CA Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban

[rgraham666]

Um. I don't think the people who support gay marriage would be pleased to have such a dishonest tactic pulled on their behalf, Box.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Um. I don't think the people who support gay marriage would be pleased to have such a dishonest tactic pulled on their behalf, Box.

Only because it can backfire, Rob.

This is not a new technique, the Republicans have used it very successfully in many instance.

 

[rgraham666]

OK. Shrugs.

I guess the end does justify the means.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Um. I don't think the people who support gay marriage would be pleased to have such a dishonest tactic pulled on their behalf, Box.

Those who oppose it are already using extremely dishonest tactics. Defense of Marriage, my ass. Contrary to what some may say, the fact that two men are married does not make them any more likely to molest children. If a mother of a young daughter married her gay lover, she is not putting the daughter at risk of molestation any more than if she had married her straight lover.

I remember in 2000 reading the opposition to gay marriage described as wide but not deep. Meaning that most of those who oppose it just don't like the idea, but are not rabidly against it. I said "most" not "all".

By the way, Stella, I would presume the Dems. use the idea just as much as the Reps. Politicians are crooked, whatever their party affiiation. However, this is not the place to argue relative honesty of politicians.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Those who oppose it are already using extremely dishonest tactics. Defense of Marriage, my ass. Contrary to what some may say, the fact that two men are married does not make them any more likely to molest children. If a mother of a young daughter married her gay lover, she is not putting the daughter at risk of molestation any more than if she had married her straight lover.

I remember in 2000 reading the opposition to gay marriage described as wide but not deep. Meaning that most of those who oppose it just don't like the idea, but are not rabidly against it. I said "most" not "all".

By the way, Stella, I would presume the Dems. use the idea just as much as the Reps. Politicians are crooked, whatever their party affiiation. However, this is not the place to argue relative honesty of politicians.

yep, Rob, it's just politics as usual-- both parties!

The ends justify any means that neutralise the means that the other side is prepared to use. I refuse to be Vanquished but Still Gallant.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I disagree with you, for the same reasons that Pure gives. These oppressive attitudes are far too deeply entrenched. The constitutional amendments were merely ratifications of the default.

Of course the amendments just confirm the prevalent attitudes. The point is that they calcify them in state constitutions, so even if those attitudes change to the point where anti-gay passion becomes dulled - which will happen in most of those states over the next 20 years - it will be impossible to gradually reform state laws to reflect that. And also impossible to repeal the amendments, because it's an easy issue to demagogue when a high-profile initiative campaign is launched (as opposed to incremental statutory changes).

 

[Stella_Omega]

Of course the amendments just confirm the prevalent attitudes. The point is that they calcify them in state constitutions, so even if those attitudes change to the point where anti-gay passion becomes dulled - which will happen in most of those states over the next 20 years - it will be impossible to gradually reform state laws to reflect that. And also impossible to repeal the amendments, because it's an easy issue to demagogue when a high-profile initiative campaign is launched (as opposed to incremental statutory changes).

One point addressed, a few to go. One of them being that those attitudes are going to take much longer than twenty years to change.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I should NOT be surprised by the conversations I am getting on the subject. I said that I've been invited to two weddings on the same day? One person suggested that I ask them to combine their ceremonies. She reassured me that she meant it seriously, and was not being snarky.

Only-- why would she assume that two different couples, who are marrying for personal reasons, would care to combine ceremonies? What makes her think they even know each other? (they don't, as a matter of fact.)

Tell me, please, would anyone make these assumptions about two straight couples-- without even asking first? I think not, myself.

 

[Oblimo]

why would she assume that two different couples, who are marrying for personal reasons, would care to combine ceremonies?

Okay, when I first read this, my immediate thought was of the joke answer, "Because gays love parades?"

Does that make me a bad person?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

One point addressed, a few to go. I'd like to ask you once more, Roxy; are you planning to be activist about this during this year?

An activist? No. But when it comes up I speak up. I occassionally travel in some circles where this position is surprising, and have actually changed some minds there. (My most effective polemic: Your darling daughter, neice, etc. is suddenly orphaned. Two couples want to adopt her. One is the obese heteros you saw at Walmart calling their kid "stupid," etc. The other is a pair of gentle, urbane queers. Who do want to get the kid? I get explicit and graphic describing those two couples.)

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

PURE

Let me express my sentiments using other words.

I have 1000s of hours of courtroom experience. And it's my opinion that court is the last goddamned place you want to fix a civil rights problem. Most judges become judges because they cant make any money as lawyers. Most are ass-clowns. My guess is one percent of judges are smart enough and ethical enough to strive for justice. The rest are idgits.

Combine an idiot judge with a moronic juror and youre inviting chaos and surprises.

Plessy made Jim Crow the law of the land for 60 years. It's true, some places discriminated against blacks, but plenty didnt. That is, Plessy didnt help blacks one iota, and hurt them a lot.

Public spectacles, such as controversial trials, always arouse and excite Boobus Americanus. Controversy polarizes people.

Read THE BARBER OF NATCHEZ. Its the diary of William Johnson, a wealthy black planter and businessman of ante-bellum Natchez, Mississippi. He financed damn nearly every influential white person in town, and was welcome almost everywhere he went. He went to the opera, dined at the hotels, and was invited to soirees.

 

[Pure]

to jbj

great posting!

would you not agree, however, that the argument re backlash could equally be applied to legislatures: they err if they get 'ahead' of the people.

example: in Canada the parliament suspended capital punishment, though all polls showed a clear majority favored it. this happened because the conservative party leader opposed cp. he went against a portion of his own party, and his proposal passed because of multiparty support.

as you know, "rights" as in the bill of rights, as often NOT approved of by "the people." it's easy to get majority [or super majority, say 60%] opposition to specific cases, e.g. the efforts of madalyn o'haire to get prayer out of the schools.

as you know "free speech" is always dicey, as is "artistic expression."
so courts occasionally are 'out front' (lack majority support).

so i think it's fine that they act so, in most cases.

my back up argument is that the connections you make, let's say, re Plessy, are speculative *because you do not consider alternatives.*
these, in fact, are virtually impossible to evaluate. in the battle against segregation, the episodes of 'hardening' and 'retrograde' legislation are certainly present. i argue that it's virutally impossible to evaluate the overall effect however.

slavery was abolished in England through a series of parliamentary and court decisions. i'd venture to say they were 'ahead' of the people. isn't this the role of visionary leaders, though? be they in legislature or executive or court?


example: rox holds that the Mass decision re gay marriage has, overall, put dampers on progress. yet it may have something to do with CA courts decisions. and the CA court decision will probably spur a few others. IOW, in the progressive states, things move ahead.

will the bigots rally in the red states? sure. but by consolidating in say 5-10 blue states, esp. populous ones, things improve a lot for gays. and things were never that great in MISS, in any case. after 5-10 blue states pass, then a Miss person heads for the SC.

in conclusion, i add the well known argument: judges like legislators DO sometimes get ahead of the "the people." and it's generally good. that's why we have the system we do. the "unelected judges" that bother rox, are set up so, in the constitution [which rox holds, could use some improvements, and amicus questions whole hog] for a reason: so as to occasionally do something unpopular but just.

it's perhaps unwise to get seriously so [i.e. ahead so far that 67% oppose you], but let's say that the progressive side can retain 41% support. IOW, the bigots would NOT get their 60% level to overturn.

i say, *for most cases*, FINE. and i note, rox has declined to furnish other alleged examples (that go beyond the reconstruction mess).

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I should NOT be surprised by the conversations I am getting on the subject. I said that I've been invited to two weddings on the same day? One person suggested that I ask them to combine their ceremonies. She reassured me that she meant it seriously, and was not being snarky.

Only-- why would she assume that two different couples, who are marrying for personal reasons, would care to combine ceremonies? What makes her think they even know each other? (they don't, as a matter of fact.)

Tell me, please, would anyone make these assumptions about two straight couples-- without even asking first? I think not, myself.

I'll suggest one generous interpretation: In this time and place a gay marriage has a political signifigance (like it or not). Thus the public "mass marriages" we occassionally see.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

would you not agree, however, that the argument re backlash could equally be applied to legislatures: they err if they get 'ahead' of the people.

In my view the democratic accountability of legislatures is hugely signifigant. No one can argue that a legislature "improperly exceeded the scope of its authority" on a matter of public policy matter like this (within constitutional constraints). They can and do argue that the "SOB's are out of control and should lose their seats," which of course is a legitimate political judgement. Maybe they will lose them and maybe they won't - and if they don't you have a genuine advancement that even Boobus A. can't do more than grumble about (because even Boobus accepts our democratic creed).

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

PURE

Virtually every state has archaic laws no one enforces and people laugh at. Presently Florida is prosecuting a 75 year old woman for sassing a young cop. The state is wasting 1000s of dollars trying to get a guilty verdict and an $88 fine.

Females were verbotten in the Conferate army, but General Lee looked the other way when the girls were discovered in the ranks.

You do not shoot yourself in the foot with a bad supreme court decision.

 

[Pure]

?

jbj,

was roe v wade a bad decision in respect of its possibly lacking majority support and creating backlash?

iow, leaving aside the principle [of privacy of one's body], and leaving aside the details [specific periods established for various mothers' decisions], do you think the *timing* was so far ahead as to create sufficient backlash to, overall, retard progress of the cause [woman's choice], over say, a 50 year period.

i would note that at least a few states, likely not a majority, had already allowed abortion.

 

[Pure]

rox In my view the democratic accountability of legislatures is hugely signifigant.

as you know, the founders, while setting up a measure of 'democratic accountability' for the House, greatly hedged it in, for the Senate, which was UNelected (directly). perhaps that was not a bad idea, and shouldn't have been tinkered with.

i find your enthusiasm for more thorough democracy puzzling: not aristotelian or randian or murray-ish. don't you realize the 'democracy' has long since spoken re unregulated capitalism--e.g. in all of Europe. further, democracy has endorsed the 'quasi welfare state' in the US, e.g. social security.

your beloved property and 'buy and sell' rights do NOT stand up to democracy very well at all.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

PURE

You presuppose abortion is progress, when the Pill made abortion unnecessary. But Roe v Wade was a bad idea because abortion isnt in the Constitution. It was and is a state issue to decide.

 

[Pure]

jbj

then you think griswold v connecticutt was a bad idea, also.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

then you think griswold v connecticutt was a bad idea, also.

How long do you think a Pill ban would have stood up in even the most benighted state absent Griswold? Immediate effect: Create a black market. Long-term effect: Wreck the state's economy as the best and the brightest get up and go. (Personally it would have been fun to watch had any attempted it, and would have provided a valuable over-regulation case-study.)

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

rox In my view the democratic accountability of legislatures is hugely signifigant.

as you know, the founders, while setting up a measure of 'democratic accountability' for the House, greatly hedged it in, for the Senate, which was UNelected (directly). perhaps that was not a bad idea, and shouldn't have been tinkered with.

i find your enthusiasm for more thorough democracy puzzling: not aristotelian or randian or murray-ish. don't you realize the 'democracy' has long since spoken re unregulated capitalism--e.g. in all of Europe. further, democracy has endorsed the 'quasi welfare state' in the US, e.g. social security.

your beloved property and 'buy and sell' rights do NOT stand up to democracy very well at all.

I notice you've changed the subject.

 

[S-Des]

would you not agree, however, that the argument re backlash could equally be applied to legislatures: they err if they get 'ahead' of the people.

I'm not sure if this is a difference in political views, or in political systems (because you have a different view based on your country's differences from ours), but this is the point exactly. Newt Gingrich got a huge change in our political landscape via the Contract With America. He got enough people to believe it was a good idea that you saw Republicans take over the majority in the House & Senate. When they backslid on the very things that got them elected (or the people finally decided they didn't like the ideas any more....whichever way you choose to look at it), the Democrats replaced them. That's why our legislature makes the laws, because people feel they can do something about it when they disagree (hence change feels less radical).

Judges are appointed in large part, and often more through crony-ism than actual accomplishment. When a judge walks in and says the will of the people is irrelevant, many people feel disenfranchised and you have political upheaval for a long time. Try looking up the dissenting opinions on this case to see how the other judges felt about the decision. One of the judges expressed in her dissent that she believed GM was the right thing, but that there was no basis for the decision, hence it was a poor one. We're just talking process here. I only know of a few people on the board who are upset about the results. It's very easy to envision a scenario where a state court of a very Conservative state could go the opposite way on social change. That's the point. Once the voters have reached the watershed point for change, it's a done deal. They had 1.1 million signatures to get a Constitutional Amendment on the ballet to overturn this by Thursday.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Adding to the last point, Roe v. Wade has greatly skewed our politics in unhealthy ways. A strong case can be made that this has been far more destructive than if a third of the states banned abortion, a third had no restrictions, and the rest fell in between.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Adding to the last point, Roe v. Wade has greatly skewed our politics in unhealthy ways. A strong case can be made that this has been far more destructive than if a third of the states banned abortion, a third had no restrictions, and the rest fell in between.

Excepting, of course, if you made that case to the women who were able to have the abortion their state would otherwise have prohibited them. The more so since women in need of an abortion generally are not able to travel to another state to get one.

Added:

How long do you think a Pill ban would have stood up in even the most benighted state absent Griswold? Immediate effect: Create a black market. Long-term effect: Wreck the state's economy as the best and the brightest get up and go. (Personally it would have been fun to watch had any attempted it, and would have provided a valuable over-regulation case-study.)

"Best and Brightest" is not the criteria; "Unusually heroic and/or idealistic" might be the better term. People do NOT like to leave their home of choice, and it usually takes war and famine and hurricanes to turn them out. A matter like a missing Pill will only swell the schools with the children of women who could not get a supply-- if their husbands (should they have such) can find enough money to subsist, they will stay put. If they can't find the money-- they won't be able to make a move. If one or two of those happen to be potentially best and bright-- their potential will likely never be realised.

Your reasoning, as always, involves broad and speculative statistics and ignores the real individuals.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

STELLA you can make the same argument for anything people dont have but want.

If one state offers free breast augmentation and liposuction and gift certificates to Victoria's Secret, and other states dont, nothing in the Constitution warrants freebies for everyone, everywhere.

"BUT I WANT IT!" is merely a teenage mantra, not the motto of the USA.