"We Will Not Defend Prop. 8"

[3113]

Or so says the newly elected Attorney General of California.

 

[JackLuis]

She's placed herself in a poor position, telling the people that she won't enforce the laws of the State!

Yes it is a silly law, and should be repealed, however she does not have the authority to pick and choose the laws.

She, like Obama, is selecting what she will enforce. Which is what is wrong with our legal system.

 

[Safe_Bet]

She's placed herself in a poor position, telling the people that she won't enforce the laws of the State!

Yes it is a silly law, and should be repealed, however she does not have the authority to pick and choose the laws.

She, like Obama, is selecting what she will enforce. Which is what is wrong with our legal system.

No, she wouldn't defend it in court. Dig some of that homophobia out of your ears and you'll understand her better.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

She's placed herself in a poor position, telling the people that she won't enforce the laws of the State!

Yes it is a silly law, and should be repealed, however she does not have the authority to pick and choose the laws.

She, like Obama, is selecting what she will enforce. Which is what is wrong with our legal system.

You obviously have no grasp of the situation. A federal district court has ruled the law unconstitutional. The California Attorney General has elected not to take an appeal of that ruling. As the state's chief legal officer, she has a duty not to pursue what she considers to be a frivolous appeal. You apparently agree, since you labeled the law "silly". Put your politics aside and save your criticism for a dispute you in which you actually in opposition.

 

[JackLuis]

Foot in Mouth, much?

You obviously have no grasp of the situation. A federal district court has ruled the law unconstitutional. The California Attorney General has elected not to take an appeal of that ruling. As the state's chief legal officer, she has a duty not to pursue what she considers to be a frivolous appeal. You apparently agree, since you labeled the law "silly". Put your politics aside and save your criticism for a dispute you in which you actually in opposition.

I apologize for not understanding the point at issue. I was talking out of my ass sorry.

I offer a rose to the AG. and kisses to any offended by my knee jerk reaction to what I took as a "selective enforcement" issue.

My comment on the President was in regard to his ineffective AG who has still not opened a full inquiry into the Bush Administration's behavior, nor has Obama 'brought the troops home". or closed Gitmo.

I know little things can get to you and I try to avoid thinking about treason and corruption in my own Government.

Anyone on the LG side contributing to "Horney Springs"?

 

[JackLuis]

Homophobe, Tubed!

sr71 will like this.

"Surely you're not a Homophobe?" She asked clutching her throat.

"No! and don't call me Shirley in front of the guys, Okay?"

 

[Stella_Omega]

Everyone loves George Takei.
Except sweaty basketball players.

 

[Boota]

There are all sorts of laws on the books that aren't enforced for various reasons. And not just the really dumb ones like not taking ducks to the movies on Sundays.

 

[3113]

There are all sorts of laws on the books that aren't enforced for various reasons. And not just the really dumb ones like not taking ducks to the movies on Sundays.

Can you take them to the movies on other days?

 

[Guest]

*deleted*

 

[Boxlicker101]

I'm kind of glad, because I didn't much like Prop 8 anyhow, and I voted against it. Even so, I don't like the idea of the AG refusing to defend in court something voted on by the voters. I would think that, regardless of her personal thoughts, she would consider it her duty to represent the people of CA.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'm kind of glad, because I didn't much like Prop 8 anyhow, and I voted against it. Even so, I don't like the idea of the AG refusing to defend in court something voted on by the voters. I would think that, regardless of her personal thoughts, she would consider it her duty to represent the people of CA.

It's pretty hard to defend an unconstitutional measure if you have a modicum of judicial integrity.

She does represent the people of CA-- ALL the people.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The problem for the Usual Suspects is the worm always turns, and down the road another attorney general will take a pass defending a law they like. Win a battle lose a war.

 

[Boota]

The problem for the Usual Suspects is the worm always turns, and down the road another attorney general will take a pass defending a law they like. Win a battle lose a war.

That's an interesting point. And it should be remembered that the Conservatives always win a lot of battles before eventually losing the war. ALWAYS losing the war. As people become more informed, more knowledgeable overall, and the dinosaurs die off, progressive movements become the norm and become embraced by the population.

 

[3113]

I'm kind of glad, because I didn't much like Prop 8 anyhow, and I voted against it. Even so, I don't like the idea of the AG refusing to defend in court something voted on by the voters. I would think that, regardless of her personal thoughts, she would consider it her duty to represent the people of CA.

But, once again, Box, it's gone to court and it lost. There's nothing to say that the State of California has to appeal decisions all the way up to the supreme court. It is the job of state officials--equally elected--to decide if it's worth defending. If they can win, for example, and if it's worth spending tax payer dollars on defending. They either have to think they can win somewhere up the ladder, or they have to believe it's so important to the state that it's worth fighting for.

The state must ask, "What does this law benefit the state that it's worth pouring your money into it?"

Prop. 8 doesn't benefit the state--which is one of the reasons it lost in court. It doesn't even benefit the half (plus a little more) of the people who voted against gays getting married. If gays marry that half+ won't find their lives disrupted, won't lose anything, and if gays don't marry, that half+ won't gain anything either. So, all it does is give that half+ the knowledge that gays can't marry--and it does that at the expense of those gay people. Of what benefit is that to California? It is the job of elected officials--who were ALSO voted in, and voted in with people KNOWING what they thought of the issue--to make such decisions, especially when the law involves singling out certain citizens of this state and removing their rights. Making them unequal.

In the end, if the voters really wanted Prop. 8 to be defended, all the way to the supreme court with taxpayer money, if that many voters really felt strongly about it, then those voters would not have voted in those they voted in. Those they voted in made no secret that they wouldn't pursue this. And those they didn't vote in made no secret that they would pursue it. So voters decided on whether it was worth it to them to defend Prop. 8.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

That's an interesting point. And it should be remembered that the Conservatives always win a lot of battles before eventually losing the war. ALWAYS losing the war. As people become more informed, more knowledgeable overall, and the dinosaurs die off, progressive movements become the norm and become embraced by the population.

California doesnt want Prop 8 going to the US Supreme Court, and they think they wont be impeached for failure to support the state constitution. But it will get there some other way.

 

[Boxlicker101]

But, once again, Box, it's gone to court and it lost. There's nothing to say that the State of California has to appeal decisions all the way up to the supreme court. It is the job of state officials--equally elected--to decide if it's worth defending. If they can win, for example, and if it's worth spending tax payer dollars on defending. They either have to think they can win somewhere up the ladder, or they have to believe it's so important to the state that it's worth fighting for.

The state must ask, "What does this law benefit the state that it's worth pouring your money into it?"

Prop. 8 doesn't benefit the state--which is one of the reasons it lost in court. It doesn't even benefit the half (plus a little more) of the people who voted against gays getting married. If gays marry that half+ won't find their lives disrupted, won't lose anything, and if gays don't marry, that half+ won't gain anything either. So, all it does is give that half+ the knowledge that gays can't marry--and it does that at the expense of those gay people. Of what benefit is that to California? It is the job of elected officials--who were ALSO voted in, and voted in with people KNOWING what they thought of the issue--to make such decisions, especially when the law involves singling out certain citizens of this state and removing their rights. Making them unequal.

In the end, if the voters really wanted Prop. 8 to be defended, all the way to the supreme court with taxpayer money, if that many voters really felt strongly about it, then those voters would not have voted in those they voted in. Those they voted in made no secret that they wouldn't pursue this. And those they didn't vote in made no secret that they would pursue it. So voters decided on whether it was worth it to them to defend Prop. 8.

In fact, the state actually loses when a large percentage of the population is not allowed to marry. For one thing, they lose the millions of dollars that would be taken in as sales taxes from the marriage ceremonies and again in court expenses during the subsequent divorces that will occur a few years later. I don't mean to be cynical but, if thousands of gay and lesbian couples get married, some of those marriages are certain to end in divorce.

More important are the intangible benefits. Generally speaking, a society is better off if their members are mostly involved in stable relationships, such as marriages. Many of those who will get married will already be in more or less permanent living arrangements anyhow, but not as solid as marriage.

No, Jimmy, the AG will not be impeached, but she may be recalled if enough people feel strongly enough to gather signatures and put the recall on the ballot in June. This is not common, but it does happen, such as the governor being recalled a few years ago.

 

[Safe_Bet]

But, once again, Box, it's gone to court and it lost. There's nothing to say that the State of California has to appeal decisions all the way up to the supreme court. It is the job of state officials--equally elected--to decide if it's worth defending. If they can win, for example, and if it's worth spending tax payer dollars on defending. They either have to think they can win somewhere up the ladder, or they have to believe it's so important to the state that it's worth fighting for.

The state must ask, "What does this law benefit the state that it's worth pouring your money into it?"

Prop. 8 doesn't benefit the state--which is one of the reasons it lost in court. It doesn't even benefit the half (plus a little more) of the people who voted against gays getting married. If gays marry that half+ won't find their lives disrupted, won't lose anything, and if gays don't marry, that half+ won't gain anything either. So, all it does is give that half+ the knowledge that gays can't marry--and it does that at the expense of those gay people. Of what benefit is that to California? It is the job of elected officials--who were ALSO voted in, and voted in with people KNOWING what they thought of the issue--to make such decisions, especially when the law involves singling out certain citizens of this state and removing their rights. Making them unequal.

In the end, if the voters really wanted Prop. 8 to be defended, all the way to the supreme court with taxpayer money, if that many voters really felt strongly about it, then those voters would not have voted in those they voted in. Those they voted in made no secret that they wouldn't pursue this. And those they didn't vote in made no secret that they would pursue it. So voters decided on whether it was worth it to them to defend Prop. 8.

The thing is with Box and other people of his ilk is not that they care one way or another about Prop 8, it's that they just feel the need to feel superior to somebody, even if subconsciously. In the 1940s and the 1950s he would have felt that way about blacks. I'm sure that he is is against the evil brown immigrants, as well.

Once gay marriage has become the norm, he and his like will simply pick another minority group to be bigoted against. It's just the way white, males, who grew up with the belief that they were superior to everyone else, function.

Eventually, however, they are relegated to the side lines ala the Great British and Spanish Empires (which I'm sure Box would have admired while they murdered and subjugated their way through Africa, Asia and the Americas...)

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

In fact, the state actually loses when a large percentage of the population is not allowed to marry. For one thing, they lose the millions of dollars that would be taken in as sales taxes from the marriage ceremonies and again in court expenses during the subsequent divorces that will occur a few years later. I don't mean to be cynical but, if thousands of gay and lesbian couples get married, some of those marriages are certain to end in divorce.

More important are the intangible benefits. Generally speaking, a society is better off if their members are mostly involved in stable relationships, such as marriages. Many of those who will get married will already be in more or less permanent living arrangements anyhow, but not as solid as marriage.

No, Jimmy, the AG will not be impeached, but she may be recalled if enough people feel strongly enough to gather signatures and put the recall on the ballot in June. This is not common, but it does happen, such as the governor being recalled a few years ago.

None of what you post is relevant to whether an attorney general oughta uphold her oath of office and support her states constitution. Doing your sworn duty is not the same thing as whether the constitution pleases God. Its no different than the kid who stole all the government records and gave them to WIKILEAKS. They arent his records so he commited theft.

 

[Stella_Omega]

The thing is with Box and other people of his ilk is not that they care one way or another about Prop 8, it's that they just feel the need to feel superior to somebody, even if subconsciously. In the 1940s and the 1950s he would have felt that way about blacks. I'm sure that he is is against the evil brown immigrants, as well.

Once gay marriage has become the norm, he and his like will simply pick another minority group to be bigoted against. It's just the way white, males, who grew up with the belief that they were superior to everyone else, function.

Eventually, however, they are relegated to the side lines ala the Great British and Spanish Empires (which I'm sure Box would have admired while they murdered and subjugated their way through Africa, Asia and the Americas...)

Boxlicker is not homophobic.

He's incredibly linear and literal, and doesn't seem to understand that context is part of conversation-- which makes him seem harsh and unfeeling a lot of the time.

Or else, just plain weird.

 

[Boxlicker101]

The thing is with Box and other people of his ilk is not that they care one way or another about Prop 8, it's that they just feel the need to feel superior to somebody, even if subconsciously. In the 1940s and the 1950s he would have felt that way about blacks. I'm sure that he is is against the evil brown immigrants, as well.

Once gay marriage has become the norm, he and his like will simply pick another minority group to be bigoted against. It's just the way white, males, who grew up with the belief that they were superior to everyone else, function.

Eventually, however, they are relegated to the side lines ala the Great British and Spanish Empires (which I'm sure Box would have admired while they murdered and subjugated their way through Africa, Asia and the Americas...)

I've never felt superior to anybody, except that I believe I write dirtier stories than most. As for my attitude about "the evil brown immigrants," my wife is one of them, and we had six more living in our house until recently.

It's just the way white, males, who grew up with the belief that they were superior to everyone else, function.
Nothing like prejudice, or stereotyping, is there?

 

[sr71plt]

The thing is with Box and other people of his ilk is not that they care one way or another about Prop 8, it's that they just feel the need to feel superior to somebody, even if subconsciously. In the 1940s and the 1950s he would have felt that way about blacks. I'm sure that he is is against the evil brown immigrants, as well.

Once gay marriage has become the norm, he and his like will simply pick another minority group to be bigoted against. It's just the way white, males, who grew up with the belief that they were superior to everyone else, function.

Eventually, however, they are relegated to the side lines ala the Great British and Spanish Empires (which I'm sure Box would have admired while they murdered and subjugated their way through Africa, Asia and the Americas...)

Oh, I don't think Box is as malicious of belief/thought as that. (And I think you are way out on the other wing, for whatever it's worth.) I think it's more that he isn't a deep thinker--or that he's playing dumb with the forum just see others foam at the mouth.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I've never felt superior to anybody, except that I believe I write dirtier stories than most. As for my attitude about "the evil brown immigrants," my wife is one of them, and we had six more living in our house until recently.

It's just the way white, males, who grew up with the belief that they were superior to everyone else, function.
Nothing like prejudice, or stereotyping, is there?

Her statement is indeed, nothing like prejudice or stereotyping. It's a statement of fact; white men who grew up with privilege do tend to function that way.

Is it possible that something you have said make her think you are in that group?

 

[sr71plt]

None of what you post is relevant to whether an attorney general oughta uphold her oath of office and support her states constitution. Doing your sworn duty is not the same thing as whether the constitution pleases God. Its no different than the kid who stole all the government records and gave them to WIKILEAKS. They arent his records so he commited theft.

I think this is right. I think the state attorney general had the responsibility to defend state law in court at the trial stage. I don't know, though, that the state administration has the responsibility of pursuing it to the appellate level if the governor and state attorney general don't believe in a law that was foisted on them.

 

[sr71plt]

Her statement is indeed, nothing like prejudice or stereotyping. It's a statement of fact; white men who grew up with privilege do tend to function that way.

Is it possible that something you have said make her think you are in that group?

Tilt. Where she put the comma (before "who") makes a statement that all white males of privilege (actually, grammatically, she's claiming it's all white males) act this way. Your statement isn't the sweeping generalization that hers was. (This is a writers' board. We should be able to catch those nuances of grammar.)

Box was right to read her this way. It's the way she posted the statement.

The reality is that it's pretty much white males who grew up with privilege who have gotten progressive social legislation put in place and executed. In the future, of course, as the context of legislatures become less privileged white male dominated, it may be some other group that spearheads progressive legislation. But historically it's been the Roosevelt- Rockefeller- Kennedy- and Gore-type privileged white males who have looked to the needs of the less privileged in terms of social legislation and execution.