Time will tell where all this goes, but for now the overturning of Proposition 8 is a huge victory for civil rights and for civil equality in this country. Whether or not a victory by popular ballot would have been better or more democratic is a fair question, and others are right to point out that there’s always the possibility of backlash – but when it all comes down, a minority group of Americans are now viewed as equal citizens under the law in California. And that’s a good thing no matter how you spin it.
Meanwhile more gay couples will get married, more people will become familiar with these couples and will start to grow more comfortable with the idea of gay marriage. American culture will continue its inexorable shift.
Jim Crozier
Just think…the Netherlands would still exist today if they hadn’t tragically pissed off god by legalizing Gay Marriage!
Chad S
No matter what, sooner or later, it would have had to be in front of a Fed judge and an appeals court. Even if gay marriage won in a ballot initiative or via a state legislature approving a bill(and the Governor signing it into law) or by Obama+Congress passing a bill legalizing it or even by a Constitutional amendment: the opponents of it would have dragged it into Fed court(the issue of gay marriages being recognized in states that don’t have it would have had to been settled by the Fed court system). I don’t understand the “well, since a Judge ruled that it was unconstitutional, its not democratic” argument. The system has been set up since Marbury v Madison where Federal Judge(s) can strike down settled law on Constitutional grounds.
Martin
I thought conservatism was supposedly rooted in doing what was right over what was popular? Do conservatives still believe that broadly, because it seems to be applied very selectively these days.
mistermix
That picture of Newt and wife #3 on his site reaffirms his commitment to traditional marriage.
kdaug
I’ve found that tolerance for gay marriage is directly proportional to the number of gay people you actually know. Work with, +2. In your family, +5.
But seriously, Eric, how the hell do you call yourself a conservative? When was the last time you had your credentials certified? I mean, you keep spouting this sacrilege and the dogs will turn on you…
(And BTW, not to wade into the TNC debate too much, but the sensitivities are apples to oranges.)
gnomedad
@mistermix:
Marriage is between one man and approximately one woman at a time.
MikeJ
Backlash is bollocks. LGM has been on top of that nonsense with, you know, studies and facts and stuff.
Wannabe Speechwriter
Good God, I am tired of talking about if filing lawsuits are “the right thing to do” when it comes to policy. That is what the courts are there for! All those people screaming about “the Founders this” and “the Founders that,” this is one of those things the Founders did intend-an arm of government that was suppose to be insulated from the whims of the masses. Now one can make the argument that you don’t need the judiciary to be completely equal to the elected branches of government to have a functioning democracy (most countries don’t). Also, you can make the argument that since you don’t need the courts to be equal we should reduce the influence of judicial review. However, for God’s sake, as long as we have that as part of our system, it is completely legitimate to seek policy changes that way! So, unless you want to talk about the appropriate role of our courts system, stop going on about what is “democratic” and what is not!
gex
@Wannabe Speechwriter: I see this as the end result of the right’s war on trial lawyers and activist judges and an extension on mediation and arbitration. The courts are for businesses, not for people.
Midnight Marauder
@Wannabe Speechwriter:
So I guess conservatives should stop fiddling with small change issues like repealing the 14th Amendment and focus on real threats to the country, such as spearheading an effort to repeal the judicial branch?
patroclus
I certainly agree that the District Court’s opinion is a wonderful victory for civil rights in both California and around the nation, but if it hadn’t have been for the lying smearing Republicans for the last two decades, much of this long drawn-out fight might not have had to occur. It was the lying smearing Republicans that baited President Clinton in 1993-4 relentlessly; thereby causing him to sign the discriminatory DOMA and DADT/ It was the lying smearing Republicans that started all of the unconstitutional ballot initiatives that attempted to extinguish civil rights by mere majoritarian votes. And it was the lying smearing Republicans and their conservative allies that were the prime movers behind the H8 campaign.
To pretend that it wasn’t the lying smearing Republicans that did this – consistently and constantly – for well over two decades would be to ignore history. To pretend that the lying smearing Republicans and their conservative base are not the abject enemies of every single gay and lesbian in the U.S. would be to ignore reality.
I appreciate alleged conservatives saying nice things about civil rights today, but if they continue to support the lying smearing Republicans and their homophobic ways, the “conservatives” who say nice things today are really not significantly different from the lying smearing Republicans who have been trying to extinguish equal protection of the laws for gays and lesbians for decades.
Boots
No, it’s not. Civil rights should not be a matter dictated by public opinion.
Cacti
No, it actually isn’t.
The idea of fundamental rights is that they are not subject to the whims or kneejerks of the electorate.
Corner Stone
That damn Quizno’s ad may have convinced me to never eat there again.
Mark
@patroclus
To take it a step further: there are plenty of gay ‘conservatives’ who say there’s no difference between democrats and republicans, even though democratic-controlled legislatures have voted for RDPs and marriage, while Republicans have, well, Karl Rove.
One thing I wonder: when gay marriage becomes the law of the land (or the federal government recognizes it in the states that have passed it), how many gay people will start voting Republican?
kommrade reproductive vigor
“Congratulations, I’m so happy for you. Hope you don’t get shot!”
Yaaaawn. People like that can kiss my hairy yellow ass.
JGabriel
E.D.
Why? Would it have been better or more democratic to decide whether people from different races or religions could marry by popular vote? Would it have been better or more democratic to retain slavery until it could be ended by popular vote?
The issue is rights v. privileges. If marriage is a right, as Walker determined and was even admitted by the Prop 8 defenders, then no marriage should be subjected to popular vote. No rights for any minority should be subjected to a vote. Once they are subjected to a vote, you’ve declared that it’s not a right.
.
Jody
That “backlash” crap is just that-crap.
That’s not to say the right won’t use it to justify the inevitable Supreme Court ruling that reinstates prop 8 on a national scale and outlaws homosexuality, tho.
Sloegin
Anti-miscegenation laws would probably still be on the books in places if we had to rely on popular opinion. I still find it amazing that I was born before Loving v. Virginia. It wasn’t that long ago.
Sometimes the Constitution and the courts protect us from the worst aspects of ourselves.
HumboldtBlue
I was gonna hit that bullshit “fair question” line myself, but I see better folks than I have summed it pretty well.
Catsy
This.
When a court upholds a liberal decision or strikes down a conservative decision, it’s thwarting the will of the majority.
When it upholds a conservative decision or strikes down a liberal decision, it’s putting a stop to liberal assaults on the Constitution.
Who cares what the fuck they think? They’re bigoted and wrong.
Bubblegum Tate
This is an important point, too–people are more likely to hate it as an unfamiliar abstract than they are if they can actually put a face to it or associate it with somebody they know.
jacy
@Mark:
By the time gay marriage is affirmed on the national level, it’s likely what remains of the Republican party will either have been institutionalized or choked to death on their own spittle.
Of course then we’ll have deal with whatever party rises up in their place, probably one led by Ben Nelson.
HumboldtBlue
Oh, and can we please dispense with this willy meme that a “majority” of Californians voted to ban same-sex marriage?
Yes on Prop 8 got 7 million votes on a day when barely half of eligible voters bothered to cast a ballot. There are more than 30 million folks in our great state, some of whom did not vote, some of whom are ineligible to vote and another 6 and a half million who voted against bigotry.
A rather small minority, less than one-quarter, of Californians support this bigotry and fear.
jrg
I don’t buy it. Being married or single won’t make a bit of difference. People are either comfortable around gays, or they’re not.
People who are generally work with them, are friends with them, live next to them, or have them in the family. People who are not generally live in small communities where there are few gays, if any, and they are likely closeted.
This ruling may encourage stable relationships, but it won’t help or hurt the cause, IMO.
patroclus
Mark, the short answer is I don’t know and it depends. The lying smearing Republicans have a choice; they can either continue with their easily-identifiable current policy of relentlessly sticking it to gays and lesbians at every single conceivable available opportunity with absolutely no compunction whatsoever or they can pivot (like the Conservatices in the UK and elsewhere) and accept the new paradigm and stop with all the lying and smearing.
With respect to African-Americans, they had a similar choice following the Great Society legislation and did not so pivot; consequently, they are lucky to get 15% of the African American vote in a good year with a good candidate. With respect to Hispanics, they are currently pivoting towards relentless discrimination and constant demonizing; coupled of course with their usual lying and smearing. With women’s rights, there are some who are accepting of women’s liberty, but many more who want to extinguish women’s rights (and we are currently one justice removed from watching them succeed).
It just depends on what they choose to do. Based on their recent history, I’m betting on continual and constant lying, smearing and demonizing. If it were up to the diarist, maybe they would pivot. But because he won’t even call the lying smearing Republicans out for being lying smearing Republicans (in this very post), I’m not optimistic.
My guess is the wealthy gay Republicans who have already made/inherited all their money will be the only gays/lesbians to whom the lying smearing Republicans will have any appeal. If the lying smearing Republicans downplay some of the lying and smearing, maybe 30% as a ceiling, probably more like 15-20%. We’ll see…
Martin
@Bubblegum Tate: Yeah, too much abstraction was why slavery and Jim Crow laws lasted so long and were so strongly defended in the south.
Lack of familiarity with an issue isn’t the problem. Demagoguery about an issue is. We don’t need more visible gay couples, instead we need those that would lie and spread fear and hatred to be shouted down by the audience being targeted. So long as conservatives give guys like Rush Limbaugh free pass to puke all over the public discourse, they’re going to continue to be the owners of the issue as it will never get any better.
Martin
@HumboldtBlue: Well, I don’t exactly endorse giving non-voters a pass for disengaging from their civic responsibility. The consequence of not bothering to vote is that other people decide your fate. If anything, I’d prefer to shame them with results like this.
Joshua Norton
The mighty righties are just running out of ways to tastefully say “We hate queers”. The “experts” they used to defend their anti-gay stance were laughable in the extreme. Even the ads they used during the campaign didn’t address the marriage issue. It was all fear mongering about how they are “coming for your kids”.
It’s going to be harder and harder to defend such simple minded blather.
demimondian
Marriage decisions have a special resonance for me — in Jeff Sessions’ home state, my own marriage was only legal because of Loving v. Virginia for the first twenty years FDDD and I were married. In 2000, Alabama passed a referendum to remove the law which made me not be married there, by the grand and inspiring margin of 59% for to 41% against. Given that Alabama was, at that point, about 73% white, that suggests that more than half of the white population of the state voted to retain the miscegenation law *36 years* after it had been struck down.
Martin
@Joshua Norton:
That’s why Antonin Scalia was invented – to do precisely that.
Lysana
I’m going to avoid being polite about this.
Fuck you. Fuck that shit. I have RIGHTS, and I will NOT have them set to popular vote as if you and your majority are doing me a fucking FAVOR.
It’s NOT fair. NEVER fair. Take that back.
General Stuck
This is good news for divorce lawyers.
MikeJ
@General Stuck: Somebody said that yesterday. I’ll have to repeat, you haven’t had to have a legally recognized marriage to get a divorce since Marvin v Marvin in ’76.
demimondian
@Lysana: This.
Erik, it’s not a fair question whether gay men and lesbians should have politely let the bigots and the bashers keep hitting them. The old saw about “letting the democratic process take its course” is vile.
demimondian
@MikeJ: That, or the palimony suit about those damned flashlights.
patroclus
I agree – Scalia’s positioning on this will be very important for determining which way the lying smearing Republicans will go after this issue reaches the USSC. In his Lawrence dissent, he seemed to indicate that logic and reason would dictate upholding equal protection for marital rights. But, as we all know, that isn’t what his outcome determinative conservative judicial activist philosophy is designed to do; rather, it is designed to make up any reason/excuse whatsoever to get the outcome he desires. Wherever he goes is where the intellectual leadership of the lying smearing conservatives will go, in my view.
Thomas is hopeless; he pretends as if the equal protection clause was never enacted. We just don’t know enough about Roberts and Alito, but they seem likely to follow Scalia, unless he upholds logic and reason and equal protection.
For civil righters, Kennedy is the key and Judge Walker’s opinion was clearly designed to appeal to him. I’m predicting 5-4, but if Scalia has any ounce of human dignity left, it could be 7-2 (with Thomas and Aliton dissenting).
Bob
@kdaug: I’ve been reading E.D. since the first days of LOG. And believe me we have had our share of, ummm, cross words. So believe me when I say he is not your typical movement conservative.
His credentials don’t need no stinking certification.
taylormattd
This:
Is a load of shit. Also, nice link to Hot Air.
Mark
@patroclus:
Palin/McCain got 27% of the self-identified gay vote in exit polls. With white males trending +10% vs the electorate as a whole, I’d guess GWMs are already above 40% Republican. If gay marriage becomes settled law, I can’t see the Dems retaining gay voters who are already pre-disposed to thinking they’re no different than the Rs.
A friend of mine from CT (liberal democrat herself) said one of the reasons gay marriage was a non-issue there is that gay people in CT are perceived to be personally conservative, unlike in more urban areas. Gay Republicans may very well be the key to winning over their Republican neighbors.
lahke
And why doesn’t anyone remember that same-sex marriage passed the California Legislature TWICE and was vetoed by Schwartzennegger both times? It’s not like the properly elected representatives of the people didn’t weigh in.
http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-10-13/bay-area/17266566_1_same-sex-marriage-veto-message-marriage-bill
CanadaGoose
Whether or not a victory by popular ballot would have been better or more democratic is a fair question
No. Nope. Nein. Non.
Civil rights cannot be determined by ballot. Would schools be desegregated if a vote had been taken in 1954? A plebescite on whether gays should have equal rights before the law would be an obsenity.
randiego
@Patroclus @ 11:
FTW
Corner Stone
I just don’t know what the fuck you are doing here. Are you really DougJ and he’s spoofing the real E.D. without him knowing? Or maybe DougJ has been Mr. Kain the whole time. Because clearly someone is spoofing us with your gobsmacking posts here.
You know what’s a fair question? To have or not have parmesan cheese on the salad at Olive Garden.
JGabriel
Lysana:
I tried to be polite in my response upthread to the “fair question” rhetoric, but this is the proper response one should have to it: visceral and angry.
.
Wannabe Speechwriter
@Midnight Marauder:
I didn’t phrase this correctly. It was one of those fits of rage things. I’ll try and make a list-
1)To have a democracy, you don’t need a strong judiciary.
2) However, our system has a strong judiciary. One way to achieve policy goals is through our courts. It’s not just “the left” that does this but “the right” as well (think about Citizen’s United).
3) If you want to argue that we need to weaken the power of the courts, go ahead. I’m unsure on the issue of the scope of power for the courts and I personally love having a deep discussion on if and how we should overhaul our governmental institutions.
4) However, what I can’t stand is people arguing that court decisions are somehow “less legitimate” or “less democratic.” I hated Citizen’s United but I accepted it as law because those are the rules of the experiment we call American Government. I want to change this by supporting candidates who will pass a constitutional amendment that nullifies the court’s ruling, which is also in the rules.
5) When ever I hear “less legitimate” or “less democratic” from conservatives regarding court rulings, I don’t think it’s because they want to honestly discuss the role of the American judicial system. No, it reeks of Goldwaterism/Southern Strategy. Remember, it wasn’t just the Johnson Administration that got many of the policies progressives champion to this day. It was the Warren Court as well. A major one, on the topic of gay marriage, was Loving v. Virginia, which ended bans on interracial marriage. The decision was supported by less than 30% of the population at the time.
6) So, when I hear a conservative say a court’s decision is making some piece of policy “less legitimate” or “less democratic,” the reptile part of my brain lights up and says “this person would love to see Civil Rights repealed.” Fair? No. But, not completely unjustified, just based on the stuff Dennis G writes here alone. So, this is the nature of my incoherent rant…
Cat Lady
Here in Massachusetts the divorce rate has dropped to the lowest in the nation, and there’s a new large revenue and tax stream for gay weddings that didn’t exist prior to Goodrich v. Dept. of Public Health. You’d think that conservatives would want to stake some kind of claim to that. You’d be wrong of course, since they’re haters and idiots. Suck it, wingnuts.
Michael D.
John Adams would be disgusted with our system of ballot initiatives.
patroclus
To be clear, I’m an independent. There are many many many Democrats that I disagree with across a whole range of issues. But Democrats are largely humans; they make mistakes. As the old saying goes, I may disagree with them but I would defend to the death their right to disagree.
But lying smearing “conservative” Republicans are just that – lying smearing Republicans. That’s all they ever do – lie and smear and lie and smear some more. And when called on it, they just double down on the lying and smearing. I didn’t use to think this way, but Buckley is dead and buried and Justice Stevens just retired. They deserve no quarter because they refuse to recognize civil rights. They cannot be dealt with in normal human terms. Maybe the diraist can suggest alternative ways to deal with the lying smearing Republicans, but so far, he has yet to label them accurately and he favors lying smearing Republicans for public office.
JGabriel
patroclus:
Yes, under the doctrine of stare decisis, but Scalia has repeatedly voiced his utter disregard for stare decisis, so, like many Scalia arguments, it was completely disingenuous.
.
General Stuck
Dude, you really need to think before you write this sort of crap. And it is crap. Because what you are saying by rightfully pumping civil rights is that there exists a need for basic civil rights to be open for a popular vote. It would be the same if racists started claiming as they once did that the people should decide whether basic civil rights exist under equal protection for black people, in the constitution and are really “RIGHTS” granted by that document, and not open for discussion or votes.
I think your comment above was made in good faith and you support the rights of gay folks to marry if they wish, but you will need to tighten up the putting out of options when there are none in logic on the issue of civil rights, that are either “rights” or are not those written in stone.
Just some friendly advice.
JGabriel
@taylormattd:
There was a non-mocking, expecting us to take her seriously, link to McArdle earlier today.
I was dumbfounded.
.
arguingwithsignposts
Wow, Mr. Kain seems to be stepping in it yet again. BTW, I don’t think he’s a conservative (no matter what he says). Sounds more libertarian.
KG
@patroclus: The interesting question for the Supreme Court is whether they will raise sexual orientation above the rational basis test. Lawrence didn’t really get into the standard of review. If the decision ends up coming down to whether the right to marry is a fundamental right, then strict scrutiny would have to apply, and then, well, then I think the argument against same sex marriage becomes pretty much impossible.
arguingwithsignposts
@Cat Lady:
All those heterosexuals must be moving out of state to destroy their marriages thanks to teh ghey!
demimondian
@arguingwithsignposts: No, he’s a pro-life radical. That kind of locks him out of the libertarian world.
demimondian
@KG: Actually, Judge Walker draws a really interesting conclusion: he claims that Prop 8 fails even the rational basis test, and so whether strict scrutiny applies or not is utterly irrelevant. He argues that strict scrutiny does apply — but only as a follow on to his main argument.
That’s a truly damning conclusion, because failing the rational basis test is much harder to attack politically. A “strict scrutiny” decision could be used to claim “special rights for gays and lesbians”, but a “rational basis” decision is a true “equal rights before the law” decision.
freelancer
@JGabriel:
Well we wouldn’t want to fall victim to our own epistemic closure, would we? By all means, let’s turn our attention to demostrably wrong morons and craven propagandists. It’s good to have some bullshit poured in our Puke Funnel every once in a while.
patroclus
The standard of review is an interesting issue, but the lying smearing conservatives have been playing around with it a lot lately. Justice Thomas pretends as if he need not even undergo that kind of analysis because the 14th amendment is a nullity. Scalia’s been morphing it into a “reasonable” basis standard (and O’Connor did too). If it’s up the the lying smearing conservatives, they’ll either find a “rational” or reasonable” basis to justify the ban or they’ll make something up to get the outcome they want.
But Kennedy and the Dem appointees, undoubtedly, will follow the cases and the reasoning as you suggest. In my view, that’s why Judge Walker worded the opinion so carefully – even if strict scrutiny is deemed imapplicable because gays/lesbians are not necessarily a suspect class, I don’t think that they would even find a “rational” or “reasonable” basis for this animus-based ballot initiative.
AhabTRuler
@freelancer:
No, silly, that’s why we have the emm-ess-emm.
JGabriel
CanadaGoose:
Yes, it is. And California, along with 29 other states, will have to suffer in history books the ignominy of having permitted it.
.
Mark S.
@patroclus:
Here’s Scalia in Lawrence:
It will be 5-4.
(I’m about 70% sure that Kennedy will vote with the liberals)
Martin
I wonder how a popular vote today on whether or not mosques could be built in the U.S. or whether Mexicans were deserving of citizenship status under any circumstance would turn out.
Considering that an elected leader of the GOP is talking about a repeal of the 14th amendment when 40% of his party believes that our President may not be legitimate to hold public office, makes me wonder how anyone can suggest that direct democracy is a responsible and valid direction for this country to go down. How about a ballot initiative to castrate all banking executives? I don’t think any of us want to be confronted with the level of support for that one.
asiangrrlMN
Damn. You were so close. Except for that part as excerpted by others, you had written a…good? Nice? Nonoffensive post about the subject. However, by interjecting that one statement, you pretty much undercut your whole post. As others have stated, allowing the masses to vote on the rights of the minority is NEVER a fair thing.
@Mark S.: And, as it has been pointed out, the decision looked to be written with an eye to Justice Kennedy.
KG
@demimondian: which is basically what Kennedy did in Lawrence. I haven’t done a lot of reading on it, it’s not my area of practice, but from what I’ve gathered, the failure to state a clear standard in Lawrence has left the lower courts a bit in the dark.
I think there’s plenty of case law out there that would support strict scrutiny but they haven’t seemed to have the wherewithal to go there yet.
I will readily admit to being a con law geek, so I’m looking forward to this case. I’m particularly interested to see how they square the circle of Moore v East Cleveland when it comes to the fundamental right of arranging one’s family and gay marriage. Then there’s the issue of whether gays are discrete and insular minorities (I think, clearly, yes). There’s also the question of fundamental rights, equal protection, and due process.
Allan
Annnnd… we’re done.
patroclus
@Mark S.:
Agreed. That’s why I’m predicting 5-4 too. Scalia, by definition, is a lying smearing conservative Republican. I don’t think he has an ounce of dignity left, so even though logic, reason and stare decisis would seem to require him to uphold Judge Walker’s opinion (and presumably the 9th Circuit as well), he almost certainly won’t.
And the diarist and his ilk will probably praise him to the high heavens for remaining true to his “principles.”
MikeJ
@freelancer:
This is true. However, if someone links to an idiot and doesn’t recognize the idiocy, you’re entitled to think less of the dupe.
Linda Featheringill
lying smearing republicans
Is Petroclus for real?
Aside from the fact that I don’t remember the name, I also don’t remember that particuilar rant ever being on BJ. I assume all of that is in honor of Erik.
Is this one of your friends, E?
That's Master of Accountancy to You, Pal
Jesus, you guys are a bunch of obnoxious fuckers. Mr. Kain comes on here and flat out agrees with us on the outcome, and you idiots launch a crusade against him anyway. It’s perfectly possible to have a reasonable discussion on his preference for a non-judicial resolution of the gay marriage issue. While I understand, and agree with, the theoretical justification for a court holding that marriage is a fundamental right, there are some practical reasons why a non-judicial solution can be preferable. One of them is that such a result wouldn’t be subject to the whim of Anthony Kennedy.
More importantly, though, you people need to grow the fuck up and not treat everyone who disagrees with you as worthy of nothing but namecalling.
demimondian
@That’s Master of Accountancy to You, Pal: Umm…did you read the responses? What he said was legitimately offensive due to its content, not its author.
celticdragonchick
@Bubblegum Tate:
\\
That depends on the religion of the family members.
My parents are deeply conservative evangelicals, as is my sister. Being gay is grounds for being cast out of the family.
My dad voted for Alan Keyes in the Republican primary for President in 2000, if that gives you any clue. Keyes, of course, disowned his lesbian daughter.
kdaug
@That’s Master of Accountancy to You, Pal: Welcome to the swamp-pit, pal.
That's Master of Accountancy to You, Pal
@JGabriel: Jesus christ. Your argument is essentially that states shouldn’t have passed laws explicitly allowing interracial marriage before Loving v Virginia. This is dumb. It’s idiotic to argue that legislatures that tried to pass laws allowing gay marriages were doing something wrong.
You’re not usually this off the rails.
celticdragonchick
@That’s Master of Accountancy to You, Pal:
We do tend to roll that way here. It’s that whole vicious vitriolic jackal thing, you see.
arguingwithsignposts
@That’s Master of Accountancy to You, Pal:
Mr. and Mrs. Loving, Mr. Dred Scott, the children of the Brown v. Board of Education case and others would like a word with you.
In short, non-judicial solutions don’t happen for minorities (cf., Hamdan).
I’m more than happy to have a reasoned discussion of why a “non-judicial solution” would be preferable, were one to be offered by the OP. And I wish Peroclus hadn’t used the word “ilk.”
demimondian
@That’s Master of Accountancy to You, Pal: That’s not what he wrote, dude. You should go back and look at the link he references.
That's Master of Accountancy to You, Pal
@demimondian: Yes, I read the discussion. I don’t think anything he said comes close to meriting the reaction he got. HE AGREES WITH THE DECISION. He agrees with the idea that gay marriage is a fundamental right. You people are acting as if he is a bigot on this, when he demonstrably is not. Given the entirety of his post, this reaction is ridiculous, immature and reflects poorly on the lot of you. It merited a rational response, not hysterical accusations.
Litlebritdifrnt
Here is what I propose. Make all “marriages” “civil unions” because lets face it how many people who have not been to church in a decade get “married” how many married by the Magistrate married couples are there? As the Judge said in his ruling marriage is a “civil contract” which brings certain rights. Introduce a new law that says that all “marriages” performed outside a Church are “civil unions” (hetro, gay whatever). Only “marriages” performed in a Church are “marriages” However, a “civil union” confers the same rights of a “married” person (ie tax breaks, medical decisions etc.,) This would mean that DH and I are in a “civil union” as opposed to a “marriage” (we were married by a magistrate) and I have no problem with that.
cmorenc
@HumboldtBlue:
The “fair question” isn’t whether the existence of any particular “fundamental right” should ultimately depend on whether it can sustain electoral majorities, but rather what extent of supportive evolutionary social and change best prepares the groundwork for legal change in recognition of that particular right. Except to observe that the more supportive change that can evolve in timely fashion before formal recognition by judicial decision, the better, there is no single answer to this dynamic. Sometimes, even a substantial amount of social evolution stalls against intractable inertia and opposition, and the change will simply never occur without judicial recognition ahead of the extent of public support that would be more optimal, if possible. Loving v Virginia (laws against interracial marriage held unconstitutional) is a good example of this, as was Brown v Board of Education (separate but equal doctrine behind school segregation held unconstitutional). OTOH, a good argument can be made that while establishment of the right of “privacy” with respect to right of people to choose to use contraceptives (Griswold v Connecticut) was a good example of an optimally timed decision that perfectly caught the wave of social evolution in support thereof, but by contrast Roe v Wade was prematurely a bit too far ahead of evolving social change, and may have sparked a much stronger, more lasting backlash against the “right” to choose than it would have had the decision come along a few years later along after more state legislatures had adopted more permissive abortion laws.
Again, the argument is about optimal strategy for gaining recognition of a heretofore unrecognized fundamental right, rather than about whether it should come to be formally recognized as a “fundamental” right in constitutional law.
Ash Can
@That’s Master of Accountancy to You, Pal: It’s getting awfully old awfully fast, isn’t it? I stopped reading the comment threads at DKos for this very reason. Life’s too fucking short, if ya know what I mean.
arguingwithsignposts
@That’s Master of Accountancy to You, Pal:
If it’s a fundamental right, a popular ballot isn’t required or a fair question.
Roger Moore
@patroclus:
I’m pretty sure that Scalia’s position will be that this is proof that he was right all along. He said that Lawrence would lead to marriage equality, and now it’s being used to argue just that. He’ll just argue that this is a reason for overturning Lawrence at the same time he’s reinstating Prop 8.
General Stuck
@That’s Master of Accountancy to You, Pal:
“you people”
I don’t think this assertion is true
That's Master of Accountancy to You, Pal
@demimondian: I did look at what he referenced, but note that he not only didn’t agree with it in the sentence being attacked, the entirety of his post is at odds with the interpretation being made by a lot of folks here. Here is the direct quote of Mr. Kain’s beliefs on the matter:
He is agreeing with the arguments you all are making. You are falsely attributing to him the views of a post that he linked to as a matter of discussion without ever saying he agrees with it.
arguingwithsignposts
@Ash Can:
Really? I stopped reading because of all the meta “don’t comment on the tip jar” bullshit. YMMV.
patroclus
@Linda Featheringill:
I’ve been around for several years – usually only lurking though. No, I don’t know the diarist.
“Lying smearing Republicans” is short hand for a much longer one that I have used from time to time – the longer version, if I can remember right, is “lying, smearing, stunningly corrupt, torturing, warmongering, abuelita felonizing, bribe-taking, social security destroying, women’s liberty obliterating, gay-bashing, sleazy, slimy, habeus corpus destroying, WMD fantasizing, Justice Department politicizing conservative Republicans.” (There might be more depending on my mood). But all that takes too much time to type. So for the purposes of Mr. Kane and his threads, I am just using the short version.
Cheers.
celticdragonchick
@That’s Master of Accountancy to You, Pal:
Why let petty things like that get in the way or our Minute of Hate?
You haven’t been here long, have you.
Emma
That’s Master of Accountancy to You, Pal: This is what he said: Whether or not a victory by popular ballot would have been better or more democratic is a fair question. Nope. Never. A matter of fundamental rights should never be subjected to the public ballot. If only because whether it wins or loses, it will give other mothereffers the opening to do it again and again. And if you don’t think they would… you haven’t been watching.
arguingwithsignposts
@That’s Master of Accountancy to You, Pal:
This is the “fair question” part of the sentence you left out in the ellipses. It’s the same sort of equivocation that drew fire when he introduced himself, the “breitbart may or may not have been right to post the video” (paraphrase) construction.
arguingwithsignposts
@patroclus:
It’s Dennis G.! The “Cheers” gives it away!
LikeableInMyOwnWay
@Corner Stone:
Heh. The new guy seems to be off to a rough start.
When John told us to be nice to him because, you know, he is the new guy and all, it wasn’t made clear whether the new guy was going to be upfront with us, or resort to boilerplate Broderish mindfucking. According to this guy, in another thread, deregulation might be a fair option because it doesn’t trample on the small businessman the way regulation might.
It’s the new Panglossian Conservatism. You know, completely fucking up America isn’t such a bad idea when you consider some of the good things that might happen as a result!
I think this guy is one post away from declaring that he is not a racist because some of his best friends, growing up, were Negroes.
That's Master of Accountancy to You, Pal
@arguingwithsignposts:
Required for what? You are assuming that he is saying that it is a fair question as to whether or not popular ballot is a better way of creating a fundamental right. You are not only assuming this based upon evidence that is not in existence, you are assuming it in direct contradiction to what he actually says.
An interpretation of the sentence that is consistent with the rest of his post, rather than in contradiction to it, is the one cmorenc laid out. As a question of what is the best strategy for recognizing the fundamental right that exists, there is a fair question here. I happen to come down on the side that it is impossible for us to know right now which is the better, more durable way to get this done. That doesn’t mean that I reject out of hand the argument that it may not be. I don’t know.
patroclus
Uh, I humbly apologize for and hereby withdraw unreservedly the use of the word “ilk.”
I’m pretty sure I said I agreed with the diarist, so any accusations that I’ve been name-calling him are inaccurate. I have, however, been name-calling lying smearing Republicans, who are directly and proximately responsible for the decades-long effort to extinguish civil rights for gays and lesbians. To pretend that they are not is to deny history.
They will reap what they have sowed. And they heartily deserve it.
Litlebritdifrnt
@Litlebritdifrnt:
Cause my time to edit has elapsed. This is how it is done in the UK, Civil Partnerships are given as much weight as a “marriage” indeed “living together” is given almost as much weight.
http://www.johnbarrowman.com/fanzone/outabout/10downing.shtml
celticdragonchick
@Emma:
No they should not. I would also like a unicorn, a castle in Scotland and a Harrier jet fighter, but that is all pretty unlikely.
Since our rights as GLBT persons are not viewed as fundamental by an awful lot of marginally educated citizens who can still vote, we are stuck with that. It also doesn’t help that when we do win court victories, it provides impetus for reactionary attacks on the independence of the judiciary. I wonder when the “black robed tyrant” thing actually gets enough backing to do real Constitutional damage to our checks and balances.
Given that more then 2/3 of our fellow Americans have not the slightest idea how or why our system of government even works, I am increasingly convinced that some populist culture war “tea party” style movement may actually break our system of governance. They will blame it on all of us GLBT radicals.
Dontchaknow.
That's Master of Accountancy to You, Pal
@arguingwithsignposts: I left the “fair question” part of his statement out of that portion of my comment because I had already addressed it. I wanted a quote that expressed Mr. Kain’s own views, because those are what you are ignoring. You want to focus *only* on the “fair question” and that means you are taking it out of context. You are abusing his post to make a point about what you want him to have said so that you can get outraged rather than what he actually said.
gwangung
@Emma: I demur (not disagree, mind you) only to the extent I think Mr. Kain can learn. My take is that he understands intellectually, but not emotionally.
To learn that emotional content, however, may take a fair amount of lumps or smacking around to…allow him understand that.
General Stuck
This is the only problem I saw with the wording of the thread post. It is mostly a simple failure of logic and due diligence for precision in language when that is required, that I think a front pager needs to maintain, or, framing rightfully the issue as civil right and then entertaining such a right as open for popular vote. I don’t see anyone not acknowledging his basic agreement with this decision. But this general kind of thinking does often pop up from peeps on the right.
eemom
damn, I came on this thread expecting to see a good old fashioned Obot vs. firebagger flame war blazing over the fact that Obama didn’t say he supported gay marriage.
Instead y’all are just beating up on the poor reasonable conservative again.
This place is going to the dawgs.
That's Master of Accountancy to You, Pal
@celticdragonchick: Nah, I’ve been around a long time. I’m just as cantankerous as everyone else around here and sometimes rise to the bait.
celticdragonchick
@That’s Master of Accountancy to You, Pal:
Well met, sir. :)
Mnemosyne
@gwangung:
C.S. Lewis wrote very differently about love and suffering before he married and watched his wife die of cancer. Some people (probably most people) need to experience things for themselves to really understand.
demimondian
@That’s Master of Accountancy to You, Pal: Forgive me, but it did not. That was the point which several of us made — some in the context of this decision, others (including me) in the context of other decisions.
I want you to think about discovering that some state believed it had the right to declare your children bastards, and you a criminal, because you had the temerity to love the wrong person. I want you to think about discovering that after you’d been married for many years, for richer and (most of the time) for poorer, for better, for worse, in sickness, and in health.
And then, if you can get your mind around what that would mean, perhaps you could understand why I don’t see this as any kind of “reasonable” issue to be polite about in the drawing room.
Midnight Marauder
@That’s Master of Accountancy to You, Pal:
What in the world…?!
I mean, he wrote this. Sat down, though about what he wanted to say, found some supportive links, took the time to elucidate his thoughts, and then posted it onto the Internet for everyone to see. I cannot even fathom how you’re arguing that Kain explictly stating that he agrees putting up civil rights to be voted on via ballot initiate is a fair question. He thinks it’s an idea with legitimacy and substance worth exploring. This is his position, and he links to an article further exploring the issue. In no way does he disabuse himself of this position.
This is an extremely misguided defense of someone who is more than capable of explaining his own asinine, convoluted position.
General Stuck
@Mnemosyne: They say hard lessons are the ones best learned/ Mr. Kain is in the the proper classroom for that.
patroclus
@eemom:
If it were one of those threads, I’d be back in total lurker mode.;-)
I want to expressly compliment the diarist for a good meaty thread upon which I was moved to comment. He’s a great diarist and I’m glad John invited him to guest blog here! But I’m going to continue to criticize lying smearing Republicans when and as I wish until they pry my AK47 from my cold dead fingers. The lying smearing Republicans have been trying to destroy civil rights for gays and lesbians for decades – they can try to run from that patently obvious record, but they can’t hide.
That's Master of Accountancy to You, Pal
@General Stuck: I would never consider you to be one of “you people.” I’m still struggling to come up with the right category for you.
Cat Lady
The problem with our new Mr. Kain is that every post is tentative – he equivocates, prevaricates, takes two steps to the left from the knee-jerk right then backtracks to his “sane conservative” stance, links to Newt and McMegan then seems to mean that’s not his position, and then scurries back to his comfort zone and reverts to “may” and “if” and “some would say” and agrees to disagree so that he can’t be pinned down on the dissecting tray. I would almost perhaps, but perhaps not, state that some would say he doesn’t have the courage of his convictions, but maybe he does if he were forced to legislate it. Or maybe adjudicate it. Or not.
arguingwithsignposts
@That’s Master of Accountancy to You, Pal:
No, I’m not, actually. I’m assuming he’s talking process. The fact of the matter is a popular ballot had *already* rejected this fundamental right.
the fact of the matter is there’s no “better” wrt reinstating a fundamental right – judicial or legislative or popular referendum. There’s only right.
And fwiw, I see how you arrived at your conclusion. The paragraph was entirely convoluted and could have done without the entire section under controversy.
celticdragonchick
@eemom:
We can do that.
So, how did President Barack Obama, the de facto leader of the Democrats, choose to commemorate this victory? Let’s go to the statement furnished by the White House to Kerry Eleveld of the Advocate:
Well, that’s just sort of OK, as statements go. But as long as no anonymous sources at the White House gives, say, Politico some other comment that completely undermines this lukewarm support —
Well, that’s just splendid. A key voting bloc for Democrats celebrates an important civil rights victory, and the White House heralds the occasion by coupling its enthusiasm for the victory with a reminder that it opposes the actual civil right that’s at stake.
“SHORTER” BARACK OBAMA: “Hey, LGBT Community! I’m happy for you, and I’mma let you finish, but marriage between a man and woman is the greatest matrimony of all time!”
*****************
Our “fierce advocate” for the GLBT community probably wishes this had waited until after the mid-terms.
This is why we end up having to have court battles. Our own chickenshit allies in the White House and Congress give us no other option. I’ll end up voting for Obama again, of course. It isn’t like I have a choice. He can drop that “fierce advocate” crap, though.
General Stuck
@That’s Master of Accountancy to You, Pal:
I am but a simple Obot.
JGabriel
@That’s Master of Accountancy to You, Pal:
Pal, do you understand the meaning of the word plebiscite ? We’re talking about approx. 30 states that have subjected minority rights (gay rights to marry) to a popular
vote, not a legislative one.
My argument has nothing to do with laws passed by legislatures to affirm minority rights, it’s an argument against subjecting minority rights to restriction by popular vote.
Read it again. I think you’ll find, not that I’m dumb, but that you misread the post or misunderstood the statement – because the way you’ve characterized it is pretty much the opposite of my meaning.
.
arguingwithsignposts
@Cat Lady:
It would be irresponsible to speculate. It would be irresponsible not to.
demimondian
@celticdragonchick: Meh. HuffinGluePost comments are but a pale imitation of the PURE, TRUE Balloon Juice that we huff and puff around here.
celticdragonchick
@demimondian:
I could use some awesome pure huff and puff myself.
demimondian
@That’s Master of Accountancy to You, Pal: Ref of pro, dude. I was responding to your response about the shame of the states which had put this up to a plebiscite, not to Erik’s original posting.
That's Master of Accountancy to You, Pal
@demimondian: Then I wish you luck in your political strategy of attempting to get what you should have by insulting your allies. The proper response was to show why it was important to do this through the courts, but to do so without hurling insults. As it was, you were just a jerk. A jerk who is correct on the merits, but still a jerk.
General Stuck
@celticdragonchick:
The courts are the final arbiter of gay rights including marriage. All the other Executive and Legislative branch stuff is subject to the courts final say, and the final say of that will be when this case reaches the Supreme Court and they will either uphold this decision by Walker or overturn it, and if overturned, after that, the only remedy will be a constitutional amendment. That is the only true roadmap for the end game here, and what Obama or any other politician thinks about gay marriage means little except maybe for moral support.
Stillwater
After reading some threads posted by E.D. Kain, I think John’s experiment with epistemic embiggening has failed to achieve the desired results. Except for the beer thread. That was good. And so is Old Chub, brewed in the beautiful town of Lyons Colorado.
+2
demimondian
@celticdragonchick: The irony is that I am pissed with the White House about this — Obama is trying to avoid taking a tough stand I wish he would take. Whether his waffling is due to a genuine belief that domestic partnerships are enough — in which case, I prescribe a read through of Judge Walker’s discussion on the matter for him — or because he doesn’t want to create an issue for the mid-terms, I do wish he would come over to the light.
But it’s not our “chickenshit allies” who force us into court. I honestly don’t see how Obama’s position on this issue can possibly have an effect on the need for court orders either way.
Emma
celticdragonchick: The thing is, the court battle is the way to go. Because the more decisions supporting gay and transgender rights, the more precedent piles up on the next courts and the next one and the next one. Until all the idiots are six-feet-under and what Mr. Kain rightfully called the inexorable shift in American culture will be completed.
Cat Lady
Heh.
Who do you think should claim the failure – the poster or the commenters? I say the poster – I like, and am persuadable by a good argument, and I feel cheated. Let’s say it’s too soon to judge. I feel magnanimous tonight.
+3
JGabriel
@That’s Master of Accountancy to You, Pal:
No, at least I’m not. I acted as if he was wrong for suggesting that it’s a fair question to ask if minority rights should be subjected to a plebiscite – because it’s not a fair question. It’s a demonstrably stupid question, or, at best, demonstrably ignorant.
Minority rights should never be subjected to popular vote because:
a) they are rights, not privileges;
b) historically, the majority of such plebiscites are only advocated when people want to restrict a minority group’s rights, thereby defeating the purpose of delineating rights in the first place.
.
Corner Stone
@That’s Master of Accountancy to You, Pal: Your direct quote is missing the key nut of contention.
It isn’t a distraction, it is the “key” to his entire thesis.
celticdragonchick
@demimondian:
Maybe, but it is instructive that California Atty Gen Brown and the Governor refused to defend prop 8 in court. I can’t say the same about the Obama admin and DOMA.
Don’t get me started on the (mercifully redacted) initial briefs filed by his Justice Dept in2009 that compared my marriage to pedophilia and buggering animals.
Was the President personally aware of those briefs’ language the day they were filed?
I doubt it, but people he appointed gave the go ahead to defend DOMA and make us fight for it while comparing my marriage to criminal acts. I have a hard time forgiving that.
So I still have to vote for him…but my support is strictly mercenary at this point.
Mark S.
@Cat Lady:
Nah
But, maybe
Well, at least we know that Erik wouldn’t personally have an abortion, but that’s not how I would characterize “pro-life across the board.”
celticdragonchick
@Emma:
Likely so. I am still concerned that the “black robed tyrant” rage on the right could backfire on all of us at some point. I will be running for Canada in that event.
patroclus
Wouldn’t it be more fair and democratic if we subjected the LDS Church’s and NOM’s tax-exempt status to a majority vote determination?? The way it works now is that that is determined by IRS filings pursuant to IRS regulations that have been authorized by statutes and implemented under the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act subject to administrative review, an arbitrary and capricious standard and only then, judicial review. That sounds so cumbersome and bureaucratic and un-democratic; instead, let’s have a plebescite where all voters would have a say as to whether the LDS and NOM get their tax exemption.
Do I have a rational basis for advocating this?? Of course – I just want to save the taxpayers some money. And, if we obliterate the 14th amendment and therefore can’t apply the First Amendment to the states and don’t go through Congress, then the First Amendment’s religion clauses wouldn’t be applicable either.
Sure, there might be a backlash and all, but the deficit is so large that saving money through revocation of tax-exempt status for certain religious and private organizations via majoritarian vote sure seems “rational” and “reasonable” to me. If gays’ and lesbians’ fundamental civil rights can be extinguished via majority vote, why can’t little things like tax exempt status for churches be the same?
celticdragonchick
@patroclus:
It sounds funny at first blush, but then watch as evangelicals use that to hammer the Unitarians, Wiccans and any other “Satanic tool of the radical gay agenda” they can think of.
They do outnumber us.
eemom
This suckwad state of Virginia is a good example of what happens when issues like this are subject to “popular ballot.” In 2006 an amendment to the state constitution was voted in that not only outlawed gay marriage, it outlawed anything RESEMBLING gay marriage.
I don’t understand why states that do this kind of thing don’t get more attention, actually.
demimondian
@celticdragonchick: Redacted? When? I thought that they were still before the court?
patroclus
@celticdragonchick:
Of course you are right. But I’m just using the logic of those linked to by the diarist. The Mormons would raise holy hell if my suggestion were actually followed; and justifiably so. And of course, they would target anyone they don’t like with the very same agenda and might even have the votes to deny certain denominations their tax exempt status. That is precisely why we have the IRS and the APA and the administrative law judges and tax courts and final federal judicial review – just to prevent my ludicrous idea from ever being formulated.
But, logically, it is the very same argument, taken to its logical extreme. I wonder if those to whom Mr. Kane linked could ever see that…
demimondian
@Mark S.: Indeed, that’s how I would characterize “pro-choice”. But don’t tell Erik that; he wants us to think he’s a radical pro-lifer.
celticdragonchick
@demimondian:
The briefs with the comparisons to beastiality and pedophilia were replaced with others that used somewhat different arguments, I understand.
Corner Stone
@LikeableInMyOwnWay: He’s really not doing himself any favors. Or maybe he is.
But making sloppy posts with poorly constructed arguments and ill-defined talking points is a bad place to start.
demimondian
@celticdragonchick: I don’t remember that. I’d be thrilled to see a citation. (Seriously.) I know that the DOJ toned down the language considerably in later briefs, and has even come around far enough to say in _Smelt v. United States_ that [the administration] “does not support DOMA as a matter of policy, believes that it is discriminatory, and supports its repeal.”
That’s a significant improvement, and is at least consistent with no more than the duty the government has to defend all laws against court challenge, but it doesn’t erase the stains of the earlier briefs.
JGabriel
Mark S.:
When people say they’re “pro-life across the board”, they generally just mean that they are also against the death penalty, euthanasia, nuclear weapons, and invasions / provoking war, – the general Catholic stance. There may be a couple more planks to it, but those are the big ones.
As a religiously agnostic cultural Catholic (i.e., I was raised in the Church), I respect the consistency of the position, when it’s observed, even though I disagree with it.
Of course, it’s seldom observed: it’s infuriating, inconsistent with church teaching, and hypocritical when American Bishops talk about ex-communicating or denying the sacraments to pro-choice politicians, but ignore politicians who are pro-death penalty.
So it’s little wonder that people who profess to follow that dogma are seldom taken seriously.
.
Anne Laurie
@LikeableInMyOwnWay:
Bite your tongue, Likeable, all “reasonable conservatives” are raised in nice white gated communities where their innocent young minds can be protected from smutty talk like this! But there is a very nice, quite normal-looking not-white person in the next cubicle but one at work, and that person has never said anything to indicate disagreement with the Reasonable Conservative, therefore, some of his best friends… (/snark)
300baud
@Lysana:
Wow. That made me tear up. That is a beautiful attitude. Thanks for not flinching, Lysana.
Stillwater
@Corner Stone: But making sloppy posts with poorly constructed arguments and ill-defined talking points is a bad place to start.
Yes, but considering the audience he usually writes for……….
Midnight Marauder
@Stillwater:
BOOM! ROASTED!
+5
eemom
I think it must be painful being a “reasonable conservative,” like being in the crossfire of a civil war within your own brain.
Maybe that is why these posts come across as somewhat labored and twisted. It is just not a natural state of being.
Surrender, dude. Let the good guys win. : )
Stillwater
@300baud: That is a beautiful attitude. Thanks for not flinching, Lysana.
You may not know of this (many people don’t) but one of MLK’s most important speeches was delivered on the Capitol steps in Atlanta, where he stepped up to the mike, looked upon the enthralled crowd, said “Fuck this shit!” and walked away.
Very moving.
celticdragonchick
@demimondian:
It may be some time before I can go looking for that info. I recall a lot of heat on that at Americablog and Pam’s House Blend, but I do not have the motivation to go digging at the moment.
It is perfectly possible that my memory is faulty, so I am not putting money on it by any means. You can email me at [email protected], and I will send you whatever I find next week.
taylormattd
@That’s Master of Accountancy to You, Pal: You’re a fucking moron. Just fuck off. He agrees with the opinion, huh? So fucking what? Therefore, he gets to write a bunch of other offensive shit? Like, for example, “whether or not gay marriage should be put up for a popular vote is a legitimate question”. Um, no it’s not. Take your pearl clutching elsewhere. Jesus christ.
asiangrrlMN
@That’s Master of Accountancy to You, Pal: I think you’re being the obnoxious fucker in this case. Most people pointed out that civil rights should not be subject to a popular vote in direct response to what E.D. himself posted. Now, you can quibble with the better part, but the democratic part is what I, at least, was responding to. I never said he was a bigot. I said he was this close to getting it right. And, I did not click on any links so I have no idea what other people are saying about it being better or more democratic for the majority to vote on the civil rights of a minority. You are the one who is taking things out of context.
Corner Stone
@Stillwater: Ahhh, MLK’s lesser known, “I Haz A Sad” speech.
Corner Stone
@taylormattd: Hells to the yeah on this.
Fucking obnoxious pearl clutching douchebag of the 1st Order.
PTirebiter
For what it’s worth, I just took the post to mean that it might have been better had prop 8 never passed. I believe marrying whomever you please is a fundamental right. I also happen to think that having the majority of voters agree as a matter of conscience would have been preferable to a begrudging compliance with a court ruling. That wasn’t the case and the court properly intervened. I also think it would have been better if the civil war wasn’t needed to put an end to an evil enterprise, but it was.
Nick
@celticdragonchick:
As a lawyer, I have to say Jerry Brown was derelict of duty by not defending this in court. Sure he opposes it, I get that, I agree, but as a lawyer, I’ve had to represent clients whom I disagreed with, but did it because that was my job.
Brown was/is running for Gov. of California, defending it would’ve been political suicide, so he chose the political way out instead of doing his job.
There really is no hypocrisy in being an Attorney General and defending a law you also oppose as a gubernatorial candidate. I understand why Brown saw that the public wouldn’t see it that way, but I don’t think that’s the model for the DOJ to follow.
Belvoir
As a gay man, who’s been to a ton of weddings and the best man at three (!) while not having the option myself..
I just want to thank the incredibly smart and good-hearted people here rooting for our equality. Appreciated so much. I’m not optimistic about this going to the Roberts Court, but one has to have hope, and love will always win over prejudice.
E.D. Kain
A lot of you are reading me incorrectly. I asked whether it would have been better to overturn prop 8 by popular ballot, the way it was introduced, thus sidestepping the courts and the SCOTUS in particular altogether. Either I’m not being clear enough these days or y’all are just trying to read into everything I say. Either way, I’m pleased with the outcome of the case.
SRW1
@kdaug:
Oddly enough, the same thing seems to apply to xenophobia: The foreigners people work with generally seem to be fine and the exception to the rule.
JGabriel
@Nick:
I don’t know if that’s a relevant complaint in this situation. There are blue laws throughout the country that AG’s routinely refuse to prosecute because they’re unconstitutional or outmoded.
Brown didn’t refuse to defend Prop 8 just because it was morally wrong, his given reason is that it was because his and his office’s analysis was that it was unconstitutional. Not defending or prosecuting something because it’s prima facie a loser is a pretty routine legal decision.
.
JGabriel
@E.D. Kain:
I think most us who took issue with that question know that you’re happy about the decision.
But putting minority rights to a popular vote is wrong as a matter of principle to many of us. So we couldn’t let the question pass without comment.
Surely you can understand how someone in a minority might take issue with the idea that their rights can be put up to vote.
Most of us think Prop 8, and similar measures in 29 other states, should never have been allowed on a ballot in the first place – for the simple reason, oft-stated above in this thread, that rights are no longer rights when you put them to a ballot, no matter the outcome. The California courts should have struck the measure from the ballot when the question was first brought to them, rather than letting it proceed.
.
Midnight Marauder
@E.D. Kain:
And the response to that was pointing out that it is absurd to subject something that is supposed to be a right to popular vote, not to mention how egregiously offensive it is to the persons whose rights are being subjected to a cultural tug-o-war. The idea has no merit to begin with, unless you believe that for some classes of people, basic rights of citizenship are not so much “rights” as they are privileges that can be subjected to the injudicious whims of the day.
Oh no. You are being perfectly clear. You need to understand that. No one is misreading you when you cite Megan McArdle as an competent, intelligent authority on ANYTHING as a supplemental postscript to your original post. No one is nefariously digging into your word choice when you state in one of your follow up comments that the Obama Administration is more at fault firing Shirley Sherrod than Andrew Breitbart is for being a notorious, proven race-baiting propaganda. Perhaps you are not used to the scrutiny and critical analysis thoughts and ideas receive in a venue such as this; all well and good. But if you’re going to continue along here, I have one simple piece of advice for you:
Don’t bring that Kool-Aid to a grown person’s party.