activist judges" being chanted in the background.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pogge:

As if the members of the California Supreme Court got together one day and said "I know. Let's stick our noses into gay marriage!". I can hear the phrase "activist judges" being chanted in the background.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

I don’t have any chronology wrong. I said that the legislative process (the ongoing debate—which I think would have ultimately resulted in a legislative recognition of SSM) was prematurely interrupted by the court’s action. As a result, the courts and the legislature have now both been removed from the process.

I am simply postulating that legislative process would likely have resulted in the legal recognition of SSM (say at Date X). But, now that the legislature and the courts have been removed from the process, there is now only one state avenue open to the recognition of SSM: Another vote of the people (and I believe that date will be Date X + many more years).

---

You are playing fast and sloppy with the definition of legislative process and do have the chronology wrong.

Legislative process is not the debate as a whole, it (in the case of California) refers to the actions of the State Assembly, the Governor and citizen initiated referenda -- all of which are subject to court intervention.

The chronology is:

A) the passing of Proposition 22 in 2000 (a particular piece of legislation defining marriage as being between "one man and one woman" as opposed to an amendment to the constitution),

B) this was superseded by the legislation drafted and passed by the State Assembly,

C) this legislation was vetoed by the State Governor who explained his actions (through his press secretary),

quote:

---

“The governor believes the matter should be determined not by legislative action – which would be unconstitutional – but by court decision or another vote of the people of our state,” the statement said. “We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote.”

---

D) the independent court action by three parties challenging the law established by Proposition 22 as being in violation of the State constitution's equal protection clauses (a successful court action),

E) the interpretation by the State (and acquiescence by the Governor's office) that the court ruling validated the Assembly's actions,

F) Same sex marriage equality

G) Proposition 8 being put to the ballot and (at this point in time at least) appearing to have passed*, and the latest development

H) notice given of three separate court challenges to the validity of any vote on Proposition 8.

As to your assertion that the only route to state recognition of SSM is another referendum:
the basis of at least one of the court challenges that notice has been given for is that the process that saw the question on the ballot in the first place was not constitutional (California State Constitution). The merits of this challenge have yet to be determined, and there is the very real chance that it is the courts, not the voters, that will have the last say on this matter.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
But, the court then took the additional and critical step of concluding that the state constitution mandated the legal recognition of SSM.

---

It is (as it stands) a very narrow victory for the bigots - 52% - 48%, less than 1/2 a million vote margin with, apparently, 2 million mail-in / advance / provisional ballots yet to be counted.

And this narrow voctory, if it stands, on the back of a vast sum of out of state money that was filled with blatant falsehoods. (ie, that churches would be forced to solemnize gay marriages)

But, I’m talking about the deliberative process generally and the ongoing public discussion of an issue, particularly in the legislature, independent of a particular piece (or pieces) of proposed legislation that you seem to be fixated on.

I’m talking about the democratic process of a legislature over a longer period of time, perhaps several years, in wrestling with an issue. And over the course of that time, many different bills may be passed, vetoed, revised, reintroduced, etc., in a variety of forms. But, it’s the overall process I’m talking about.

So, this particular bill was vetoed. It was challenged in court. If the court had refrained from reading in constitutional rights not explicit in the text, then the legislative process would have continued, perhaps with a different bill entirely, and with a new governor, and perhaps two or three years later. It is that general deliberative process that was interrupted by the court.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pogge:
Making that kind of ruling is their job.

---

I have a philosophical disagreement with you there. I want legislatures creating rights, not courts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
I want legislatures creating rights, not courts.

---

The Supreme Court of California was doing its job. If you want to find someone to blame for Prop 8, consider the Mormon church which poured 20 million dollars into the state of California in an effort take rights away from people.

ETA:

In fact in the American system of government the judiciary is explicitly regarded as an equal branch of government authorized to override the legislature when legislation violates the constitution.

[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: pogge ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Star Spangled Canadian:
I do have a question, though, for anyone who may know the answer. I've lived in the states long enough that I should probably know this but if anyone is better versed in constitutional law than I am, I'd love to hear from you.

I'm curious about how the state bans on gay marriage work given the mobility of the population and the fact that the federal constitution has the "full faith and credit clause". Which basically says that states ahve to recognize marriages from other states. So, for example, my wife and I were married in the state of Virginia. If we were to move to, say, California, then the state of California would have to recognize us as legally married even though we weren't married in that state.

How will it now work given that some states ahve SSM and others don't? So if a gay married couple moves from Vermont to California do they suddenly stop being married when they enter the state?

And how does it work given that gay couples in California have ALREADY gotten married? Like, does your marriage now expire on a certain day or soemthing?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
He has not been totally silent - he stated during the debates that he opposed gay marriage. Joe Biden also stated that he opposed gay marriage.

---

The CSC created no new rights, rather it decided that legislation infringed on existing rights - the right to enter into a (particular type) of contract. The "remedy" was to instruct the state to stop infringing on this right, and to do so immediately. They were not activist, they did not order the equivalent of busing, they did not award compensation... they simply forced the state to stop acting in a discriminatory fashion.

Strategically and tactically, I think the ACLU and Lambda Legal made the correct decision in launching the case. Minority rights are not something that should be determined by plebiscite, they should not be treated so cavalierly. Courts are very much the correct venue to address constitutional concerns. While I do not accept their claims to be impartial arbitrators, they come closer to being such than the electorate -- they are the best tool currently available, and provide some protection against the excesses of majoritarian rule.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bagkitty:
The California Supreme Court (CSC) did not create any rights, what it did was recognize that existing state law (the child of Proposition 22) contradicted the core commitment to equality for all under that state's most basic law (i.e., the California State Constitution). Indeed, in making their decision, they acted on one of their core responsibilities... protecting the equality rights of minorities within their jurisdiction. All they did was recognize that there was a contradiction between the legislation on the books and their constitution and resolved it in the only way really open to them... a constitution trumps any particular piece of legislation. Had the issue they were deciding upon been anything other than marriage, any accusation of of judicial activism would have been laughed out of the room.

The CSC created no new rights, rather it decided that legislation infringed on existing rights - the right to enter into a (particular type) of contract. The "remedy" was to instruct the state to stop infringing on this right, and to do so immediately. They were not activist, they did not order the equivalent of busing, they did not award compensation... they simply forced the state to stop acting in a discriminatory fashion.

Strategically and tactically, I think the ACLU and Lambda Legal made the correct decision in launching the case. Minority rights are not something that should be determined by plebiscite, they should not be treated so cavalierly. Courts are very much the correct venue to address constitutional concerns. While I do not accept their claims to be impartial arbitrators, they come closer to being such than the electorate -- they are the best tool currently available, and provide some protection against the excesses of majoritarian rule.

I am fully endorse the idea that the long term goal of acceptance is something that has to take place in the broader political sphere -- that great debate we have with other bipedal mammals. In the meantime, the legislatures and courts are the correct shields to use to blunt the worst excesses that go along with non-acceptance. And when the major obstacle to acceptance is a god-ridden electorate, then it is the courts that are the best shields.

---

Riiiight.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bagkitty:
Minority rights are not something that should be determined by plebiscite

---

Please tell me, in a democracy, where rights come from?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
the fundamental document of a democracy (a constitution) is subject to change at the will of the majority.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Please tell me, in a democracy, where rights come from?

---

Well, since I don't believe that rights are platonic in nature, it is pretty hard to ascribe a geographical or topographical point of origin. While I will admit a certain sympathy that there are natural rights whose existence can be determined by reason, the main proponent of that would be Aquinas, and he tends to drag the whole god thing into the discussion. Personally, I prefer to think of them as abstract constructs that underscore any (and the caps are intentional) Social Contract -- their purpose being to defuse conflicts over competing claims within a society (and Rousseau is much more convincing than Hobbes on this score). Their point of origin (in a democracy or other system for that matter) is the establishment of any Social Contract.

They are fascinating things, rights... they come in many forms, human, individual, civic, collective and group (and I am sure I am missing out on some) and all govern societal relations. Unfortunately, they are sometimes mistaken for entitlements, which I would suggest only arise in post-scarcity situations... but I digress.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Ultimately, every right is subject to majority decision, at least in a democracy, because the fundamental document of a democracy (a constitution) is subject to change at the will of the majority.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

I don’t have any chronology wrong. I said that the legislative process (the ongoing debate—which I think would have ultimately resulted in a legislative recognition of SSM) was prematurely interrupted by the court’s action. As a result, the courts and the legislature have now both been removed from the process.

I am simply postulating that legislative process would likely have resulted in the legal recognition of SSM (say at Date X). But, now that the legislature and the courts have been removed from the process, there is now only one state avenue open to the recognition of SSM: Another vote of the people (and I believe that date will be Date X + many more years).

---

So you'd have been happy to see school segregation remain in place until Southern state legislatures agreed to get rid of it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
If Obama supported same-sex marriage in the United States, he would not have been elected president.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
And I am sure Obama knew support for marriage rights for all citizens would have cost him the election.

---

Obama doesn't support SSM, period.

quote:

---

Obama says that he personally believes that "marriage is between a man and a woman" but also says that "equality is a moral imperative" for gay and lesbian Americans. He advocates the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) because "federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does." He supports granting civil unions for gay couples, and in 2006 he opposed a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. In March 2007, Obama initially avoided answering questions about a controversial statement by a U.S. general that "homosexual acts" are "immoral," but Obama later told CNN's Larry King, "I don't think that homosexuals are immoral any more than I think heterosexuals are immoral."

---

Here's an article from the LATimes about the strategy used by the 8 pushers:

Backers focused Prop. 8 battle beyond marriage. Opponents of gay marriage shrewdly targeted the implications for schools, churches and children.

Its certainly unfortunate the homophobes appear to have won this one, the impact it will have on gay people, and that activists have to spend their time fighting this kind of crap.

But the reactionaries are going to lose this battle in the end.

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
Sven, you've outed yourself in this thread as a homophobe.

---

I support SSM, you moron (you use ad hominem and I will too).

I'm making an observation about process. Ends don't always justify the means...or, certain means are wiser to follow than others.

ETA: This is what drives me nuts about purist orthodoxy: Two people can support the exact same goal on an issue but have a difference on how to accomplish it...and yet one gets labeled a homophobe, or a racist, or a misogynist.

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
No actually that [Sven being revealed as a homophobe] was done the other day...

---

Two things, remind:

1. See my latest post above.

quote:

---

Originally posted by brookmere:

You're talking as though Obama didn't support SSM in California because it would have cost him votes.

Obama doesn't support SSM, period.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
Its certainly unfortunate...that activists have to spend their time fighting this kind of crap.

---

It’s “unfortunate” that people need to convince fellow citizens of the correctness of their ideas? Either there is a democratic battle of ideas or someone has to dictate rules. I prefer the former.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
But the reactionaries are going to lose this battle in the end.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Two things, remind:

1. See my latest post above.

2. Go fuck yourself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Unfortunately, I think you're right about that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kevin Laddle:
moderatrix!!

---

Look, I don't appreciate Ken Burch and remind labeling me a "homophobe" because disagree with the Rights-by-Litigation™ process for establishing the legality of SSM—despite the fact that I support SSM!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Star Spangled Canadian:
I think he'll put people on the Supreme Court who would be pro-SSM and we'll get it done that way. I really think it's just a matter of time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

I support SSM, you moron (you use ad hominem and I will too).

I'm making an observation about process. Ends don't always justify the means...or, certain means are wiser to follow than others.

ETA: This is what drives me nuts about purist orthodoxy: Two people can support the exact same goal on an issue but have a difference on how to accomplish it...and yet one gets labeled a homophobe, or a racist, or a misogynist.

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

---

It's a little hard to totally trust that you really support SSM if you think it's no big deal that it has to take years longer to achieve, just to satisfy some pointless absolute notion about rights only being granted by a legislature. There's no reason why it should be less legitimate to acknowedge rights through a court ruling than it is to force the process to endlessly go through a legislative chamber in which we can assume the forces of hate will always have the upper hand.

The kind of "let's sit back with a brandy snifter and discuss the rights of the oppressed with calm detatchment" tone your posts were taking
also invited suspicion.

Thanks to what you insisted on, tens of thousands of GLBT people in California, people who had pledged their lives to each other and made what they had every right to assume was an unbreakable legal commitment, have had their hearts broken. And you act like that's no big deal.
Why are you so concerned about the finer feelings of bigots?

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
My apologies Sven

---

Your gracious apology is accepted.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
And BTW where were you coming from when you posted that snippet?

---

I was at a Democrats aborad part election night, with a lesbian couple we know, one of whom is a US citizen. They went home and another American lesbian couple sort of took over. But then they live here now so maybe it was easy for them to shite it off.

excerpt:

Barack Obama sought out controversial gay bishop Gene Robinson not just once but three times during his campaign to become President of the United States, The Times can reveal.

excerpt:

“The first words out of his mouth were: ‘Well you’re certainly causing a lot of trouble’, My response to him was: ‘Well that makes two of us'.”

quote:

---

Look, I don't appreciate Ken Burch and remind labeling me a "homophobe" because disagree with the Rights-by-Litigation™ process for establishing the legality of SSM—despite the fact that I support SSM!!

---

quote:

---

Okay. So Prop 8 passed. Alright, I get it. 51% of you think that I am a second class citizen. Alright then. So my wife, uh I mean, roommate? Girlfriend? Special lady friend? You are gonna have to help me here because I am not sure what to call her now. Anyways, she and I are not allowed the same right under the state constitution as any other citizen. Okay, so I am taking that to mean I do not have to pay my state taxes because I am not a full citizen. I mean that would just be wrong, to make someone pay taxes and not give them the same rights, sounds sort of like that taxation without representation thing from the history books.

Okay, cool I don't mean to get too personal here but there is a lot I can do with the extra half a million dollars that I will be keeping instead of handing it over to the state of California. Oh, and I am sure Ellen will be a little excited to keep her bazillion bucks that she pays in taxes too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Star Spangled Canadian:
There was apparently a massive rally in LA yesterday outside a Mormon church. I happen to think that Proposition 8 is bullshit but there really was a ton of bigotry directed towards Mormons that made me very uncomofrtable and crossed a line.

---

Before getting all uncomfortable, consider taking the time to read this report from someone attending the rally, I think it is on the third page that a description is given of LDS members participating in the rally. As for crossing the line, given that the LDS hierarchy put themselves in the position of being the banker of the "Yes" campaign, I think using their LA Temple as the rallying point for the rally was entirely appropriate.

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: bagkitty ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Max Bialystock:
I don't get it. Obama getting elected is considered a victory for progressives, but he can't attempt to do anything like support SSM...seems to me the rightwing won if they're actually setting the agenda.

---

It's not that complex. Obama getting elected IS a victory for progressives, especially within the context of the United States. The passage of Proposition 8 is a kick in the teeth for progressives... and probably one that was going to happen regardless.

Obama avoided tackling the issue in any meaningfulway, but this only makes him complicit, not primarily responsible.

There was a vacuum in leadership against Prop 8 from the across the spectrum -- including the self-appointed spokespeople of the LGBT communities whose campaign was (in my eyes at least) an emotional appeal directed towards nice upper middle class white people and whose message could be summed up as "Look, lesbians who want to get married are just like your daughters". (And before someone jumps all over my characterization, look at YouTube's collection of No on 8 ads and count the number of wedding gowns -- and if you find any with males as the "happy couple" you will have found one I haven't seen .) The campaign that was run was an advertising campaign, not a political campaign, and the ads were obviously directed towards the wrong target market.

It was not until near the end of the campaign that any of the messages even began raising the point that there was something surreal about majorities voting on minority rights. I have yet to find any material from the No side that made any effort whatsoever to draw a distinction between a religious/sacramental definition of marriage and the civil definition of marriage.

It is not so much a matter of allowing the Right to set the agenda as it was allowing the religious to (or continue to) dominate the debate -- and while there were a number of clerics of various denominations and groupings that got involved on the No side, they were neither particularly prominent not particularly effective.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bagkitty:
It's not that complex. Obama getting elected IS a victory for progressives,

---

No it is not. But I would like some of the kool aid you are drinking

quote:

---

Originally posted by miles:

No it is not. But I would like some of the kool aid you are drinking

Obama is as progessive as Stephen Harper

---

What part of "within the context of the United States" is confusing? Progressive is such a loosy goosey word in the first place.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bagkitty:
What part of "within the context of the United States" is confusing?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pogge:
URL=http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/1544]Petition to Change the Tax-code and Challenge The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ Tax-exempt Status[/URL]
They intend to try and get the ACLU involved.

---

quote:

---

Because it is already illegal for churches to support candidates or lobby, we must close this loophole and make it illegal for churches to support propositions, which are for all intents and purposes identical to legislation.

We must clarify our tax law to prohibit this behavior.

The United Kingdom has taken preliminary steps to strip the church of its tax-exempt status.

Through Prop 8, the Mormon Church has shown its true colors as a political group with specific social ends. Political speech is fair and legal here; such speech under the guise of religion is not. The playing field must be leveled. Though many religious groups were involved in Prop 8, the Mormon Church made this a far more substantial part of its activities than any other.

Californians will vote on future propositions to correct this flawed amendment next year, and every year, until we achieve our rights under the state constitution. We must be assured that our advocacy organizations are on an equal legal and financial playing field as those of our opponents.

Ultimately all religious groups are subject to the same laws - Catholics, Jews, Muslims, etc. The Mormon church, however, has shown itself to be most egregious in pressing a political agenda while registered as a church We are starting with the biggest to effect the most change.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
Unfortunately, the California Supreme Court got ahead of the people. The result? A backlash that neither the California Supreme Court nor the California legislature can now reverse. It’s now state constitutional law.

I know that people get impatient with incrementalism but, prior to the California Supreme Court’s ruling, the progress of GLTB rights in California was already far ahead of where those rights were just 10 or 15 years ago (and certainly relative to, say, 25 or more years ago), with growing and wide-spread acceptance of civil unions (something that would have been absolutely unthinkable not too long ago). I am convinced that the natural progression of that process would have resulted in legislative action in California to establish the legality of SSM in California. Yes, it would have been a battle but I think it would have ultimately been won—and the legitimacy of that victory could not have been reasonably challenged, unlike a judicial fiat.

Instead, the California Supreme Court swooped in and issued, before that evolutionary process was complete, a judicial fiat that declared that California must recognize SSM. Many people react negatively to courts making public policy. And, the result was this lurching, cumbersome counter-move that was just passed yesterday.

I am confident that SSM will ultimately have legal recognition in California (and other states). But, the court’s premature meddling has probably pushed that date back by many years.

---

I strongly disagree with that assessment. Public support for SSM in both Canada and California jumped significantly after the courts ruled that it was a matter of constitutional equality.

Without the Canadian rulings, I'd bet we would still be at 60-70% of the public opposed and the Conservatives would probably have passed our own federal DOMA. Three years before Halpern, the House of Commons voted overwhelmingly against equal marriage. If it isn't framed as a matter of equality, people have no problem thinking their personal/religious definitions of marriage should be the law, and MPs are motivated to not rock the boat.

The same is true, I believe, in the US. The California legislative process that was vetoed did come before the California Supreme Court decision, but rested on principles of the Massachusetts decision. It's easy to sit back in retrospect and find fault with the gay rights movement in California given the terribly sad defeat Tuesday. If we're going to do that, though, the fault seems to be falling mostly on a complacent and reactionary No-on-Prop-8 campaign that failed to counter the misinformation and fear-mongering of its opponent because it started off with a huge lead in the polls. Prop 8 wasn't by any means inevitable.