CA Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban

[Stella_Omega]

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.

I wonder how many of those signatures will prove false?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by S-Des
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.

I wonder how many of those signatures will prove false?

I can't believe they would have them that fast. For one thing, I have seen nobody out gathering signatures. For another, there is a certain process to be undergone, and it takes a few days.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I can't believe they would have them that fast. For one thing, I have seen nobody out gathering signatures. For another, there is a certain process to be undergone, and it takes a few days.

Oh, that's easy. They knew this decision would be handed down; they went to their churches and got all the signatures-- post-dated. then when the decision went against them, the few days to register their petition, and they produce a million plus siggies, all miraculously garnered in one and a half days.

Thaaank you Jeeezus!

 

[Boxlicker101]

Oh, that's easy. They knew this decision would be handed down; they went to their churches and got all the signatures-- post-dated. then when the decision went against them, the few days to register their petition, and they produce a million plus siggies, all miraculously garnered in one and a half days.

Thaaank you Jeeezus!

Granted it wouldn't take very long, and some things could be done in advance, but it could not be done that quickly. Here is a description of how to qualify an initiative:

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/init_guide.htm

 

[Stella_Omega]

Granted it wouldn't take very long, and some things could be done in advance, but it could not be done that quickly. Here is a description of how to qualify an initiative:

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/init_guide.htm

here's a news brief, which says nothing about current signatures and also seems to say that the referendum doesn't yet exist;
http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/1075749.html

OUr friends in other states-- now is the time to donate time, money, heart and hard work!

 

[Boxlicker101]

here's a news brief, which says nothing about current signatures and also seems to say that the referendum doesn't yet exist;
http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/1075749.html

OUr friends in other states-- now is the time to donate time, money, heart and hard work!

I note the article misuses the term "referendum". This will be an initiative, not a referendum. The difference is a minor one.

The proposal neds to approved in content by the Secty of State and given a title before signatures can be collected. No doubt, the bigots have signators and petition circulators all lined up already.

 

[S-Des]

I wonder how many of those signatures will prove false?

I have learned never to be surprised at anything that happens in politics. You would assume that they would be careful because there will be a lot of attention to such a petition, but who knows?

 

[Pure]

note to rox

Originally Posted by Pure
//then [jbj]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.)

well, it think it safe to say that *some people in *some states had trouble with getting the pill or other b.c. devices.

and they were better off after griswold.

further, griswold slightly extended the list of explicitly named, constitutional rights, by asserting a right of marital privacy, including privacy of one's body.

so, while gradually pill and diaphragm sales would spread except in redneck areas, the PRINCIPLE would not be on the books. and a number of other SC decisions, including roe, depend on it.

all in all, rox, your toot against 'judicial activism' does not ring true. IMO you are either being pathologically apprehensive and cautious about advancing rights you believe in, OR your devotion to those rights is less than whole hearted.

probably you've just imbibed a bunch of 'weekly standard' and 'human events' material about judges. perhaps it wasn't evident to you 1) the right has no actual objection to 'activist judges' and 2) they want some of their own, to 'legislate from the bench.'

after all, the constitution nowhere gives prayer in schools, xian prayer, a protected status. yet many of the right would be quite happy for a judge to say such prayer is protected in law as 'freedom of religion'. it would be formulated in right wing terms: Xians shall not be descriminated agaisnt by having their prayers, including officially led ones, and group ones, banned in the schools (excepting private acts of private individuals).

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

. . . probably you've just imbibed a bunch of 'weekly standard' and 'human events' material about judges. perhaps it wasn't evident to you 1) the right has no actual objection to 'activist judges' and 2) they want some of their own, to 'legislate from the bench.'

after all, the constitution nowhere gives prayer in schools, xian prayer, a protected status. yet many of the right would be quite happy for a judge to say such prayer is protected in law as 'freedom of religion'. it would be formulated in right wing terms: Xians shall not be descriminated agaisnt by having their prayers, including officially led ones, and group ones, banned in the schools (excepting private acts of private individuals).

Ah Pure, ever consisistent: When he runs out of arguments he resorts to equating Roxanne - an atheist libertarian - with the "Xian Right."

 

[S-Des]

after all, the constitution nowhere gives prayer in schools, xian prayer, a protected status. yet many of the right would be quite happy for a judge to say such prayer is protected in law as 'freedom of religion'.

Which is exactly the point I've been trying to make all along. There is no Left-Right in the argument of judicial activism (although the Left seems to be more in favor of the concept in general), plenty of people on both sides are perfectly willing to put aside principle if it gets them a victory. That doesn't make it right, or lessen the potential for abuse down the road.

 

[S-Des]

Ah Pure, ever consisistent: When he runs out of arguments he resorts to equating Roxanne - an atheist libertarian - with the "Xian Right."

He is nothing if not consistent.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Originally Posted by Pure
//then [jbj]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.)

well, it think it safe to say that *some people in *some states had trouble with getting the pill or other b.c. devices.

and they were better off after griswold.

further, griswold slightly extended the list of explicitly named, constitutional rights, by asserting a right of marital privacy, including privacy of one's body.

so, while gradually pill and diaphragm sales would spread except in redneck areas, the PRINCIPLE would not be on the books. and a number of other SC decisions, including roe, depend on it.

all in all, rox, your toot against 'judicial activism' does not ring true. IMO you are either being pathologically apprehensive and cautious about advancing rights you believe in, OR your devotion to those rights is less than whole hearted.

probably you've just imbibed a bunch of 'weekly standard' and 'human events' material about judges. perhaps it wasn't evident to you 1) the right has no actual objection to 'activist judges' and 2) they want some of their own, to 'legislate from the bench.'

after all, the constitution nowhere gives prayer in schools, xian prayer, a protected status. yet many of the right would be quite happy for a judge to say such prayer is protected in law as 'freedom of religion'. it would be formulated in right wing terms: Xians shall not be descriminated agaisnt by having their prayers, including officially led ones, and group ones, banned in the schools (excepting private acts of private individuals).

Actually, the Constitution does give prayer, of any faith, in school a protected status, as long as it is an individual thing. If students want to pray, as individuals, it is legal, as long as they are not disruptive. When the prayers are led or prescribed by authority figures, such as teachers or principals, that is when it become unconstitutional.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Ah Pure, ever consisistent: When he runs out of arguments he resorts to equating Roxanne - an atheist libertarian - with the "Xian Right."

It walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. Maybe it's not a duck, but the eggs it lays look like duck eggs to me.

 

[rgraham666]

Roxanne, from my point of view you do share a lot of traits with the Xtian Right. And Al Qaeda and the Marxists and many other groups.

You are absolutely certain that your way is the only way to look at things and base actions upon. And you are not at all concerned with the fates of those who do not share your world view.

 

[S-Des]

You are absolutely certain that your way is the only way to look at things and base actions upon. And you are not at all concerned with the fates of those who do not share your world view.

Seriously Rob, are you trying to say that out of all the opinionated people on this board, you feel Roxanne is the only one who has this trait? I'd be happy to share a few thousand posts by some of the other political contributors if you'd like. Or is it just that she has these views, but they don't happen to echo the majority opinions around here? Besides, Rox has stated over and over that she does care about other's fates, just that she has different views about how to address the situation. One problem with taking ideology to it's extremes....everyone who disagrees with you must be the enemy (therefore must hate the poor and want to starve children).

 

[Stella_Omega]

Seriously, Des, although Roxy does claim compassion in a statistical way-- she does not address the one-at-a-time realities of human existence except when forced to it. This often makes her seem cold, aloof, judgemental, self-righteous.

What's the difference between a grebe and a duck?

 

[S-Des]

Seriously, Des, although Roxy does claim compassion in a statistical way-- she does not address the one-at-a-time realities of human existence except when forced to it. This often makes her seem cold, aloof, judgemental, self-righteous.

I guess I empathize with her because I've always been pragmatic and logic-based when it comes to making up my mind on issues (notice I didn't claim to be right, just that I do my best to use logic to figure things out the best I can). I know it's driven some of my girlfriends crazy in the past who tended to be more emotional about issues. To me, emotion isn't a positive or a negative, it's just a different way to get to a conclusion. My emotional responses are usually counter-productive (there have been plenty of postings here to back that up), so I strive to move away from that for myself. As I just posted on a different thread, I have an entire lifetime of being surrounded by Democratic politics (almost my entire state leans Left to Far Left), and we have as many problems as any other part of the country (and it's been getting steadily worse for the last few years under Blagojevich), so I've been listening closely to other ideas as a way to improve what we have (not that I'll make much of a difference, but at least I'd like to understand it).

The claims around here (or to the Right on another board I visit) that anyone with a different view must be wrong (and often malicious), is disheartening. There are a lot of people who just feel that a different way would be better, but it usually turns into, "I'm right, so you must not care!" Falling in the middle, I get to watch both sides abusing the other, while any search for real answers gets lost in the noise. Again, in terms of this specific debate, I'm happy with the result, but dislike the method that got us here (I would love to have seen the people stand up and vote for it). I see the court as a serious threat to our liberties, and am loathe to give it any more power than it already has.

 

[AvoidingRealWork]

Well I'll be switched. They did it! Equal protection rules.

It's not an equal protection issue per se. Homosexuals have the right to marry in every state of the union. They just can't/couldn't marry someone of the same sex. It's the exact same right to marry that heterosexuals have.

Whether it's fair, right, or good is another matter.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Roxanne . . . you are not at all concerned with the fates of those who do not share your world view.

Ah, the soul of civility. Plus x-ray vision, capable of seeing individual motivations through a narrow bandwidth connection.

Evidence that I'm "not concerned with the fates of those who don't share my worldview?" Simple: I don't agree with Rob's passionate certainty that his doctrinaire liberalism is the only correct way to think. Send Roxanne to the re-education camps!

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Seriously, Des, although Roxy does claim compassion in a statistical way-- she does not address the one-at-a-time realities of human existence except when forced to it. This often makes her seem cold, aloof, judgemental, self-righteous.

This, on the other hand, is legitimate criticism, regardless of whether or not it's accurate. (That same "narrow bandwidth" issue affect you, Stella - you only see the tiniest sliver of me or any other person here that comes through this words typed into this internet portal, and not the totality of the person. Plus, beware that same error of conflating "doesn't agree with me" with "doesn't care." Personally, I think that the docrtinaire liberalism expressed by many here has created more human destruction and tragedy than anything, but I still presume goodwill [if profound misguidedness] in those who promote it.)

 

[Misty_Morning]

.....

 

[Pure]

roxanne on gay and lesbian equality reminds me of those parents of midteens who say 'we believe in your becoming independent. it's a fine goal, which has our hearfelt support.'

"may i take a job that requires me to work evenings?" 'no'

"may i go out with friends after the prom?" 'no'

"may i buy a used car if i save the money?" 'no'

"may i have any time alone with my boyfriend?" 'no'

"when may i become independent, then?"-- 'when we decide the time is ripe. probably age 18."

===

PS for rox:

i am not a liberal. nor am i doctrinaire. i'm a social democrat, highly pragmatic, who thinks Norway, for example, has done fine with a mix of state and private enterprise, and compassionate concern of citizenry for one another.

 

[Pure]

well, let's see

Ah Pure, ever consisistent: When he runs out of arguments he resorts to equating Roxanne - an atheist libertarian - with the "Xian Right."

the equation, in terms of practical politics, voting, laws favored, etc, is based on these coincidences. some are based on extrapolation, and i invite rox's corrections.

*Rox, like the Xian right, finds virtually all progressive legislation and court decisions, unfortunate, if not lamentable in effect.*

Starting with the most recent, moving back.

CA court on gay marriage.

MASS court on gay marriage.

US SC on roe v. wade

US SC on griswold v. connecticutt

US Congress civil rights legislation of the 1960s.

CA supreme ct re interracial marriage, 1950s.

US SC in Brown v. Board of Ed.

Legislation implementing the 13th and 14th amendments, if not the amendments themselves.

---
I put this out as a proposal, a theory. I suspect rox did not and does not favor the Equal Right Amendment, designed to incorporate womens' rights fully into the constitution. Her reasons may not be those of the xian right, but her actions would resemble, in practical political terms.


===

Whatever her libertarian principles in the abstract, when practical matters concerned with equality come up, and the xian right get hysterical, rox gets very nervous, and generally votes with them, e.g. for Bush both times.

ducks, etc.

 

[Stella_Omega]

It's not an equal protection issue per se. Homosexuals have the right to marry in every state of the union. They just can't/couldn't marry someone of the same sex. It's the exact same right to marry that heterosexuals have.

Whether it's fair, right, or good is another matter.

Please tell me you did not intend this to be a constructive statement.

Heterosexuals have the right to marry the person they are in love with. They have the right to marry the person they are most compatible with.

That's the right that homosexuals do not have.

Of course you may marry a woman you do not like and feel no attraction towards, if you wish-- you have that right!

 

[Stella_Omega]

I got this Idea....sounds a little kooky ...but....

Instead of criticizing one another for how to achieve the goal....why not ...go out and try to make it work?

We're sitting here pointing fingers at one another all we really want is the same outcome. No?

Maybe it's time we start taking our efforts to the streets. Or to the watercooler.


Let's not waste our time arguing amongst ourselves. Let's make a difference.


Talk is cheap, action is....well...action.


Again, people will only vote if they are directly affected unless YOU can convince them that their opinion matters.

IT MATTERS.


We can make a difference...if we choose to do so.

I will begin working the phones in about a month. There were actually so many volunteers that that's the first time there'll be room for me!