CA Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban

[S-Des]

Duplicate Post

 

[S-Des]

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?

I agree with this more than anything else on the thread. If you want to take the argument out of this court decision, then get out there and win the vote this November (assuming the Amendment makes the ballot). I've heard that the opinion polls have moved from 60-40 to 50-50 since the last one passed, so there's a good chance. I'd be very happy to see the Amendment lose, so the judges can get their ass out of it.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

In 1964 a black guy was elected to our city commission. I doubt it was legal for him to vote then. But he was a prince and we got him elected. And we got him elected in a very Southern town. We also staged one of the last minstrel shows in America there.

I recall there wasnt a lot of excitement about the election or the candidate. He was a local boy, accomplished ( military service, engineer, married), and he beat a good ol boy who abused the peasants, and the peasants revolted.

But the paper always seems to forget this incident when it reviews 60s civil rights efforts in the area. To listen to the newspaper's editors we had to be beaten into submission before we stopped resisting change.

Liberals love excitement and carnivals and parades, and most people prefer quiet dignity.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

MISTY

There are lotsa things people want.

I like to be left alone in peace.

When the faggot bitch next door stops fucking with everyone and calling code enforcement over every trivial issue, she may get a little more sympathy for her cause. As it is, when people are reminded of queers we think of crazy Elaine and think grrrrrrr. So far I havent heard one gay offer to compromise his liberal position for anything the rest of us want.

 

[rgraham666]

Before people go about praising referendums as a 'democratic tool' remember Hitler got his dictatorial power on the basis of two referendums.

And let's face it. Most of the people complaining about the 'activist judges' in this case would be thrilled to death if, say, a judge ruled taxes unconstitutional.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

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.

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. . . . Her reasons may not be those of the xian right, but her actions would resemble, in practical political terms.

Indeed, one could no doubt say the same about social democrat policies and the political preferences of say, Pol Pot or Mao, etc. No doubt those murderous communist dictators would have approved every leftward step in the direction of social democratic economic policies. Thus, by Pure's logic, Social democrat = Murderous commie thug.

 

[Pure]

thanks rox,

Pure, //*Rox, like the Xian right, finds virtually all progressive legislation and court decisions, unfortunate, if not lamentable in effect. . . . Her reasons may not be those of the xian right, but her actions would resemble, in practical political terms. //

Indeed, one could no doubt say the same about social democrat policies and the political preferences of say, Pol Pot or Mao, etc. No doubt those murderous communist dictators would have approved every leftward step in the direction of social democratic economic policies. Thus, by Pure's logic, Social democrat = Murderous commie thug.

---
i made the claim:

//Rox finds virtually all progressive legislation and court decisions, unfortunate, if not lamentable in effect. . //

i listed a half dozen, and queried the ERA. asked for correction.

you respond by bringing up Pol Pot.

I conclude, as most of us knew, that you do, in fact *for your own reasons* oppose most of the progression legislation and court decisions of the last 50 yrs.

So you act accordingly, including voting, i'd bet.

Hence my claim, now validated, that at the level of practical action, you're in agreement with the xian and other far right groups.

You want the gays and lesbians to gain protection and assert rights in a bland way, never going to court, never pushing legislators, so that the bigots won't do their backlash routines.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Hence my claim, now validated, that at the level of practical action, you're in agreement with the xian and other far right groups.

You want the gays and lesbians to gain protection and assert rights in a bland way, never going to court, never pushing legislators, so that the bigots won't do their backlash routines.

I agree. Roxy burned out on activism, by her own statements, back in the seventies.

That's fine, honey. In accordance with my moral system, your personal reasons for action or inaction can very well derive from emotions and still be legitimate. But if you pretend that they stem from bigger and more important thought processes- and when you try to proselytise according to your emotional reaction-- nuh-uh.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I agree with this more than anything else on the thread. If you want to take the argument out of this court decision, then get out there and win the vote this November (assuming the Amendment makes the ballot). I've heard that the opinion polls have moved from 60-40 to 50-50 since the last one passed, so there's a good chance. I'd be very happy to see the Amendment lose, so the judges can get their ass out of it.

Get thee to thy phones!
You do not have to live in CA to campaign against this referendum. There are political phone-calling offices all over the country-- check your local http://craigslist.org jobs listings to find one.

 

[john-the-author]

Just saw an article that George Takei and Brad Altman, who've been together 21 years, are planning their wedding. I've known George personally in the past (though haven't seen him in years) and he's a wonderful, sweet, charming, urbane man. I am incredibly pleased for him and Brad.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Just saw an article that George Takei and Brad Altman, who've been together 21 years, are planning their wedding. I've known George personally in the past (though haven't seen him in years) and he's a wonderful, sweet, charming, urbane man. I am incredibly pleased for him and Brad.

YESSS!

I'm popping bubbly in the other thread-- drop in and have a glass!

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I conclude, as most of us knew, that you do, in fact *for your own reasons* oppose most of the progression legislation and court decisions of the last 50 yrs.

So you act accordingly, including voting, i'd bet.

Hence my claim, now validated, that at the level of practical action, you're in agreement with the xian and other far right groups.

You want the gays and lesbians to gain protection and assert rights in a bland way, never going to court, never pushing legislators, so that the bigots won't do their backlash routines.

What an obnoxious assumption. Among other things you've just accused my of opposing legislation that accorded full equality under the law to all races. (And Stella - I expect such hostility from Pure, but not from you.)

Note that the discussion has been about a tactical matter, whether highly contentious social policies imposed by courts rather than by democratically accountable legislatures are counterproductive to the broader goal. From this you leap to the assumption that I have "opposed most of the progression (sic) legislation . . . of the last 50 yrs."

By which I assume you mean legislation on social/civil rights issues (as opposed to socialist issues). Basis for this assumption? Nothing that I've ever written here. To repeat for the zillionth time, I'm an atheist and a libertarian, which makes my public policy preferences highly transparent (as well as logically consistent).

Such hostility. Not to mention a blatant violation of civility, in that the ultimate effect if not goal of such statements is to silence dissenters.

 

[Pure]

yes, that's right rox,

my impression is as follows, and i invited your correction *on any specific items*. you would necessarily oppose legislation that doesn't fit majority wishes, for the same reason you oppose court decisions that go against majority wishes.

*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.

===

rox said
By which I assume you mean legislation on social/civil rights issues (as opposed to socialist issues). Basis for this assumption? Nothing that I've ever written here. To repeat for the zillionth time, I'm an atheist and a libertarian, which makes my public policy preferences highly transparent (as well as logically consistent).

pure: yes, that's exactly what i meant. legislators who go against the majority create backlash too: hence they may be turfed out and retrograde legislation my be re instated and *other* legislatures may be spurred to pass retrograde legislation. same arguments as for courts.

WHICH items of legislation, above do you favor? Do you favor the ERA?

a blatant violation of civility, in that the ultimate effect if not goal of such statements is to silence dissenters.

what's uncivil about listing your stances? it's perhaps embarrassing. i have no reason to silence you. i'm eager for you to keep posting AGAINST progressive court decisions, so that people see that your 'libertarianism' is theoretical and your 'atheism' is irrelevant. i propose that you do NOT agree with the SC decisions starting with [Murray] O Hair that banned officially organizied prayer in the schools [Murray v Curlett, 1963]. Is that right? Hence as i stated, in practical terms, you're with the religious right.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/173/story_17382_1.html

Madalyn Murray O'Hair became a household name when she contested the required moment of prayer and Bible reading in her son William's Baltimore-area public school in 1960. The Supreme Court, then under Chief Justice Earl Warren, delivered its 8-1 verdict in favor of O'Hair on June 17, 1963, expanding an earlier school prayer decision in the 1962 Engel v. Vitale case. Murray v. Curlett, along with Abington v. Schempp, eliminated not only obligatory school prayer but also mandatory Bible readings in public schools.

 

[Pure]

supplementary list of legislation: roxanne's position--what is it?

I suspect Rox would oppose all of the following pieces of legislation, but invite her corrections.

[from Timeline for women's rights, legislation and court decisions:
http://www.legacy98.org/timeline.html ]

items of legislation:

1938 The Fair Labor Standards Act establishes minimum wage without regard to sex.

1963 The Equal Pay Act is passed by Congress, promising equitable wages for the same work, regardless of the race, color, religion, national origin or sex of the worker.

1993 The Family and Medical Leave Act goes into effect.[wiki:] [ a United States labor law allowing an employee to take unpaid leave due to a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform his job or to care for a sick family member or to care for a new son or daughter (including by birth, adoption or foster care).]

1964 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act passes including a prohibition against employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex.

1972 Title IX (Public Law 92-318) of the Education Amendments prohibits sex discrimination in all aspects of education programs that receive federal support.

1978 The Pregnancy Discrimination Act bans employment discrimination against pregnant women.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I suspect Rox would oppose all of the following pieces of legislation, but invite her corrections.

You know what they say about the word "assume," Pure.

Laws that establish equality under the law have my unqualified support. Laws that make some individuals or workers more equal than others I oppose. Laws that intrude government into private affairs and contracts by imposing necessarily arbitrary regulations to enforce intrinsically arbitrary terms (like "comparable") are an invitation to tyranny, and naturally have my opposition.

Are you setting up litmus tests for political correctness, Pure? Is there any purpose to such things besides quashing debate and silencing dissent on contentious (and by definition ambiguous) political matters? Not in my book there's not.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I went out yesterday looking for signature gatherers in shopping centers and similar places. I didn't see any, which brings up several possibilities:

They already have enough signatures, which seems unlikely. They would need about 900,000, snd I don't think they could have them already.

They haven't started yet, which seems more likely, since there are other processes to go through, which take time.

They will just be collecting them at churches. There is a good chance of this, even though the churches who get political should lose their tax exempt status for doing it.

They are concentrating in more conservative areas.

 

[Stella_Omega]

You know what they say about the word "assume," Pure.

Laws that establish equality under the law have my unqualified support. Laws that make some individuals or workers more equal than others I oppose. Laws that intrude government into private affairs and contracts by imposing necessarily arbitrary regulations to enforce intrinsically arbitrary terms (like "comparable") are an invitation to tyranny, and naturally have my opposition.

Are you setting up litmus tests for political correctness, Pure? Is there any purpose to such things besides quashing debate and silencing dissent on contentious (and by definition ambiguous) political matters? Not in my book there's not.

How is asking you questions-- and asking for your answers-- silencing you in any way?

This seems to me to be a clash between your preference for nebulous theoretical statements, and other people's dislike of same. And, conversely, other people's (mine included) preference for solid, factually assessable, statements provided to back up the theoretical declarations. It isn't an attack, at least- not from me. I am more likely to be persuaded that way.

 

[S-Des]

How is asking you questions-- and asking for your answers-- silencing you in any way?

Well, I suppose she's referring to Pure's constant name-calling, ridiculous sham arguments (where he credits himself for "winning" ), and his grouping her with people she has little in common with as an argument tactic. Seriously, considering 3113's thread about "shouting" TV, what's the difference with his rambling, incoherent posts? I know I've explained the difference between Legislative change & Judicial change three times in this thread alone, yet he still claims they are interchangeable. Personally, I'm baffled at why that is.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Oh, believe me, even though I lean the same direction, I cannot read most of his posts-- and it's a shame that he gets so incoherent. I'd put him on ignore, if I could.

Still, I am curious myself. I am comfortable with specifics-- as illustrations for the generalities, at least.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

How is asking you questions-- and asking for your answers-- silencing you in any way?

This seems to me to be a clash between your preference for nebulous theoretical statements, and other people's dislike of same. And, conversely, other people's (mine included) preference for solid, factually assessable, statements provided to back up the theoretical declarations. It isn't an attack, at least- not from me. I am more likely to be persuaded that way.

There is nothing objectionable in most of the statutory provisions he cites. In some of them, intruding the federal government into complex private arrangements has had extensive unintended consequences. Title IX, for example, is based on an assumption that as many girls are interested in sports as boys, which does match the real world that I perceive. In consequence, many sports programs for boys have been gutted. It also has been used to prohibit all girl math classes or even all-boy or all-girl schools, even when there is evidence that in some cases those would be very good things. It's the invisible foot of one-size-fits-all big government - it's unintended negative consequences exceed any good it does.

It isn't really an "equality before the law" issue, either, because it only applies where the federal government has used its power to tax-and-spend to subsidize school sports or other programs, directly or indirectly. It's a political preference issue, not a core civil rights one. Where those provisions involve equality before the law - voting, crime and punishment, etc. - I am in unqualified agreement.

Court decisions can be even more problematic - that's what the debate is about here in this thread. Yes Brown v. Board of Ed kicked off the civil rights movement in this country - unambiguously a good thing - but it also had many pernicious effects, including destructive bussing programs, and indirectly, the creation of monumentally horrible urban school districts that have contributed to the destruction of generations of black children. It should also be noted that Brown was merely the reversal of an earlier court ruling that also imposed an arbitrary one-size-fits-all government fiat - a warning that he who lives by the court can die by it, too.

In short, laying down a list of complex measures or decisions, some of which have ambiguous provisions and problematic outcomes, and implicitly setting them up as a simplistic "which side are you on" litmus test," should indeed be viewed as an effort to short-circuit civil discourse.

 

[Stella_Omega]

In short, laying down a list of complex measures or decisions, some of which have ambiguous provisions and problematic outcomes, and implicitly setting them up as a simplistic "which side are you on" litmus test," should indeed be viewed as an effort to short-circuit civil discourse.

I don't view it that way at all. I see it as an effort to encourage you to make (relatively) simple and singular statements in answer to (relatively) simple and singular questions. Qualifications are fine-- but don't take the place of answers. Not for me, at least.

Besides, if some of them have ambiguous etc., it might mean that some of them don't-- and I'd like to know which is which in your mind.

 

[S-Des]

Still, I am curious myself. I am comfortable with specifics-- as illustrations for the generalities, at least.

She'll have to answer that. I think you can only "silence" someone online if they're so fragile that they quit over people disagreeing (and I hardly would call Roxanne "fragile" ). Amicus has proved that you can survive (and even thrive in a weird way) being completely anti-social (I guess if you try hard enough to be hated, people will like you in a bizarre way ). I don't discuss to "win" and to be honest, have never understood people who do. In the immortal words of Chris Rock, "People were jumpin' around screaming "We win, we win!" What the fuck did we win? Everyday I go to the mailbox looking for my OJ prize....and nothin'!"

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Besides, if some of them have ambiguous etc., it might mean that some of them don't-- and I'd like to know which is which in your mind.

Voting rights act. Absolutely necessary at the time, but even there, a necessary measure has become "calcified" and may being used in some instances today in ways that countenance voter fraud, and which defy the proper operation of federalist principles (as opposed to the abuses of those principles the Act was adopted to defeat). So even the least problematic and most necessary measure turns out to be complex in its long-term outcome, and thus demanding of qualification. Each of them warrants a thoughtful, nuanced, fleshed-out discussion - something that I am not qualified to undertake, and which is not suited to the medium of an open internet forum (as opposed to a scholarly colloquium).

I think you can only "silence" someone online if they're so fragile that they quit over people disagreeing (and I hardly would call Roxanne "fragile" ).

Bullying in which several people gang up and exchange hurtful comments about another can silence almost anyone. I've seen it here on one or two very rare occassions (none of those in this conversation were involved). Regardless of whether it is successful it is mean, unfair, uncivil and destructive - if you see such a thing please don't participate, and please do say out loud that what's happening is wrong. However, Pure and I going at each other is more like two kids in the back seat on a long car trip quarreling over the other intruding onto "my side" , but that doesn't mean that I can't holler "foul" when he uses rhetorical techniques that go beyond the usual "throwing elbows."

 

[Stella_Omega]

Voter's rights. Absolutely necessary at the time, but even there, a necessary measure has become "calcified" and may being used in some instances today in ways that countenance voter fraud, and which defy the proper operation of federalist principles

In what way might the voter's rights measure be used for fraud?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

In what way might the voter's rights measure be used for fraud?

I'm rusty on the details, but it's been used for things like preventing more rigorous ballot integrity measures from being imposed on corrupt jurisdictions like St. Louis. (I'm sure I have the details wrong on that because it's been a while since the issue was in the news - this is for illustration purposes, because it does sound weird, I know.)