babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » Obama's complicit in the passing of proposition 8 in California

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Obama's complicit in the passing of proposition 8 in California
Max Bialystock
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13870

posted 05 November 2008 09:44 AM      Profile for Max Bialystock     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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!

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.


http://tinyurl.com/5ukrvz


From: North York | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
babblerwannabe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5953

posted 05 November 2008 11:04 AM      Profile for babblerwannabe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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 ]


From: toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ghislaine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14957

posted 05 November 2008 11:27 AM      Profile for Ghislaine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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.
From: L'Î-P-É | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 05 November 2008 11:44 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I like the Biden imitator on SNL a couple of weeks ago or so, during that spoof of the Biden-Palin debate. He was going on and on about how gays and lesbians are wonderful people, should have all the rights everyone else has, blah blah blah. Then the moderator asks him, "Should they be allowed to marry?" And with the same plastered on smile, "Biden" answers, "Absolutely not."
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mojoroad1
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15404

posted 05 November 2008 12:01 PM      Profile for Mojoroad1     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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 ]


From: Muskoka | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
bagkitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15443

posted 05 November 2008 12:04 PM      Profile for bagkitty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
A riot is the language of the unheard. MLKjr

I am feeling more and more sympathy for those who were suggesting that riots were the appropriate response to the passing of Proposition 8.


From: Calgary | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
bagkitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15443

posted 05 November 2008 12:07 PM      Profile for bagkitty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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 ]


Yeah, while we are waiting maybe they will issue merit badges for those who quietly acquiesce to being tossed overboard for the "greater good"


From: Calgary | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
Star Spangled Canadian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15502

posted 05 November 2008 12:08 PM      Profile for Star Spangled Canadian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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

The problem isn't California. Obama was gonna win that easily. The problem is that by coming out strongly against the amendment, it could ahve energized swing voters in closer states against him.


From: Originally from Ontario, now in Virginia | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 05 November 2008 12:09 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Star Spangled Canadian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15502

posted 05 November 2008 12:13 PM      Profile for Star Spangled Canadian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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?


From: Originally from Ontario, now in Virginia | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 05 November 2008 12:16 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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.

The other alternative is to prevail on the voters of California to ultimately have another popular vote to amend the constitution to remove the amendment just passed. I think that will ultimately happen (if the courts don't get trigger happy before that) but, again, I think the time of such voter action is further into the future than the date legislative action would have gotten to the same result had the legislative process not been prematurely molested by the California Supreme Court.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
bagkitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15443

posted 05 November 2008 12:16 PM      Profile for bagkitty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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.


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


From: Calgary | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 05 November 2008 12:30 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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.

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).


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 05 November 2008 12:40 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If Obama supported same-sex marriage in the United States, he would not have been elected president. There are couple of states that are there, and another handful that are close, but those states like Indiana, Ohio and Florida are still a decade off. SSM is a state issue, and it should be the Democrats' goal to keep it as such, blocking bills such as DOMA. Civil Unions may be another matter, but still very difficult...

Now there is the whole principle vs. pragmatism debate. That is another matter.


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
pookie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11357

posted 05 November 2008 12:44 PM      Profile for pookie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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?



The question is up in the air. Generally, full faith and credit has been applied to ensure comity in the enforcement of judgments, to avoid forum shopping. I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that "full faith and credit" does not require a state to recognize another state's laws that are contrary to its own enacted laws or to public policy. I think the only foolproof way to ensure recognition of SSM in a state which has enacted some sort of a "defence of marriage act" is a ruling that the state law is itself unconstitutional.


From: there's no "there" there | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 05 November 2008 12:44 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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.

In fact they were formally petitioned by the state Attorney General in 2006 to get involved. On both occasions when the Governator vetoed legislation he explicitly said that he wanted the courts to rule on it. So the courts didn't "prematurely interrupt" a legislative process. That legislative process was purposely derailed. And I suspect that's so because the court has a reputation for being conservative and I'm betting Arnold was as surprised by their ruling as anyone.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 05 November 2008 12:58 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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.

Well, of course that’s always the case (i.e., that a court doesn’t unilaterally inject itself into matters without first being asked). But, the court then took the additional and critical step of concluding that the state constitution mandated the legal recognition of SSM. That is the step is should have—and could have—refrained from taking.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
bagkitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15443

posted 05 November 2008 01:09 PM      Profile for bagkitty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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.

----
* It is interesting to note that the 95% of the vote being referred to is to the vote taking place at the precinct level on November 4th. There are news reports stating that the votes not yet counted, they describe them as "late absentee and provisional ballots" may number as many as 3 million.


From: Calgary | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 05 November 2008 01:24 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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.

Making that kind of ruling is their job.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 05 November 2008 02:12 PM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But as backlashes go, this one wasn't really that extreme.

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)

In the circumstances, one cannot say that California chose bigotry, but that California was narrowly tricked by bigots.


From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 05 November 2008 02:22 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thank you for your exquisitely detailed “legislative history”, bagkitty, but you’re confining your discussion to a particular piece (or pieces) of historical legislation that was immediately at issue before the court. If that’s what you want to discuss, be my guest.

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.

I would, for example, be mad as hell if a conservative court ruled, as a constitutional matter, than a fetus is a “human being” entitled to all rights of a born human being—basically, creating a right that simply is not in the text of the constitution. A court has no business getting into something like that and doing so would short-circuit the democratic legislative process, where policy decisions like that should be made (if not created by explicit constitutional amendment addressing such a matter). But, advocates of judicial activism would have no principled argument for why a court shouldn’t make a decision exactly like that. Either courts have a judicial right to create whatever rights they want to read into a constitutional document (something that I think is inherently anti-democratic) or they do not.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 05 November 2008 02:57 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
I want legislatures creating rights, not courts.

Constitutions codify rights. Supreme Courts interpret constitutions because those documents aren't long enough and their framers aren't prescient enough to deal with every possibility. People who disagree with the decisions of courts tend to try and find some way of making those decisions illegitimate but that's just sour grapes.

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 ]


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Left J.A.B.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9046

posted 05 November 2008 03:05 PM      Profile for Left J.A.B.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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?


Last night as I was traveling I was able to get in a bunch of American talk radio stations. I will admit listening to them was a bit like watching one of those nature video things where the lions are tearing apart a carcass and you don't want to watch but feel sort of compelled. Anyway, one thing I did hear them complaining about was that a lot of gay and lesbian couples where taking out licences to get married before the rules changed. From that I took to mean that they can't be overturned because they were over the moon freaked out about it.
One more reason I am glad that the family moved here to Canada.


From: 4th and Main | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 05 November 2008 03:26 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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 optimist in me thinks that they might eventually have a change of heart on this issue; the pessimist in me, though, thinks that any such change of heart will not come until they're safely retired.

From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 05 November 2008 03:58 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It is interesting that America was ready to elect an African American this time around. It will take a Jesse Jackson equivalent in the gay community to really move forward on rights for everyone. Without Jesse's unsuccessful runs for President there would be no Obama win. IMO until we see out gay politicians in the US vying for the highest office the fundamentalists will hold the keys to the closet door. IMO in Canada we have same sex marriage rights because every political party has MP's who are not afraid of saying in public they are gay. In America it would likely be the kiss of death currently for a person running for a Presidential nomination. And I am sure Obama knew support for marriage rights for all citizens would have cost him the election.
From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
bagkitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15443

posted 05 November 2008 04:09 PM      Profile for bagkitty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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.


From: Calgary | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 05 November 2008 04:20 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Kos, who lives in California, is already looking forward to getting this back on the ballot in 2010.
From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 05 November 2008 04:28 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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.

So, you wouldn't object to a court ruling that a fetus is a "human being" under, say, an equal protection clause in a constitution? If you would object, one what grounds, pray tell.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 05 November 2008 04:34 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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?

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.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
bagkitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15443

posted 05 November 2008 04:39 PM      Profile for bagkitty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Nope not a particular concern to me. It (the designation of human being) has no legal standing. I would be more concerned if someone tried to have fetuses declared "persons" or "natural persons" under the law. Given the common law history of the term, they would be unlikely to succeed.
From: Calgary | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 05 November 2008 04:46 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
the fundamental document of a democracy (a constitution) is subject to change at the will of the majority.

In many countries a constitutional amendment requires a super majority, not just a simple majority, for exactly the reason bagkitty suggests: minority rights shouldn't be subject to opinion polls. So the barrier is set higher than 50% plus one. In fact an amendment to the United States Constitution "must be ratified by three-quarters of either the state legislatures, or of constitutional conventions specially elected in each of the states, before it can come into effect."


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
bagkitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15443

posted 05 November 2008 05:23 PM      Profile for bagkitty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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.

Hmmm, if majority rule in all instances a democracy made I would agree with you on this one. But your equating majoritarian decisions with democratic ones is not something I would grant. Fortunately democracy is more complicated than simple majority rule.


From: Calgary | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 05 November 2008 05:52 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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?

Sven, you've outed yourself in this thread as a homophobe.


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 05 November 2008 05:56 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No actually that was done the other day when he posted the stand alone news clip about a lesbian killing her former spouse.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
triciamarie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12970

posted 05 November 2008 06:27 PM      Profile for triciamarie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hey Sven, so you a fan of Robert Bork by any chance?
From: gwelf | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Max Bialystock
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13870

posted 05 November 2008 09:31 PM      Profile for Max Bialystock     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
If Obama supported same-sex marriage in the United States, he would not have been elected president.

Well as a long as Obama is in the White House...


From: North York | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
brookmere
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9693

posted 05 November 2008 10:19 PM      Profile for brookmere     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
And I am sure Obama knew support for marriage rights for all citizens would have cost him the election.

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.

I will add though that Obama considers the issue to be up to the individual states to decide and is opposed to putting any definition of marriage in the US Constitution.


From: BC (sort of) | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 05 November 2008 10:34 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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."

From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 06 November 2008 02:16 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If past history is an indicator, this will make little difference to babblers in a huff, but in California most people who campaigned against 8 are happy with Obama's victory... at least it gave them something.

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 ]


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 06 November 2008 07:14 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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 ]


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 06 November 2008 07:19 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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.

2. Go fuck yourself.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 06 November 2008 07:21 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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.


Unfortunately, I think you're right about that.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 06 November 2008 07:30 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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.

I agree. The principal of equality embodied in legalizing SSM will ultimately prevail. And that will be a wonderful thing.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Kevin Laddle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14976

posted 06 November 2008 07:31 AM      Profile for Kevin Laddle     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

Two things, remind:

1. See my latest post above.

2. Go fuck yourself.


moderatrix!!


From: Planet Earth | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
Star Spangled Canadian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15502

posted 06 November 2008 07:41 AM      Profile for Star Spangled Canadian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

Unfortunately, I think you're right about that.


I'm not sure. Obama is about as libeal as they come while still being electable. (Actually, if not for his great political skills, his views and past associations may have very well rendered him unelectable). I think he supports same sex marriage in his heart and would legislate that way if he could. But he knows that it would ahve been political suicide and was being pragmatic. 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.


From: Originally from Ontario, now in Virginia | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 06 November 2008 07:43 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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!!

Besides, remind isn’t a withering flower needing your (or anyone else’s) protection.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 06 November 2008 08:31 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My apologies Sven, if indeed you really are supportive, and agree with SSM, but that is how I took your slapped up article snippet, starting a thread, without commentary, on a lesbian killing her former spouse. How else was one supposed to take it? Particularily when you never once came back to the thread to make a comment. And your commentary in this thread has done nothing to disspell that perception.

Perhaps in the future to avoid being perceived in a differing manner than what you say you are, you should post a comment with your stand alone clipped excerpt and link, when it deals with such a sensitive subject matter. So that we all may know where you are coming from, or getting at. And BTW where were you coming from when you posted that snippet?


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
brookmere
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9693

posted 06 November 2008 09:06 AM      Profile for brookmere     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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.

A Supreme Court decision legalizing SSM would be exactly the issue the Republicans need to unite the right again. The cause should be fought at the state level where it belongs. When sufficient will is mobilized at the state level the goal can be achieved with political legitimacy.

From: BC (sort of) | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
bagkitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15443

posted 06 November 2008 01:48 PM      Profile for bagkitty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I take Obama at face value when he says he opposes SSM... (this does not imply any respect for his position).

It will be interesting to see how long it takes him to act on repealing DADT and DOMA.... the latter in particular. I would be amused to see how he juggles his claims to be respecting the individual states' decision if he (and his party) fail to allow the federal gov't to accept these decisions by allowing the DOMA shackles to stay in place. I hope the representatives from Massachusetts and Connecticut are front and center demanding action early.... maybe it be arranged to force Lieberman to introduce a motion in the senate as the price he has to pay to be continued to allow him to continue to caucus with the Democrats.


From: Calgary | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 06 November 2008 02:27 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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 ]


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 06 November 2008 03:03 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I am so glad we don't have that system in Canada. We would have propositions on abortion and same sex marriage as well. Or I can well imagine a proposition being put forward that would say that FN's rights have been extinguished.

I much prefer not having to fight every election to keep rights for minority communities.


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 06 November 2008 03:43 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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 found that murder story shocking because they seemed like people who babblers (including me) work with everyday. It was shocking in the sense that you never really know another person's inner demons.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 06 November 2008 04:17 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Tks for the clarification Sven.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
djelimon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13855

posted 06 November 2008 06:49 PM      Profile for djelimon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Obama has been consistent - he believes in the civil union thing, and has advocated gay rights in places he had no place doing so - like on the stump in front of a mostly straight crowd.

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.

The prop 8 thing they kind of shite off, but it a bummer for me - America has a ways to go. Gays are the new n-bombs


From: Hamilton, Ontario | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 07 November 2008 05:25 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Meanwhile, Barack Obama asked gay bishop Gene Robinson what it was like to be 'first'

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'.”

He said that Mr Obama had indicated his support for equal civil rights for gay and lesbian people and described the election as a “religious experience”.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 07 November 2008 06:59 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The California Supreme Court made its decision because the question was placed squarely before it.

As for Obama, whatever his true feelings are, obviously he didn't want to risk a backlash by coming out forcefully against it. It was not California he was worried about, but those swing states. His stance was definitely not a profile in courage, but was not surprising.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Star Spangled Canadian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15502

posted 07 November 2008 08:57 AM      Profile for Star Spangled Canadian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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.
From: Originally from Ontario, now in Virginia | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 07 November 2008 09:04 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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!!

That's very funny, Sven, as it seems you do when you support the litigators.

From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
bagkitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15443

posted 07 November 2008 11:38 AM      Profile for bagkitty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I am fascinated by the "problems" some posters appear to have with the rights by litigation approach. Perhaps they would care to express the same type of concern to Brown v. Board of Education and subsequent actions. For the sake of consistency, they might offer a suggestion on how to roll back that decision and reinstall segregation so that we have the opportunity to deal with that abomination in a more "correct" manner. Hell, while we are at it, why don't we put Delgamuukw v. British Columbia to one side and let the voters in British Columbia determine the validity of First Nation land claims by plebiscite... that is, after all, the democratic thing to do, isn't it?

From: Calgary | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 07 November 2008 01:44 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Melissa Etheridge:
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.



More at the link. H/t to Canadian Cynic.

From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
bagkitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15443

posted 07 November 2008 02:34 PM      Profile for bagkitty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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 ]


From: Calgary | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
Max Bialystock
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13870

posted 07 November 2008 02:52 PM      Profile for Max Bialystock     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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.
From: North York | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
bagkitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15443

posted 07 November 2008 07:11 PM      Profile for bagkitty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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.

Realistically, until such time as there a secular authority willing to serve as a rallying point for equal rights under the law for the LGBT communities, measures like Proposition 8 (and equivalent measures in the few states that haven't already passed them) have a crippling advantage.


From: Calgary | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 07 November 2008 07:14 PM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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

Obama is as progessive as Stephen Harper


From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
bagkitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15443

posted 07 November 2008 07:27 PM      Profile for bagkitty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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.

And I want to see ID before I share the kool aid, I have spiked mine and don't want to be charged with providing alcohol to a minor.


From: Calgary | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 07 November 2008 07:31 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by bagkitty:
What part of "within the context of the United States" is confusing?
The part that means that Stephen Harper would be considered a progressive within the context of the United States.

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
bagkitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15443

posted 07 November 2008 07:35 PM      Profile for bagkitty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
that's not confusing, just sad and pathetic... not to mention dangerous
From: Calgary | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 07 November 2008 10:04 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Petition to Change the Tax-code and Challenge The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ Tax-exempt Status
They intend to try and get the ACLU involved.

From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 07 November 2008 11:36 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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.



From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
bagkitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15443

posted 07 November 2008 11:41 PM      Profile for bagkitty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ah, the howl of protest over this will be music to my ears. I shall derive a great deal of pleasure in pointing out that tax exemption in a totally unwarranted privilege, not a right.
From: Calgary | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
Draco
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4885

posted 08 November 2008 08:23 AM      Profile for Draco     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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.

Suggesting LGBT persons in California shouldn't be waging a multi-front challenge using all available means - including the courts - given what that approach has won for us in the past seems incredible to me. We would be back in the fucking stone age without the courts. A pure "hearts and minds" approach might have worked in the long run, but we'd all be long dead by the time it did. If I were Californian, I'd rather be at 48% supporting equality and rising dramatically even with Prop 8 than at 30% support of equality, no Prop 8, no SSM, and no prospects of that changing within the next 50 years. Do things gradually will bring more tragedy.


From: Wild Rose Country | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 08 November 2008 09:40 AM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The notion of "backlash" usually underestimates the amount of hostility there was before the advance deemed to have provoked the backlash. It implicitly makes progressives responsible for the oppression that brought them to opposition.
From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca