If The SCOTUS rules against marriage equality, time to revolt

[dbackjon]

If I am not treated like an equal citizen, then why should I pay taxes?

follow any laws?


Time to take down institutions that oppose equality by whatever means necessary.

[yeoman6987]

1. Why do you think they are voting against it?

I don't see any evidence of that happening. Yes they are having Indeph conversations as part of their job but it will be 6-3 for.

[dbackjon]

2. The questions Kennedy and Roberts are asking

Makes me nervous

[el_bryanto]

3. Hopefully they are just trying to cover their bases. nt

[hifiguy]

16. Kennedy has been generally receptive to gay rights arguments for

quite a while. I can't see why he would reverse course at this point.

[Zorra]

23. The questions were silly.

Justice Kennedy is too smart to buy into that "milennial" argument. Just because a tenet that is unjust and unconstitutional is a long standing tradition does not mean it should be law. If that were the case, it would be reasonable to argue that women should still be the personal possessions of their husbands, like they were in the US until the middle of the 19th century, because that was just the way it had been for thousands of years.

The State has no reasonable compelling interest in denying the right of same sex couples to marry. If they use long standing tradition as a reason for ruling against same sex marriage, they will be deliberately and deceitfully suppressing justice because they don't have the courage to uphold the constitution for fear of backlash from a minority of the population that grows smaller by the day.

The fact that there are already currently 390,000 legal same sex marriages in the US, which have posed no impediment to the interests of the State, clearly illustrates that the State has no compelling interest whatsoever in denying same sex couples the right to freely marry at will.

[blkmusclmachine]

42. Kennedy is all about states' rights

[Orsino]

4. Americans, for the most part, are fine with being robbed by Supreme Court decisions.

They are unlikely to see marriage equality as being of a piece with economic equality. This is mot the issue that will fuel revolution.

[stone space]

5. I don't expect it, but I'd be up for another CD on their steps if it happens.

Last time was in 1987, the year after Bowers v Hardwick, when 481 of us were busted for sitting in on the steps of the US Supreme Court demanding that that decision be overturned (as it was 17 years later in Lawrence v Texas).

In 2015, we ought to be able to get much higher numbers, and perhaps make it an ongoing occupation until the ruling is overturned.

I don't expect the Supremes to rule incorrectly on this in 2015, but if they do, I'd be interested in hearing from anybody with similar thoughts.

[cali]

6. "by any means necessary"

No.

And by your logic, why should any black person or woman or any minority oppressed by law, pay taxes or follow any law?

If SCOTUS rules against marriage equality, we have to redouble our efforts. I'm fully on board with boycotts, protests and other peaceful means.

If your "by whatever means necessary" includes violence, no.

[dbackjon]

8. Is the Supreme Court debating your marriage?

[cali]

12. sorry, that does not invalidate my opinion

no, I do not think "by any means necessary" is legitimate. Presumably the op isn't directed solely at the LGBT community, as it's posted here.

If someone is recommending violence by using a phrase that indicates it is doing that, I'm not going to just shut up.

[Scootaloo]

27. So at what point do you want people to just give up?

That's the core of the phrase, Cali. it's not a call to violence, but rather a call to use whatever ability you have to see it through. it does not take violence "off the table," no, but it must be understood that most people are not George W. Bush - violence is not their first option to a problem.

If you're not willing to take as many steps as you need to get to your goal, then you have to admit to yourself that there is some point where you feel your goal just isn't worth the trouble.

So, how deep do things go before LGBT rights stop being worth the trouble?

[cali]

32. I read my initial post in this thread. I said nothing about giving up

Quite the fucking opposite

I'll wager I was I was actively involved in the struggle for marriage equality long before the vast majority of people- coming on 18 years now.

Twisting someone's words is just a loathsome thing to do.

[Scootaloo]

33. I'm not meaning to twist your words, Cali. I'm asking you a question.

The phrase "by any means necessary" is not a call to violence, it's a call to keep all options available.

If you feel certain options are off the table, that they are simpoly not available for your cause... then you must have the understanding that at some point all those options, whatever they are, might be exhausted. What do you do then?

Well, you have two thing you can do. You can go for some of the options which you initially discarded in the first place. They will be weaker for having been discarded though, becuase it becomes an obvious desperate effort... Or, second, you can give up and walk away from what you were trying to do.

So with LGBT rights, or anyone's rights for that matter, if there are options and methods that are not allowed for consideration, then it by necessity must be realized that you will reach that point of exhaustion. when you have to either return to "forbidden" methods, or walk away.

"By any means necessary" is not a rally for riots. It's a promise to not walk away, no matterwhat.

[stone space]

55. What options?

The phrase "by any means necessary" is not a call to violence, it's a call to keep all options available.

The option you are referring to here is violence, as near as I can tell.

Many folks reject violence as an option.

[Scootaloo]

56. Down in Peru, there are Indians fighting logging companies

They've tried diplomacy. They've gone to the government. They've even tried to raise money to buy their own land back from the company it was given to by the government. it doesn't work. The government is non-responsive. The logging company doesn't care and has used violence against them, with government sanction

Meanwhile, their home is being destroyed. Their livelihood is literally being washed away. Their people are beaten and sometimes killed, if they protest. They are now responding with spears, rifles, and mantraps, killing loggers and destroying equipment

I want you to book a flight to Lima, take a caravan up into those mountains and tell the Ashaninka, "violence is never an option." I want you to give them your best smile and tell them that they should either continue doing what they know won't work, while their homes and lives are destroyed. be sure to mention Gandhi to them a few times, because he has a record of advocating people give up and die rather than fight back.

Violence needs to remain an option. A last option, sure. One reached by desperation, yes. But don't kid yourself that it is never there. No, not everything is worthy of literally fighting for it; protesting the closure of a library branch, for instance, probably shouldn't go past letter-writing and speaking in a town hall meeting. But when people's lives, their human rights are in the balance?

[stone space]

57. Why would I do that?

I want you to book a flight to Lima, take a caravan up into those mountains

This seems like a huge excursion to make over a US Supreme Court decision.

And I don't really see the relevance.

Are you from Peru?

Can I stay at your place while I'm there?

[Scootaloo]

58. Address the point, please n/t

[stone space]

59. The point here at the Supreme Court or in Peru? (nt)

[Scootaloo]

60. The point over the concept of "violence is never the answer" in general

My point is that yes, sometimes it is the answer. That a blanket, absolutist statement of "never!" is intellectually and ethically void.

Not in every case. Not as a first option. But it needs to be there for when it is needed. There are things that are worth literally fighting for.

[stone space]

61. I'll throw my lot with non-violence. (nt)

[Scootaloo]

62. I'm sure you can afford to. Not everyone can.

[stone space]

65. What act of violence would you have me take for gay marriage?

And are you sure that that violence will be effective?

[Scootaloo]

66. You're missing my point

It's not about gay marriage, or any other one single thing.

it's about the brainless, ethically void platitudes if "violence is never the solution." That's a phrase that exists solely to make the person saying it feel good.

You feel good because you are setting aside a 'bad" option - even though in most cases, it wasn't ever going to come up anyway. "Ben and Jerry's canceled my favorite flavor! Violence is never the solution!"

You feel good because you think you can trim a little scrap for yourself from the cloaks of other nonviolent leaders, as if rote repetition makes you their partner and equal. Nevermind of course that even for "the greats" it was violence and the threat of violence that led to them getting an audience with the oppressor.

And finally it makes you feel good because now you have an excuse for smirking and walking by when someone has violence visited upon them. it makes you feel good to preach your superiority to them, if they dare throw a punch in retaliation. Because at the end of the day, you are a willing, eager participant in violence against a great many people, and so long as you tell yourself "violence is never the way" while they struggle, you can convince yourself maybe they deserve what they're getting.

If you write off violence as an option entirely, absolutely, in all cases, then you have to admit that you are willing ot sell other peopel down the river just to keep your smugness intact.

[stone space]

54. Do you see rejecting violence is giving up?

So at what point do you want people to just give up?

Perhaps you underestimate the power of non-violence.

Non-violence seems to be taking a bum rap here on DU, lately.

[stone space]

53. Is that a requirement for rejecting violence?

Is the Supreme Court debating your marriage?

[NM_Birder]

7. If the SCOTUS rules against equality marriage laws

then by all means,........ in your words "Time to take down institutions that oppose equality by whatever means necessary"

I'm sure there are Chik-Fil-A to be looted and burned, churches to be vandalized, neighborhoods to be terrorized with fires and street violence, throw a few rocks at the firemen trying to put out the fires too. it seems to be an acceptable form of showing frustration.

I'm sure the children terrorizing the Baltimore neighborhoods have the full support of the people. The best way to get the support of people, is to riot in the neighborhood.

I don't know if you just have a terrible sense of humor, if you are desperate for attention, or you just don't have any sense.

[dbackjon]

9. Is the Supreme Court debating your marriage?

[NM_Birder]

10. if you are going to rally troops for a riot,

you need to stay on message.

this is not about me, this is about you calling for (your words) "taking down institutions by whatever means necessary" because of the SCOTUS decision on marriage equality....remember? I guess attention is the answer.

I'm not on the SCOTUS,.... I'm not married, .....I am not denying you any rights, and I am pretty much just standing on the cyberspace street corner watching your display.

[dbackjon]

11. But you are willing to cast stones my way for feeling anxious and angry that there is even a debate

[NM_Birder]

25. I'm not "casting stones", I'm pointing out your immature and

dangerous call to "take them down by any means necessary"


Maybe we should start over.
What exactly did you mean by "take them down by any means necessary"?

[MineralMan]

13. I truly do not believe that they will rule against

marriage equality. Questions from justices are not that good a way to measure their opinion. I believe it will be 5-4 or 6-3 in favor of marriage equality. That belief seems to be shared by most who follow the SCOTUS.

[hifiguy]

17. Agreed. I have been predicting 6-3 upholding marriage equality

for months now. I don't see any reason for Kennedy to reverse his generally pro-gay rights course.

Roberts will be in the majority for two reasons - First, he's a Chief Justice and Chief Justices worry about their legacies. He is not going to be seen as being on the wrong side of history. Two, it's not a power/control issue the billionaire class cares about much, and to the extent they do, they think marriage equality is good business. He doesn't have to buck the corporate powers to which he usually answers in this case. And the SCOTUS isn't out front on this issue, Roberts can rationalize to himself that he is just going along with historical inevitability, which he actually is.

[MineralMan]

18. Well, I'm pretty sure of the 5-4, but 6-3 is certainly possible.

I'm very optimistic about this one, especially given the court's refusal to review several District cases.

[hifiguy]

19. I am not sure the court could find a majority to take on Posner's 7th Circuit opinion either.

Posner destroyed all the justifications, burned the village and limed the earth, rhetorically speaking.

I've worked in the judicial system and you seldom if ever see an opinion that reads, in judge-speak 'these arguments are too cretinous to be taken at all seriously, but I will bury them , in detail, one at a time just so you understand why your position is so profoundly idiotic." And that is what Posner did. There was nothing left of those WI and IN AGs but two pairs of smoking shoes.

Posner's opinion is, functionally, an amicus brief for marriage equality and was written specifically for the Supremes.

[MineralMan]

36. Yes, the Posner decision is pretty much

unassailable. Brilliant. A good choice for a SCOTUS justice, I think.

[hifiguy]

37. I will never believe for a moment that Judge Posner's opinion

was not intended as a 15-inch shell directed straight over Scalia's bow. That Posner cordially despises Scalia and thinks him an unprincipled intellectual phony is an open secret.

[Unvanguard]

46. Posner is too conservative to be a good SCOTUS justice.

Would probably be better than any of the five current Republican appointees, though.

[DemocraticWing]

14. I'm trying to stay optimistic, but I'm worried too.

I will be protesting something if the process fails us, but I don't know what in the hell I can do. When a community of people is left helpless with no means of channeling their anger to solve their problems, people begin to revolt against the process that failed to help. I don't know what means would be necessary to change everything, but it doesn't mean we can't try a few things.

I think we should all barge into courthouses and demand marriages, for one thing.

[Puzzledtraveller]

15. Good luck with that.

[Holly_Hobby]

20. Why do we even NEED the Supremes?

Why can't we vote on this stuff during Presidential elections? Vote for the Prez, and vote for or against these kinds of issues. That way, The People would be making the decisions, not a bunch of ancient, out of touch judges.

For the Dem candidate or For the Repub candidate, for or against gay marriage. Keep the issues separate.

I'm aware that's mob rule, but isn't that what a Democracy is? The majority wins?

Personally, I believe it's Unconstitutional to not allow gay marriage. If we need the Supremes for interpretation, then it's not user-friendly. It's outdated language and way too vague, but it's all we got, and we're lucky to have that much.

Oh, how I like to dream...

Here's to hoping they do the right thing. After all, it's just knowing right from wrong. Times have changed, it isn't 1789 anymore for cryin' out loud.

Time for smarter DUers than myself to enlighten and school me on why it's a crazy idea. Thanks for reading my rant, hope you had a good laugh

[beaglelover]

21. We tried that in CA in 2008

Didn't work out so well for gay marriage supporters. So, no thanks to your idea. The rights of the minority should never be put up to vote of the majority.

[Holly_Hobby]

43. I seem to remember something about confusing wording?

The country has shifted since 2008. Excuse my ignorance, what is the difference between California's population voting on this subject and a handful of judges voting? Just the number of people? Or? Serious question, not trying to piss you off, just trying to understand the difference.

I don't want the Supremes voting on anything that affects my rights, I want to vote on my rights. Look at the damage the Supremes have done in recent history - giving corporations human rights, for one. I don't think regular voters would have done that, but I could be wrong.

[Unvanguard]

49. In theory, at least, the Supreme Court is a forum for more principled decisionmaking.

You have certain institutional constraints that legislators and voters don't have: they're operating in a field of doctrine and precedent, they have to write reasoned opinions explaining their decisions, they are socialized in a professional craft (law) that is supposed to constrain discretion.

And you eliminate other institutional constraints that other political institutions do have. The big one here is the influence of campaigning/lobbying. It is harder to scare the Supreme Court with an aggressive scaremongering campaign like the one that led to the passage of Proposition 8. If you make a discredited claim to the Court, the other side will have a chance to refute it, and the justices have the time and the resources to adequately examine both sides; all you do with that tactic, usually, is lose credibility. Not so in a political campaign.

How much these really matter is debatable. Their influence over and above simple partisanship and ideology, in a case like this one, is probably very low. The Democrats and the moderate Republican on the Court will vote for same-sex marriage because that is where Democrats and moderate Republicans normally are these days. The best thing you can say for the Court deciding this issue is that it can only go one way: it can vote to invalidate marriage bans, but it can't vote to invalidate same-sex marriage legislation (because there's no constitutional issue there). So the net effect of having the Court involved on these issues is greater protection for liberty and equality. Sometimes that will occur in ways that are harmful (Citizens United being the big example), but it is probably fair to say that we tend overall to underprotect rights rather than overprotect them.

[Iggo]

22. When we put people's constitutional rights up for a vote...

...sometimes the result is NO.

That's why.

[Holly_Hobby]

45. The result of the Supremes vote is No sometimes too

What exactly is the difference? The only difference I see is the number of people voting. The Supremes are nothing more than people voting. I'm not arguing, I just want to understand the difference.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. Because we don't get to vote on federal laws. There is no Constitutional mechanism for it./NT

[Holly_Hobby]

47. Why not? Why can't we develop one?

A constitutional amendment ratified by the States?

I just don't understand the difference - the Supremes are nothing more than people voting.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

48. THIS

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate and then a proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States)

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

29. I sure dont want anybody voting on my civil rights

[Holly_Hobby]

50. But that's exactly what the Supremes do - people voting on your civil rights

I would rather vote on my own civil rights, the only difference is the number of people voting. They have too much power over me and my rights. Why do we give them the power to do so?

I'd rather take my chances with ordinary people. I think the country is going in the right direction and think gay marriage would be voted in by the people, but we'll never really know. It's only common sense, you don't need a law degree to know that gays should have the same rights as heteros. I read All Men Are Created Equal in the constitution and come to that conclusion, although that should be changed to say All People, to include women. But don't get me started

[jberryhill]

26. What kind of gun you got?

[Zorra]

31. A general strike and boycott is a possible "weapon".

Anyone who plans on using a gun against the US government in this day and age should just point it at their head and pull the trigger, and save themselves a sorrowful heap of unprecedented fail and misery.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

28. Agreed. and If ACA is destroyed, time to revolt.

But if you cant be treated equally, then either you can be relieved of paying taxes or we have to do something drastic.

What will probably happen is it will go our way and the right will literally start a war.

[seabeyond]

30. women were told recently we are not part of the 14th. good luck. i hear ya. nt

[lapfog_1]

34. hmmmm

Start an illegal war based on telling lies, kill thousands of US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilians... no revolution.
Torture captives is that war to the point of killing them... no revolution.
Destroy the middle class by shipping their jobs offshore to cheaper labor... no revolution.
Have the police kill dozens of unarmed black men just because... no revolution.
Slow role policies that might avert the disaster caused by global warming which might kill millions if not billions... no revolution.
Allow corporations to effectively purchase our so-called democratically elected government... no revolution.

Have the supreme court rule that gay marriage is up to the individual states, when it's obvious that the majority of people will, within 10 years, have every state legalize gay marriage anyway... REVOLT!

I think the court will rule in favor of gay marriage. I hope they will.

I guarantee that eventually everywhere in the US gay marriage will be legal someday. I'm not trying to belittle your issue or make fun of your/our struggle.

But THIS is the issue that we start the revolution over? Seriously?

[dbackjon]

35. You have your windmills. I have mine

I'm 52. How much longer do you want me to wait?

[cherokeeprogressive]

38. Off to the Greatest Page with this post. n/t

[Oktober]

40. Tough talk keyboard commando...

Care to be a bit more explicit...?

[Dont call me Shirley]

41. We should ave revolted on citizens divided.

[Unvanguard]

44. The Supreme Court is going to rule 5-4 for marriage equality.

Not really in doubt. They let marriages go forward in too many states for them to go back on it now. The oral argument didn't go as well as we could have hoped for, but not to the point that it casts serious doubt on that conclusion. (Kennedy was much more aggressive and critical toward the lawyer for Michigan than toward the lawyers supporting the couples.)

[merrily]

51. I hope Justice Kennedy stays in the light on this issue.

If Roberts joins, fine.

[JustAnotherGen]

52. Tough talk keyboard commando ;-) - and I applaud you!

I figure if it's AOK to type such things - then I could type it too - but with Positive Intent.


Oh yeah - and start the riotLchuckle: in your detractors at DU's neighborhoods. They need a little revolution to get right with themselves.

I'm thinking right now however - that it's going to go in your favor. I really hope so.

[HereSince1628]

63. Can we be supportive friends?

I know you see an interest in equal protections for LGBTQ.

Do you see a need for equal protection for persons with mental disorders?

If you do, maybe we can support each other.

Just want to say that would mean you couldn't rant about 'insane' republicans, crazy pro-Wall Street economic proposals, or 'psycho' tea-party candidates.

Still, I'm HOPEFUL of a political hook-up.

[VScott]

64. Doe's that include burning down a CVS?