CA Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban

[Boxlicker101]

While there may yet still be a majority of Californian's who oppose same-sex unions, there aren't two thirds of them. Additionally, the vast majority of voters who have come of age since the overturned law was passed are not opposed. A constitutional amendment would pass but not with enough votes to put it into the constitution.

Are you sure that a two thirds majority is required? I have always understood that only a simple majority is required. If that is the case, this is a pyrrhic victory because, once the state constitution is amended, it is difficult to change again. Personally, I will vote against the initiative, but I think the majority will support it.

 

[S-Des]

The government has no place in marriage. As an advocate of individual rights to the extreme as you sometimes claim, shouldn't that be your position?

I have no idea what you're talking about....the government is what defines marriage. Is it OK with you if some parents want to sell their children to perspective husbands? Well, the government makes it illegal. I find this just painfully bad. You're cheering because today 4 people voted the way you wanted them to (overruling the will of millions). What happens if tomorrow another small group of judges gets together and decides to change social policy in a way you don't like? The solution is so simple...just convince enough people that you are right, so they'll vote your way. Instead, you get a handful to enforce their will on the populace. Even though I agree with the outcome, I despise the methods. Coming from a community like the AH that is constantly espousing conspiracy theories and distrust of authority (especially legal authority), I find this reaction utterly baffling.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I have no idea what you're talking about....the government is what defines marriage. Is it OK with you if some parents want to sell their children to perspective husbands? Well, the government makes it illegal. I find this just painfully bad. You're cheering because today 4 people voted the way you wanted them to (overruling the will of millions). What happens if tomorrow another small group of judges gets together and decides to change social policy in a way you don't like? The solution is so simple...just convince enough people that you are right, so they'll vote your way. Instead, you get a handful to enforce their will on the populace. Even though I agree with the outcome, I despise the methods. Coming from a community like the AH that is constantly espousing conspiracy theories and distrust of authority (especially legal authority), I find this reaction utterly baffling.

This argument is the same one that people use to argue against equality measures of all kinds. The government of this country is bound to defend the rights of minorities as well as majorities.

How dare you equate same sex marriage with same child slavery. Your argument ad absurdum is beneath contempt.

 

[S-Des]

How dare you equate same sex marriage with same child slavery. Your argument ad absurdum is beneath contempt.

Um....What are you talking about? Bel said the government doesn't have any business in defining marriage. If it's not defined by them, then who does it? Forced marriages (at ages that would make most of us uncomfortable) are commonplace all over the world. I've known people in America (who are foreign born) who still practice it. I didn't equate the two (could you point out the sentence where I said they are the same?), I said that without the government defining them, anything would be allowed. Giving a handful of judges the ability to bypass our legal system might sound great when they're ruling in favor of you, but I'm guessing you wouldn't be too happy if it went the other way. I'd love to see the posts around here if voters finally passed a same-sex marriage law, only to have it struck down by a state court.

BTW, in case you missed it, I clearly said that making same sex marriage legal was the right thing to do. The ends do not always justify the means, especially if you find yourself on the losing end somewhere down the road.

 

[Pure]

note to rox

rox, recentI'm not saying that all olf reconstruction is a close analogy, just that part about the bad outcomes that come when force is used to push populations further than they are willing to go on a social issue. In that aspect the analogy is quite good, because in both cases - civil rights for blacks then and gays now - the outcome was almost certainly to delay by many decades a positive outcome that would have evolved "organically" and democratically. Once again, it's soooo easy to holler, "That's wrong! We must undo the injustice right now!" Yeah well, as with many destructive dysfunctions we see in family or friends, sometimes you just have to accept your powerlessness to "make them change!" Sometimes accepting it can make you powerful and effectual, too.


rox earlier Roxanne Appleby Not so fast.

When priest-judges side-step democratic procedures to impose their particular preferences on unwilling populations - in particular on hot-button social issues - the record has been popular backlashes that have set this agenda back by decades.

That's what happened when Massachussets judges imposed their will - a bunch of states where unwilling populations feared they would be next passed Constitutional amendments banning marriage between anyone but a man and a woman. Those things will be on the books for the next 30 or 50 years at least - anyone wanna bet money on what will happen should one of those states put a measure to repeal their ban on the ballot during that time? It's an easy issue to demagogue . . .



i don't find rox's argument here very compelling although i do suppose there are cases of 'activist judges' creating terrible backlash.

i think, for example, roe v wade evolved pretty organically and democratically. the judges were not hugely 'out front'. the backlash was not strong for a long time, e.g. the last ten years.

i think the mass and calif changes on gay marriage are occurring organically: these are more liberal states. does rox want alabama republicans to dictate the pace of change of laws? i think calif voters, following Schwartzie will NOT be stamped to a const'l amendment banning gay marriage.

i do have hesitations re the civil war: is antislavery enforced by troops that way to go? would Miss have 'organically evolved'? the counterargument is that sometimes beleaguered places are slower to change, and some southern states were tightening laws around slavery.

i have no problem in the SC decisions, on segregation, in the mid 50s, Brown v. Board of Ed. the court was somewhat out front, but not much.

the finest example against roxy's excessive caution labelled as pragmatism is given in tonight's news. when Calif courts (or was it the SC) outlawed bans on interracial marriage, 90% of people still favored those bans. and there was little backlash: the cause has proceeded, afaik. rox's caution would likely have the courts waiting till the 1990s on this one, which still isn't popular.

lastly, i think rox's use of 'democratic' to describe her ideal in fact violates the constitution. the bill of rights is NOT meant to be "democratic". neither are the US courts. in fact, at a given time, if you stop people on the street and ask a question like "do you think someone should be punished for writing 'the president eats shit'", a majority, will say 'yes.'

almost all her 'backlash' examples are speculative; she can't know of which she speaks regarding Mass for example. the fact that some states have responded by tighening *written law*, does NOT indicate the overall cause is harmed. they might have been the slowest to 'convert' anyway because of how their people think and act. further, if some places tighten, there may be fruitful battles waged in less conservative areas, where the liberals are energized by the zealotry of the right. it's all speculation.

in short, most of rox's 'go slow' arguments, 1) in the name of democracy, or 2) in order to prevent backlash, are mainly speculative. since she's given--at this point-- no examples that make her happy, it seems that she might well find most historic court decisions unwise and risky, when some adherence to principle is in fact *mandated* for courts. maybe i'm wrong. i'll revise this estimate if she gives a number of examples of important progressive decisions that were, in her opinion, timely and had majority support

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Pure: i don't find rox's argument here very compelling although i do suppose there are cases of 'activist judges' creating terrible backlash. i think the mass and calif changes on gay marriage are occurring organically: these are more liberal states. does rox want alabama republicans to dictate the pace of change of laws? i think calif voters, following Schwartzie will NOT be stamped to a const'l amendment banning gay marriage

.

My point is that these were mandated by judges, not by democratically elected legislatures, or even better, initiatives. THAT's why you got a backlash in other places - the people in those places feared they could be next, where they would not fear that under democratic processes. You don't find my argument compelling? I'm not speculating - I'm describing exactly the sequence of events after Massachussets.

Pure: i do have hesitations re the civil war: is antislavery enforced by troops that way to go? would Miss have 'organically evolved'? the counterargument is that sometimes beleaguered places are slower to change, and some southern states were tightening laws around slavery.

I'm not talking about the civil war. I'm talking about Reconstruction in the South as conducted by Radical Republicans. Yes -they forced the changes mandated by the 14th amendment, you had black legislators, black voting and all the rest - and it was a disaster that set black civil rights back 100 years.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Sorry Rox, but IMO you are wrong!

The DOMA and all the state equivalents were pushed though by a bunch of loud mouthed fundamentalist christian groups who utilized their solidarity to bully their representatives and provide a voting block.

Unfortunately, MOST folks do not get out and vote unless it's a major campaign. So these fucking A-Holes that want to keep the US in an outdated mindset are able to succeed.

I see this as a giant step forward in compelling the US Supreme Court to strike down the federal DOMA as well asall the narrow minded State constitutional amendments outlawing sam sex marriage.

I missed this.

Misty, your post does not contradict mine. You described the effect; I described the cause. You described fertile ground that exists in some places for these kinds of anti-marriage amendments; I described the seeds that were spread by the MA court ruling. It was a disaster. The soil in those places would have become less fertile for those seeds over time and more fertile for the ones we like, but now it won't matter if it does, because these constitutional provisions that were inserted will be extremely difficult to get rid of for 30 to 50 years.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

ROXANNE is right.

People are notoriously conservative on social issues, and crusaders usually place long term obstacles in the path of progress.

I'm examining an old newspaper archive from the 1890s. Before 1890 you dont read much about segregation or homosexuality. But in the 1890s groups began creating legal provocations precipitating Jim Crow and criminalizing anal & oral sex. People went wild.

I learned something new. Plessy, the black who tested Louisiana's segregation law, was almost all white. He had a smidgen of black blood, just enough to be a legal black. But his provocation unleashed separate but equal for 60 years.

 

[Pure]

re rox and jbj

in alleging the terrible effects of activist judges, neither rox nor jbj have produced relevant and convincing examples.

rox for her example went to "reconstruction", a postwar series of complex measures *based in constitutional amendments*, NOT court decisions.

rox avoided almost all specifics in my critique of her position. and in particular has not shown that the Mass law has overall impeded progress. no gay group has found that to be the case. simply because Mississippi, for example, passes an amendment to its constitution *regarding something already outside its laws* is at most an inconvenience. a US SC decision would invalidate a raft of state constitutional provisions and laws, at the appropriate
time.

rox's appeals to democracy and supremacy of legislatures are implausible and outside US traditions. rox is known to favor court based approaches when they further her agenda, e.g. a corporation claiming "commercial free speech." the simple fact is that rox, like those on the xian right, WANTS activist judges-- simply those that rule in their favor. they do NOT want democracy overturning property rights; they want the Bill of Rights and court enforcement *on their issues.* e.g. the xian right want "freedom of religion" with which the public is often NOT in sympathy (when it's not the majority religion),.


jbj's example re anal sex is rather vague: some groups are alleged to have done "legal provocations" leading to criminalizing anal sex. i don't think the laws resulted from the groups' activities: laws, in general terms, proscribed homosexual acts long before the 1890s. such acts were called "against nature," and, under that label, have been illegal for centuries. in any case, see below, "activist" groups' activities are distinct from "activist judges'" activities. jbj is seemingly calling into question groups' activities pursuant to de criminalizing something.

as to mr plessy having provoked "separate but equal," the point should be made that the practice existed. plessy challenged it, causing concepts to be enunciated in defense of segregation. it cannot be proven that thhose bogus concepts retarded progress; they were knocked down in the 1950s, when the time was ripe.

in any case, this example is NOT activist judges, but conservative ones. jbj is really (almost) suggesting that "activists" NOT take cases to court, as in the present CA case, since judges may rule against. and those rulings may slow progress.

===

jbj ROXANNE is right.

People are notoriously conservative on social issues, and crusaders usually place long term obstacles in the path of progress.

I'm examining an old newspaper archive from the 1890s. Before 1890 you dont read much about segregation or homosexuality. But in the 1890s groups began creating legal provocations precipitating Jim Crow and criminalizing anal & oral sex. People went wild.

I learned something new. Plessy, the black who tested Louisiana's segregation law, was almost all white. He had a smidgen of black blood, just enough to be a legal black. But his provocation unleashed separate but equal for 60 years.

 

[Pure]

supporting material showing the penalties for homosexual acts incluidng sodomy

http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/homopho5.htm

The first significant reference to civil laws against homosexuality in England occurred in 1376, when the God Parliament unsuccessfully petitioned King Edward III to banish all "Lombard brokers" because they were usurers, and other foreign artisans and traders, particularly "Jews and Saracens," who were accused to having introduced "the too horrible vice which is not to be named" which they thought would destroy the realm.

But it was not until 1533 that a statute was actually enacted against homosexuals. The Act (25 Henry 8, chapter 6) adjudges buggery a felony punishable by hanging until dead. The Buggery Act was piloted through Parliament by Thomas Cromwell in an effort to support Henry VIII's plan for reducing the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts, as the first step towards depriving them of the right to try certain offences, which supported his policy of seizing Church property.

Thus it was defined as a felony without benefit of clergy, which denied homosexuals in holy orders the right to be tried in the ecclesiastical courts, with the result that a conviction entailed loss of property to the Crown. The statute was re-enacted in 1536, 1539 and 1541 under Henry VIII;

===
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_laws1.htm

timeline re sodomy laws

1629: "Five beastly Sodomiticall boys" confessed to homosexual activity. They were probably hanged, because Massachusetts law called for the death penalty for persons over 14 years of age who committed sodomy.

1631: In the first reported trial for homosexual sex in England, the Earl of Castlehaven was convicted of sodomy with his male servants. Because of his rank, he was beheaded.

1641: Sodomy became a capital crime in Massachusetts, but only between males.

1642: Connecticut included sodomy among its 12 capital crimes.

1646: Jan Creoli was executed in New Netherland (present-day New York) for sodomizing a ten-year old boy. His victim was "only" flogged.

1647: Rhode Island follows the lead of Massachusetts.

1656: New Haven passes a law making sodomy punishable by execution for both men and women.

1660: Jan Quisthout vander Linde was executed for sodomy. His victim, a boy, was whipped.

1662: Rhode Island passed a sodomy law.

1682: Pennsylvania, a Quaker colony, became the first jurisdiction in America to make sodomy a non-capital offence. Punishment was in the form of whipping, a fine equal to 1/3 of the offender's estate, and six months of hard labor.

1700: Pennsylvania amended its sodomy punishment to life imprisonment

 

[Belegon]

You're cheering because today 4 people voted the way you wanted them to (overruling the will of millions).

Part of the reason the court system was set up the way it is was to protect the minority from the abuses of those who feel that just because they are a majority allows them to dictate their beliefs to others.

This is also why it is important for judges in these positions to be free from the pressures of elections.

I honestly don't care that millions voted how they did. 61% of the state being in favor of defining marriage as between a man and a woman is fine. Allowing them to dictate to those who don't believe the way they do is not.

Edited to Add:
My comment about the state and marriage was obviously not well-defined. I do not believe the state should be in the business of denying basic rights to it's citizens, it should be in the business of protecting those citizens from those who wish to deny them these rights. Of all the comparisons being made in this thread, the most relevant is that to interracial unions.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Um....What are you talking about? Bel said the government doesn't have any business in defining marriage. If it's not defined by them, then who does it? Forced marriages (at ages that would make most of us uncomfortable) are commonplace all over the world. I've known people in America (who are foreign born) who still practice it. I didn't equate the two (could you point out the sentence where I said they are the same?), I said that without the government defining them, anything would be allowed. Giving a handful of judges the ability to bypass our legal system might sound great when they're ruling in favor of you, but I'm guessing you wouldn't be too happy if it went the other way. I'd love to see the posts around here if voters finally passed a same-sex marriage law, only to have it struck down by a state court.

BTW, in case you missed it, I clearly said that making same sex marriage legal was the right thing to do. The ends do not always justify the means, especially if you find yourself on the losing end somewhere down the road.

Gays and lesbians have been on the losing end all this time. What's the difference? It has to start somewhere. There are hundreds of thousands of people --Millions, in fact-- whom you are asking to wait patiently for never-neverland. You really expect people to die of old age, still waiting like nice polite little faggots?

You know what? Have a motherfucking heart. Wish us well.

Or, fuck off and get out of the way.

Oh, by the way "giving a handful of judges the ability to bypass the legal system" is a very weird distortion of the superior court's entire reason for existing.

 

[Pure]

note to s des

s-d You're cheering because today 4 people voted the way you wanted them to (overruling the will of millions).

you don't agree with the CA or US constitution? you want judges to look at public opinion polls. why *have* judges?

i find this whole line either in you or rox rather hard to fathom.

if the citizens in your fair town or state had an antiporn law and wanted to clap you in jail for a 'dirty' story you wrote and published, i submitt you'd be quite happy with 4 people voting to free you, "overruling the will of millions."

if the citizens of rox's fair city or state became incensed at a planned walmart, and passed rules restricting floor space, whether it could sell groceries, etc, and THAT was by law was thrown out in the CA or US Supreme Court (as improperly restricting ordinary commerical activity), rox would be cheering for the 4 judgees. likewise if the citizens of CA became incensed over an off shore oil rig, after a spill, and wanted it eliminated, althought it was lawfully built, again roxy would be cheering over the preservation of property rights... by these same four men!

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

in alleging the terrible effects of activist judges, neither rox nor jbj have produced relevant and convincing examples.

rox for her example went to "reconstruction", a postwar series of complex measures *based in constitutional amendments*, NOT court decisions.

rox avoided almost all specifics in my critique of her position. and in particular has not shown that the Mass law has overall impeded progress. no gay group has found that to be the case. simply because Mississippi, for example, passes an amendment to its constitution *regarding something already outside its laws* is at most an inconvenience. a US SC decision would invalidate a raft of state constitutional provisions and laws, at the appropriate
time.

rox's appeals to democracy and supremacy of legislatures are implausible and outside US traditions. rox is known to favor court based approaches when they further her agenda, e.g. a corporation claiming "commercial free speech." the simple fact is that rox, like those on the xian right, WANTS activist judges-- simply those that rule in their favor. they do NOT want democracy overturning property rights; they want the Bill of Rights and court enforcement *on their issues.* e.g. the xian right want "freedom of religion" with which the public is often NOT in sympathy (when it's not the majority religion),.


jbj's example re anal sex is rather vague: some groups are alleged to have done "legal provocations" leading to criminalizing anal sex. i don't think the laws resulted from the groups' activities: laws, in general terms, proscribed homosexual acts long before the 1890s. such acts were called "against nature," and, under that label, have been illegal for centuries. in any case, see below, "activist" groups' activities are distinct from "activist judges'" activities. jbj is seemingly calling into question groups' activities pursuant to de criminalizing something.

as to mr plessy having provoked "separate but equal," the point should be made that the practice existed. plessy challenged it, causing concepts to be enunciated in defense of segregation. it cannot be proven that thhose bogus concepts retarded progress; they were knocked down in the 1950s, when the time was ripe.

in any case, this example is NOT activist judges, but conservative ones. jbj is really (almost) suggesting that "activists" NOT take cases to court, as in the present CA case, since judges may rule against. and those rulings may slow progress.

===

jbj ROXANNE is right.

People are notoriously conservative on social issues, and crusaders usually place long term obstacles in the path of progress.

I'm examining an old newspaper archive from the 1890s. Before 1890 you dont read much about segregation or homosexuality. But in the 1890s groups began creating legal provocations precipitating Jim Crow and criminalizing anal & oral sex. People went wild.

I learned something new. Plessy, the black who tested Louisiana's segregation law, was almost all white. He had a smidgen of black blood, just enough to be a legal black. But his provocation unleashed separate but equal for 60 years.

Surely you can do better than this, Pure? This just ignores what I really said and then imputes a bunch of contemptuous or mischaracterized views to me based on spurious associations. I won't dignify the latter with a response, but will repeat the recent example of what I'm saying that's right in front of everyone's faces here: Mass. judges imposed their personal preferences on this issue, and thereafter between 18 and 26 states passed constitutional amendments banning gay marriage (range due to different levels of scope). Thank you, MA judges.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Surely you can do better than this, Pure? This just ignores what I really said and then imputes a bunch of contemptuous or mischaracterized views to me based on spurious associations. I won't dignify the latter with a response, but will repeat the recent example of what I'm saying that's right in front of everyone's faces here: Mass. judges imposed their personal preferences on this issue, and thereafter between 18 and 26 states passed constitutional amendments banning gay marriage (range due to different levels of scope). Thank you, MA judges.

This is why the Feds took education away from the states. At some point, the states will lose their right to dictate marriage rights as well.

In the meantime, California has no residential restrictions for marriage, and gays will be descending by the millions to be married-- here at least, if nowhere else.

 

[Pure]

rox Surely you can do better than this, Pure? This just ignores what I really said and then imputes a bunch of contemptuous or mischaracterized views to me based on spurious associations. I won't dignify the latter with a response, but will repeat the recent example of what I'm saying that's right in front of everyone's faces here: Mass. judges imposed their personal preferences on this issue, and thereafter between 18 and 26 states passed constitutional amendments banning gay marriage (range due to different levels of scope). Thank you, MA judges.

Pure: roxanne has no response here. she repeats the claim, not merely that states passed const'l amendments against gay marriage, but suggests that this hurt the cause. she has no evidence, simply her speculation as to that harming the cause. she ignores my arguments to the contrary, a) the states already outlawed gay marriage, and b) their attempts at state const'l barriers will likely fall as the gay rights cause progresses. for instance the Loving case, in the 70s, before the US Supreme Ct. invalidated all state anti miscegenation laws.

the Loving case--black woman marries white man, goes to jail--is discussed and reproduced here: http://www.slate.com/id/2190811

the parallels to high court 'gay rights' decisions are obvious, and clearly the US SC acted properly and even with prudence in deciding as they did, despites widespread opposition to interracial marriage.

it might be mentioned that California Supreme Ct. had thrown out such laws 20 years earlier, in the 1950s, despite citizens' discomfort. no doubt roxanne would have criticized that position at the time.

in any case, rox's appeals to "democracy" and "will of the people" and "legislatures" to trump courts do not ring true; they are made opportunistically; they would not have been uttered had the CA court affirmed property rights. legislatures trumping courts is British and Canadian law, not American.

 

[Boxlicker101]

in alleging the terrible effects of activist judges, neither rox nor jbj have produced relevant and convincing examples.

rox for her example went to "reconstruction", a postwar series of complex measures *based in constitutional amendments*, NOT court decisions.

rox avoided almost all specifics in my critique of her position. and in particular has not shown that the Mass law has overall impeded progress. no gay group has found that to be the case. simply because Mississippi, for example, passes an amendment to its constitution *regarding something already outside its laws* is at most an inconvenience. a US SC decision would invalidate a raft of state constitutional provisions and laws, at the appropriate
time.

What Rox said, and correctly, is that other states, when they saw the MA supreme court striking down anti-gay marriage laws, passed amendments to their own constitutions. They already had anti-gay marriage laws but, by adding those laws to the constitution of the state, they eliminated the possibility that they would be declared unconstitutional. After all, if something is part ot the constitution, it cannot be unconstitutional.

During Reconstruction, northern occupiers of the former Confederacy ran roughshod over the rights of white southerners. One of the consequences of this was the KKK. Another was that, after it ended, the legislatures passed all kinds of Jim Crow Laws. Reconstruction resulted in most black southernors being worse off than they had been before it began. I said "Reconstruction", by the way, NOT "The Civil War".

rox's appeals to democracy and supremacy of legislatures are implausible and outside US traditions. rox is known to favor court based approaches when they further her agenda, e.g. a corporation claiming "commercial free speech." the simple fact is that rox, like those on the xian right, WANTS activist judges-- simply those that rule in their favor. they do NOT want democracy overturning property rights; they want the Bill of Rights and court enforcement *on their issues.* e.g. the xian right want "freedom of religion" with which the public is often NOT in sympathy (when it's not the majority religion),.

The tradition in the US is for the legislatures to pass laws and the courts to rule objectively on them. The fact that some judges dislike the laws should have no bearing on anything. Furthermore, she expressed even higher favor for laws passed by initiative, which is how the law that is the subject of this thread was passed. In 2008, a big majority of CA voters voted to outlaw gay marriage. Whether they should have or not is a moot point. What counts is that they did, but judges who disliked the law struck it down. As a result, there will be an initiative in November, and the law will be incorporated in the CA constitution, where it will be almost impossible to remove.

jbj's example re anal sex is rather vague: some groups are alleged to have done "legal provocations" leading to criminalizing anal sex. i don't think the laws resulted from the groups' activities: laws, in general terms, proscribed homosexual acts long before the 1890s. such acts were called "against nature," and, under that label, have been illegal for centuries. in any case, see below, "activist" groups' activities are distinct from "activist judges'" activities. jbj is seemingly calling into question groups' activities pursuant to de criminalizing something.

as to mr plessy having provoked "separate but equal," the point should be made that the practice existed. plessy challenged it, causing concepts to be enunciated in defense of segregation. it cannot be proven that thhose bogus concepts retarded progress; they were knocked down in the 1950s, when the time was ripe.

in any case, this example is NOT activist judges, but conservative ones. jbj is really (almost) suggesting that "activists" NOT take cases to court, as in the present CA case, since judges may rule against. and those rulings may slow progress.

===

jbj ROXANNE is right.

People are notoriously conservative on social issues, and crusaders usually place long term obstacles in the path of progress.

I'm examining an old newspaper archive from the 1890s. Before 1890 you dont read much about segregation or homosexuality. But in the 1890s groups began creating legal provocations precipitating Jim Crow and criminalizing anal & oral sex. People went wild.

I learned something new. Plessy, the black who tested Louisiana's segregation law, was almost all white. He had a smidgen of black blood, just enough to be a legal black. But his provocation unleashed separate but equal for 60 years.

 

[rgraham666]

Rather sad, after all this time, we're still arguing over who is and is not a human being.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Rather sad, after all this time, we're still arguing over who is and is not a human being.

Who is arguing about who is or who is not a human being?

By the way, I doubt that there are very many here who object to gay marriage. Most of us accept it as being perfectly okay, and nobody's business but the persons involved.

 

[Stella_Omega]

The test of the court decision

"California has repudiated past
practices and policies that were based on a once common viewpoint that
denigrated the general character and morals of gay individuals, and at one time
even characterized homosexuality as a mental illness rather than as simply one of
the numerous variables of our common and diverse humanity. This state’s current
policies and conduct regarding homosexuality recognize that gay individuals are
entitled to the same legal rights and the same respect and dignity afforded all other
individuals and are protected from discrimination on the basis of their sexual
orientation, and, more specifically, recognize that gay individuals are fully
capable of entering into the kind of loving and enduring committed relationships
that may serve as the foundation of a family and of responsibly caring for and
raising children...

...we now similarly recognize that an individual’s
homosexual orientation is not a constitutionally legitimate basis for withholding or
restricting the individual’s legal rights."

Those intrepid 'defenders of family values' have asked the court to delay implementing this decision until after the elections. By this particular language, I don't think they'll do that. (I hope, at least)

 

[Boxlicker101]

The test of the court decision

"California has repudiated past
practices and policies that were based on a once common viewpoint that
denigrated the general character and morals of gay individuals, and at one time
even characterized homosexuality as a mental illness rather than as simply one of
the numerous variables of our common and diverse humanity. This state’s current
policies and conduct regarding homosexuality recognize that gay individuals are
entitled to the same legal rights and the same respect and dignity afforded all other
individuals and are protected from discrimination on the basis of their sexual
orientation, and, more specifically, recognize that gay individuals are fully
capable of entering into the kind of loving and enduring committed relationships
that may serve as the foundation of a family and of responsibly caring for and
raising children...

...we now similarly recognize that an individual’s
homosexual orientation is not a constitutionally legitimate basis for withholding or
restricting the individual’s legal rights."

Those intrepid 'defenders of family values' have asked the court to delay implementing this decision until after the elections. By this particular language, I don't think they'll do that. (I hope, at least)

One problem that I foresee is this: In November, when the voters pass the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, what will become of the many thousands of gay marriages that will have taken place between now and then? Perhaps the wording will cover that. Even worse, there is a possibility that "Domestic partnerships" both gay and straight, will be eliminated by the amandment.

 

[rgraham666]

Who is arguing about who is or who is not a human being?

By the way, I doubt that there are very many here who object to gay marriage. Most of us accept it as being perfectly okay, and nobody's business but the persons involved.

The people who are saying "We have to go slow because there might be a backlash. And we don't like that 'activist judges' made a decision against the will of the majority."

What they're really saying is "We're denying these people their rights because those people aren't really people."

My take on it at least.

 

[Boxlicker101]

The people who are saying "We have to go slow because there might be a backlash. And we don't like that 'activist judges' made a decision against the will of the majority."

What they're really saying is "We're denying these people their rights because those people aren't really people."

My take on it at least.

That's balderdash, and you know it. Few, if anybody on this forum fels that way, and you know that too. What some of us are saying is that this court decision will set back the cause, because it will result in a change to the CA constitution outlawing gay marriage, and maybe more. Such a change will be much more difficult to repeal than an ordinary law.

 

[Stella_Omega]

One problem that I foresee is this: In November, when the voters pass the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, what will become of the many thousands of gay marriages that will have taken place between now and then? Perhaps the wording will cover that. Even worse, there is a possibility that "Domestic partnerships" both gay and straight, will be eliminated by the amandment.

There is no ex post facto. Anything that takes place legally remains legal, even after the law has changed to make new occurances illegal. (That's one reason Lori Drew is being charged the way she is-- because, although you can bet that cyber-bullying laws are being drafted right now, none of them till apply to her.)


You can do your part to defend equal marriage rights by voting against these lying sacks of shit who call themselves 'defenders of family values' and contributing to pro rights campaigns. Make it an "IF" not a "When." in fact-- make it a "When not." You don't even have to be a resident of California to contribute to California campaigns.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Box,
In California it takes more than a simple majority to change the constitution. To pass a law, yes. To amend the constitution, no. Whether it can be overturned in November is highly questionable. This will be an election with a high turnout, IMO, and in that atmosphere, especially if Cali goes Dem, a social-conservative agend is unlikely to carry much weight.