- ‹ previous
- 1856 of 8902
- next ›
Overturning Prop. 8: No Court-Ordered Equality!
In response to California Attorney General Jerry Brown's assertion that the state Supreme Court should overturn Proposition 8, both George Will (who is not gay) and Andrew Sullivan (who is) argue that the best move for the gay community is to wait for a legislative or ballot-based solution. Here's Will:
Just eight years ago, Proposition 22 [defining marriage as between a man and a woman] was passed, 61.4 to 38.6 percent. The much narrower victory of Proposition 8 suggests that minds are moving toward toleration of same-sex marriage. If advocates of that have the patience required by democratic persuasion, California's ongoing conversation may end as they hope. If, however, the conversation is truncated, as Brown urges, by judicial fiat, the argument will become as embittered as the argument about abortion has been by judicial highhandedness.
And here's Sullivan:
...as a political matter — and this is a political struggle — I hope the court decides to allow Prop 8 to stand. I do not want civil equality imposed by judicial fiat in the most populous state in America — in the face of a close initiative vote. It would be a horribly pyrrhic victory. It would taint this movement's power and message and moral standing.
I don't think George fully grasps what the denial of marriage equality does to the souls of gay folk, and does not appreciate how we are in fact deeply wounded by the heterosexual majority in denying us core equality. But he's right that California already provides substantive state protections for gay couples. He's right too that recent history suggests we can easily win this in the democratic sphere and have been making amazing gains in persuading people of the justice of the cause.... [The court] need not force this now, and shouldn't. Let's put this to a referendum again. And let's do the hard work to win.
I agree. I was upset when Prop 8 passed — it made my home state feel like a place I no longer knew. But the people spoke and their opinion ought to be respected. I know the courts have a role in advancing civil rights, and know that many gains for blacks were won judicially, not through legislation or ballot initiatives. But gay marriage is close to being legalized in California through a publicly passed law; achieving that through a democratic process will mean a stronger, more lasting, and more legitimate victory.
And besides, it would be too easy to call for the courts to fix the problem. Being involved in politics and activism means being disappointed sometimes. Just because you fail doesn't mean you give up or seek redress from a higher power. You get back to work and fighter harder the next time. I suggest that the many disappointed Californians who are hoping for a court solution channel their anger and use it to win a democratic victory that will never be overturned.
I understand your position and that of Sullivan. But in the case of California and Prop 8, I disagree and perhaps for a reason you haven't mentioned.
Prop 8 came about after the California Supreme Court found that marriage equality was fundamental to the California State Constitution based upon equal protection. They didn't parse out an interpretation of some law or clause as "also applying to gay people," but simply applied the Constitution's fundamentals to all people.
The suit to overturn Prop 8 is based upon the difference between a simple amendment to the Constitution, which can be done by referendum with a simple majority, and a fundamental revision to it, which is a much more difficult process. And for good reason, because the Constitution is supposed to be a foundation that resists the temporary swings of public opinion.
Had the California Supreme Court's ruling been based on the interpretation of a law, then overturning the law at the ballot box would have been legal, and our proper approach would be to use the ballot box ourselves to overturn their overturning.
But the basis is more fundamental and we should NOT back off in this case.
What are you talking about?!! You're going to jump on board with one of the biggest gay hypocrites on the planet to decide that my constitutional rights deserve to be voted on, tossed about on the waves of public opinion like a bunch of worthless chads? Disgusting, pathetic, shameful. The idea that we're just a bunch of "disappointed" gays, all sad that we can't get married, is deeply offensive -- it's the principle of voting on minority rights that is the most disturbing thing about Prop 8, and your condescending attitude ignores that. Why do we even have a court system then, Mr. States' Rights? This sickens me.
Ducktape is correct: if the court meant what it said when it declared marriage a fundamental right that cannot be restricted based on gender, that poses legal consequences that cannot simply be wished away by George Will and Andrew Sullivan. Courts are not supposed to ignore the law in the name of political expediency.
If the court believes that Prop 8 was improperly on the ballot because the initiative process cannot be used to eliminate fundamental rights, then the court must follow the logic of that, and rule however the law requires. It would be grotesque for the court to base this ruling, or any ruling, on its guess of where voters stand.
The rule of law is not something you turn on and off when it suits your political ends.
Party Ben,
I didn't mean to be offensive, and I understand your anger and frustration with my view on this. I also understand the fundamental flaw in a system that allows the public to vote on who has human rights and who doesn't.
But that's the system we have, and marriage equality will succeed in that system in two or four years. Is it horrible that people have to wait that long to marry those they love? Yes, of course, that's why Prop 8's passage soiled for me what as otherwise a historic and wonderful election. But when gay marriage does get approved by the majority of California voters, it will silence the haters in a way that a court decision won't. If a handful of liberal judges overturn a majority vote, the right will be able to gin up so much anger that it will file and probably pass another ballot initiative. In doing so, it will successfully demonize gays, "activist" judges, and liberals more generally. If, on the other hand, we wait, it will end the discussion forever.
I'm aware that this is an easy position for me to take, as a straight man. But I'd like to see California prove that this can be done without the courts -- there is a place, a vanguard for the rest of the nation, where equality for all people is embraced by the majority of all people.
Polygamy is just as much of a right as gay marriage, same goes to marrying the cat. To the gay people, it is not all about you, there are also other people out here as well that deserve their right to be happy as well.
As much as I agree a "majority" win could make it a stronger win, I still have a problem with the majority ruling a minority. Christianity is NOT the majority religion in the world, so perhaps we should let the majority religion dictate who or how Christians worship?
Linda - Your comment is extremely ignorant. We are NOT talking about cats, dogs or multiple partners. We are talking about two consenting adults. Also, this isn't only about being happy. This is about being human, and as a tax paying citizen, being equal.
James Hipps, you are probably a meat eater who does not respect the life of the other creatures that share the planet with you. 18% of the Green house gases are caused by your irresponsibility and pursuit of lust by eating the flesh of your fellow creatures. You should be ashamed of your selfish lifestyle.
Peta
I'm a vegan you judge-MENTAL MORON!
I'm not waiting again for haterosexuals to vote on my rights. Haterosexuals have oppressed gay people for millenia. It's haterosexuals' nature to oppress.
Haterosexuals in California and 29 others states took away gay people's right to use the judicial, legislative and executive branch to earn their rights by passing Constitutional Amendments. This isn't confined to just marriage, haterosexuals have taken away or denied gay people rights whenever they come up for a vote from anti-discrimination to age of consent.
Today is Martin Luther King Day 2009 and today is the day before the inauguration of the first half-black/half-white president of the United States. As my daughters are of mixed race, Barack Obama is the embodiment of this great national melting pot. The martyred civil rights leader would likely agree with the national sentiment recognizing we have gained much and are perhaps within reach of attaining King's dream of equality. And while this is a joyous moment in our collective history, it is diminished by the observation that discrimination against a minority still exists in this country. It may be true that hatred enabled through the concept of organized white-supremacy is far less prevalent today than it was prior to the general election held a mere two and a half months ago, but it was at that election in California and in other states where hatred was enabled through the concept of organized Christian-supremacy.
It's not that Catholicism or Mormonism is necessarily evil, but rather that some sinners who have hijacked those religions to use them to twist the message of Jesus in all His works for their own financial and demented personal gain is the real abomination. How sick must a criminal be to use a trusted position in the clergy in order to obtain sex with children, whether through pedophilia or child brides? How sick must a sinner be to allow such conduct in their own house of worship while fighting against the love formed between two consenting adults? How perverted has religion become when it denies love through marriage just as it denies the harm it has suffered upon the children abused in its name? Or the holy wars for that matter, such as how did the oppressed Jew become the oppressor, bombing Palestinian children like fish in a barrel?
Just as slavery remains active in this country, albeit under the accepted misnomer of 'trafficking in humans,' so too does hate oppress love as enabled by Proposition 8. It is the simplest form of the old magical art of illusion, to simply change the name of some wicked crime in order to manipulate the public. If we no longer call it unemployment, you are not among those counted as unemployed. Simple.
Just as the criminal aspirations of organized crime have moved into deregulated corporate offices of Enron or AIG, as well as the once trusted financial investment activities of Bernie Madoff and his ilk, the Klansmen have moved into the houses of worship. They still wear white robes and funny hats and carry a crucifix along with their bible and they still scream hate speech from the pulpit, only now they commit the most heinous sins of usury in violation of God's Word as they count money and take delight in their sexual escapades with children in a more secluded location. They could make a mint in 'priest porn.'
Yes rejoice! An intelligent American of African descent is being installed into the presidency. But notice also the pervasiveness of hate actively supported through organized religion. Notice hate has moved from one venue to another, from a burning cross on distant hill into the pulpit and corporate boardrooms of America.
Yes celebrate the progress of King's dream, but reaffirm all hate and evil need to succeed is for good people to do nothing. We straights may not understand or agree with same sex marriage, but we do understand the inalienable right of every American to pursue happiness through marriage, just as we understand to deny love is to embolden hate. We must resolve to reverse the harm of proposition 8 funded by religious supremacists.
Joe, you left out the Jewish religion. Israel Knesset Member Nissim Ze'ev proposed establishing "rehabilitation centers" to suppress the sexual tendencies of gay people.
"The government should initiate this; these people are dangerous and we must keep an eye on them," he said as the High Court discussed whether to cancel the Jerusalem gay pride parade due to the firefighters' slow-down strike. "If such a center is built, many of them will flock to it in order to help themselves. " Ze'ev added that gay people must be made aware of "how their lifestyle is destroying our existence". Zeev went as far as comparing the gay movement to a "plague that may destroy Jewish Israel", adding that this "plague" should be dealt with "just as the Health Ministry is dealing with bird flu."
Jonah,
I'm not prepared to cast an accusation upon all Jews that they support discrimination. If you recall, back in 2004 the Republican Party was arguing for a constitutional amendment against gay marriage, which thankfully failed miserably. In September of that year the American Jewish Committee issued the following resolution; to wit:
"AJC opposes the recently proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would (1) restrict marriage to the union of a man and a woman, and (2) preclude the construction of the federal or any state constitution as requiring that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than a union of a man and a woman. Such an amendment would enshrine discrimination into our social fabric."
Source: http://www.ajc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=ijITI2PHKoG&b=849241&...
It seems to me the average Jew recognizes hate when he sees it. That they are now silent on recent harmful developments at the state levels however, is deafening. Their conduct in Gaza is shocking.
You are right Joe. The effect of the blockade on the health of the population of Gaza has been severe in the extreme. In the period before the new outbreak of violence a couple of weeks ago, investigators found that 75 percent of Gazans were undernourished. The children of Gaza, who number 58 percent of the population and whose bodies persist in wanting to grow, have been the greatest sufferers: 46 percent suffer from acute anemia, 45 percent have an iron deficiency, and 18 percent have been stunted in their growth. Because of lack of fuel, provision of electricity and water has been sketchy and scarce. And now, since the assault by Israel, beginning on December 27, the condition of Gaza has gone from calamitous to catastrophic: a humanitarian disaster, in the view of both the International Red Cross and the United Nations Relief Agency, who have a certain expertise in these matters.
With such punishing effects on the civilian population, the continuing Israeli blockade of Gaza, now of 18 months duration, constitutes "collective punishment," a belligerent action that besides being abhorrent to most people is expressly forbidden under Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the controlling international law on the conduct of war.
Not to bring about a reasonable argument to the writer or those two attorneys but there is something you forget. Fundamentalism is on the rise in the US according to a poll on CNN 55% of Americans believe in creationism. Looking back to the days when the 14th amendment and then the 19th amendment were composed if the majority was allowed to vote on such issues, at the time, we would probably still have segregation and women oppression today.
Now, look at the countries that opposed the majority. Canada, Spain, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Finland and soon Sweden all adopted gay marriage, and opposed the conformist majority. Today few people care and the majority could care less a same sex couple marries. The government forced a change and in time the people began to accept LGBT for who they are. Of course there are still fundamentalist who oppose the love between two same sex adults, but they are thinning out more and more as the months go by.
I disagree that letting this blow over will fix the problem. If we allow this to blow over, who's rights will be targeted next? Tolerance of intolerance "is" intolerance! Also, this is far different than Roe VS Wade. This is not about abortion, this is about fully functioning adults in a loving committed relationship who have much to lose if their marriage is not valid.
Domestic partnerships give a fraction of rights that married couples have. You cannot get a green card on a DP, and your will can still be challenged by the deceased partner's family. Also things that can remove a DP are far to inconvenient for couples who must travel for their employment.
Let me leave you with a argument of reason concerning one's faith.
"Faith is a belief and only a belief. It can never be proven or disproven. You can only have faith in that belief, hence why it's called having faith. To say that, with your faith, you are in possession of the "truth" or "fact" is to say that your belief is no longer a matter of faith but a matter of reality. If that is the case and what you believe is reality, then like reality it must be subject to reason, logic, science and simple questioning. If you will not allow your reality to be subject to those things then it is not reality but faith and therefore has no grounds to question relative issues that are based in the realm of reality."
Chris,who appointed you to be the judge of American people on what is "right" and what is "wrong". If you don't like our democracy, you are free to come to Spain. The Queen of Spain remarked about the 2005 act legalising gay marriage. "The immense majority of families are normal," she said. "I can understand, accept and respect that there are people with other sexual tendencies but being proud to be gay, getting on to a float and joining a parade? If all of us who weren't gay went on a parade, the traffic would be chaos in every city."
Carlos your comment is interesting to say the least. The US was founded by Dayist as well as Free Masons, who found religion to be a dangerous threat to the whole of society. I am stating our rights are derived by the constitution not from the fictitious book known as the bible. I state this as a scientist not as a gay person. As a scientist I wish for my equal rights to get married to my fiance. I do not parade down Wall Street or whatever posting my homosexuality. I help lobby congress to stop stating that intelligent design is a valid scientific theory. When it is an unscientific fallacy of complete idiocy.
On the flip side Carlos, who made you judge of right and wrong for the people? Why is my idea of civil rights and wrongs in the face of the Constitution of the United States less valid than the fallacies and inconsistency of the bible which runs this country? By the passages of exodus themselves they state to kill your child if they talk back to you. Surely Exodus means this in the most figurative way. Either that or killing your child is morally valid because the bible says so. Idiocy like this runs our policies and politics. Luckily do to the course of time it is slowly dying out but unfortunately not fast enough. And finally why should I as a person allow myself and my achievements be denigrated by people who cant see things in un-scriptural, scientific, ethical, and objectionable manner? Also pride parades are a symbol for love and surviving life as a lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender individual in the face of insurmountable obstacles and persecution. We are equal to heterosexuals and we are sick and tired of having to prove ourselves and that this statement is valid. Why is the burden of proof on us to show we deserve our fundamental rights as humans? Why is there a quota of suffering that appears must be met before individuals receive equal rights? Explain, because you seem to know what is right more than our nonreligious document called the Constitution, and that the words of a figure head speak logic for a whole. Note I don't quote President Obama or Rick Warren, the two people who have influence over this country and its policies. That is just how it seems from your comment.
Chris, "I state this as a scientist not as a gay person". If you were a true scientist, you would know that from a Darwinian perspective, the gay lifestyle is a dead ender and should not be encouraged by us. Nature, itself, discourages the lifestyle.Under Darwin's process of natural selection, all "beings" as opposed to the outmoded religious idea of "creatures" are continually adapting to their natural environment in order to have a better chance of surviving. The weakest and most poorly adapted die off, while the strongest and most improved survive long enough to mate. Their offspring inherit their genes, and thus the species improves from one generation to the next.
Darwin "noted that successful species produce more offspring in each generation than are needed to replace the adults who die . . . The species would thus have changed or evolved to favor traits that favor survival and reproduction."
This means that not only must these beings be able to reproduce sexually, they must actually do so, for evolution to work as posited. Under evolution, then, successful reproduction is the key. Homosexuals would cease to exist because their sexual practices are such that they do not produce natural offspring.
Therein lies the quandary, then, for the gay activist seeking to make his intellectual case for respectability based on science and genetics. These secular gods have abandoned him to oblivion. By their iron laws of Natural Selection, he cannot possibly exist, let alone be genetically preserved and determined. By the why Chris, you should use spell check on your posts. It looks like it was written by somebody in 5th grade(from the inner city).
You are right to make an assumption to use Darwinism in lieu of the theory of evolution. However if your assumption is correct then how is it that homosexual animals exist and persist to survive in nature? How is it that they appear to still procreate and raise young far better than their heterosexual counterparts in life long same sex pair bonds? It would appear the homosexuality is far stronger than how you perceive it. Perhaps homosexuality might be the evolution of creatures itself? Darwinism contributed to the theory of evolution but the theory has since gained for more insight on the process.
Also forgive me for not being a person of perfect writing ability like someone of your standing. However I tend to research and study more than I choose to learn how to write according to your abilities.
If you are truly a scientist then you forget to have studied the term heterosexist in the realm of psychology or even interest in the English language. For you call my life a lifestyle. I do not call your heterosexuality a lifestyle, I call what you love to do for a living a lifestyle. My life revolves around forensic pathology, and mortuary science. Hence it would appropriate to say that those are my lifestyles. To call my commitment and love to my fiance, a lifestyle, is an insult because it disregards what I strive to achieve. Which is to become a forensic pathologist.
I spend for more thinking and studying about mortuary science than the stereotype you try to place upon me unjustifiably. To then associate millions of Americans with your ideology, stereotyping and ignorance of what and who gay people are, is a insult to not only yourself but the scientific community to whom you say you are representing.
That is unless it is faith based, "bad," science like creationism. Then you represent it to its full extent. A easily disprovable conjecture of subjective ideas and truths, based on a fictitious, poorly written document, that should be held accountable for the massacre of millions, if not billions, of innocent lives. Real scientist, at least an extremely high percentage of scientist do not believe in documents that tend to contradict themselves and appear to be easily maladaptive
As a scientist you are supposed to look at the empirical evidence given by multiple and repeatable tests and experimentations. Then make an objective argument. Not facilitate subjective opinions that oneself or others conjure on the basis of ignorance on a subject matter. To use natural selection without actively studying homosexuality in nature shows that you are either a poor scientist, or a person of faith using science as a backdrop to discriminate.
You are certain that homosexuality is a weakness, but then you use false logic to try and prove your point. I recommend that you study homosexuality in nature and you will find far more "deviant" activities among your idea of what nature is.
To then call those who founded our theories "secular gods" only proves that you are a person of faith with ignorance towards science, theories, and tolerance.
So I leave you with a quote from philosopher Will Durant.
"Intolerance is the natural comitant of strong faith; tolerance grows only when faith loses certainty, certainty is murderous." (sic)
You are right to make an assumption to use Darwinism in lieu of the theory of evolution. However if your assumption is correct then how is it that homosexual animals exist and persist to survive in nature? How is it that they appear to still procreate and raise young far better than their heterosexual counterparts in life long same sex pair bonds? It would appear the homosexuality is far stronger than how you perceive it. Perhaps homosexuality might be the evolution of creatures itself? Darwinism contributed to the theory of evolution but the theory has since gained for more insight on the process.
Also forgive me for not being a person of perfect writing ability like someone of your standing. However I tend to research and study more than I choose to learn how to write according to your abilities.
If you are truly a scientist then you forget to have studied the term heterosexist in the realm of psychology or even interest in the English language. For you call my life a lifestyle. I do not call your heterosexuality a lifestyle, I call what you love to do for a living a lifestyle. My life revolves around forensic pathology, and mortuary science. Hence it would appropriate to say that those are my lifestyles. To call my commitment and love to my fiance, a lifestyle, is an insult because it disregards what I strive to achieve. Which is to become a forensic pathologist. It also insults my love and commitment to my fiance because if you are aware of the stereotype that is placed on LGBT, then you probably come to a false conclusion that we are not faithful to each other. That is a severe insult on the both of us, and even if you are ignorant of the stereotype and stigmas that are placed on us, that is no excuse to label us with them.
I spend for more thinking and studying about mortuary science than the stereotype you try to place upon me unjustifiably. To then associate millions of Americans with your ideology, stereotyping and ignorance of what and who gay people are, is a insult to not only yourself but the scientific community to whom you say you are representing.
That is unless it is faith based, "bad," science like creationism. Then you represent it to its full extent. A easily disprovable conjecture of subjective ideas and truths, based on a fictitious, poorly written document, that should be held accountable for the massacre of millions, if not billions, of innocent lives. Real scientist, at least an extremely high percentage of scientist do not believe in documents that tend to contradict themselves and appear to be easily maladaptive to become a weapon.
As a scientist you are supposed to look at the empirical evidence given by multiple and repeatable tests and experimentations. Then make an objective argument from those results that is then retested by your cohorts. Not facilitate subjective opinions that oneself or others conjure on the basis of ignorance on a subject matter. To use natural selection without actively studying homosexuality in nature shows that you are either a poor scientist, or a person of faith using science as a backdrop to discriminate.
You are certain that homosexuality is a weakness, but then you use false logic to try and prove your point. I recommend that you study homosexuality in nature and you will find far more "deviant" activities among your idea of what nature is. You will also find homosexuality to be far from weak as well as minuscule, but rather quite prevalent and strong. Pair bonds have a far greater change of survival than single heterosexual animals do to the fact that two can now trap and hunt instead of one. There is empirical evidence that homosexual cheetahs in pair bonds stand a far greater chance of survival than single heterosexual cheetahs that wish not to form a life long pair bond with the opposite sex.
However my interest into finding out how someone like you can even be called a scientist is quite prodigious. Your use of the theory of evolution is proof of that. Perhaps you are just ignorant on that theory. Hence why you called it Darwinism, but to then call those who founded our theories "secular gods" only proves that you are a person of faith with ignorance towards science, theories, and tolerance.
So I leave you with a quote from philosopher Will Durant.
"Intolerance is the natural comitant of strong faith; tolerance grows only when faith loses certainty, certainty is murderous." (sic)
Freud actually had four theories of homosexuality:
Homosexuality arises as an outcome of the Oedipus conflict and the boy's discovery that his mother is castrated. This induces an intense castration anxiety that causes the boy to turn from his castrated mother to a "woman with a penis," i.e., a boy with a feminine appearance.
In the Three Essays, Freud developed the theory that the future homosexual child is so overattached to his mother that he identifies with her and narcissistically seeks love objects like himself so he can love them like his mother loved him.
If a "negative" or "inverted" Oedipus complex occurs, a boy seeks his father's love and msaculine identification by taking on a feminine identification and reverting to anal eroticism.
Finally, homosexuality could result from reaction formation: sadistic jealousy of brothers and father is safely converted into love of other men.
A private religious high school can expel students it believes are lesbians because the school isn't covered by California civil rights laws, a state appeals court has ruled.
Relying on a 1998 state Supreme Court ruling that allowed the Boy Scouts to exclude gays and atheists, the Fourth District Court of Appeal in San Bernardino said California Lutheran High School is a social organization entitled to follow its own principles, not a business subject to state anti-discrimination laws.