Slaves who made their escape to the north are exempt. You others, we are keeping slavery the law.

[Bluebear]

Majority rule and all.

The prop 8 judiciary should be ashamed today.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

1. Yep

[SoCalNative]

2. They were ruling ONLY on what they were allowed to rule on

The language of Chief Justice George’s decision seemed almost regretful, as he wrote that “our task in the present proceeding is not to determine whether the provision at issue is wise or sound as a matter of policy or whether we, as individuals, believe it should be a part of the California Constitution.” Instead, he wrote, “our role is limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/us/27marriage.html?ref=us

[imdjh]

4. If that was what they did, then I could support it.

But I don't think that that is what they did. I think they ignored the most obvious reason to toss Prop 8: that it was STILL unconstitutional for the same reason that the court had ruled discrimination unconstitutional.

[EFerrari]

17. That wasn't the question before them, though.

It's maddening. This same court did the right thing when they had a chance.

[Statistical]

20. That wasn't in arguments prepared by the plantiffs

It is an end run around the law or an ambush if the plaintiffs don't make a case thus the other side has no chance to present their arguments and then the court rules in favor of the plantiffs on an argument never presented.

Take a step back and see how dangerous that is.

Imagine if you are in a criminal trial and the prosecution makes their case, then you make your defense.

Then the judge rules (or instructs the jury to rule) based on facts not entered in the court.
Facts you had no chance to provide a defense against.

The plaintiffs decided to take a legal gamble and make the case very narrow.

The PLAINTIFFS not the judges decided to make this the only question before the court:
Is prop 8 an amendment or a addition to the Constitution.

They presented no evidenced that Prop8 was unconstitutional nor did the state provide any defense it was constitutional.

The court was never asked to rule on the Constitutionality of Prop8.

Based on the question the court was asked it ruled Prop8 was an addition and thus valid. Period.

It really is that simple. Courts can't rule on questions not asked by the petitioners.

[SteppingRazor]

5. Too true. I don't blame the court for ruling the way it did...

I blame the voters for passing Prop 8 in the first place.

[Bluebear]

8. 'The justices who had issued the ringing support of same-sex marriage in 2008...

resented a far less supportive front during the three-hour hearing."

Cowardice.

[csziggy]

13. I'm wondering if that is why they allowed the marriages to stand

Because that gives more weight to the fight in the federal courts - which we all know will happen.

[hlthe2b]

3. Sadly, the history of slavery in the territories was just that...

Incremental reversal....allowing for continuation of that savagery until civil war and Lincoln finally made that untenable.


I'm ashamed today as I would have been then--but my shame is directed toward the populace that passed this abysmal proposition. In the narrow construct of law, I don't know that it could have been overturned (I'm no lawyer, so I really do not know). Nonetheless, I believe the momentum is with us, though... This too shall be reversed.

[imdjh]

9. There is a huge difference. A slave could buy his freedom.*

Can we buy equality?


* In theory, the practice varied and freedom was not equality, but the point is valid.

[hlthe2b]

16. You can fight for it....the momentum is with the movement.

and the cohort effect is at play... Younger age cohorts are correlated with acceptance of gay marriage and equality.

[cali]

56. oh please. that was an option for a tiny minority

and you can move to a state that does have marriage equality. And obviously, if you were a slave, your ability to marry was controlled by your "owner".

[Creideiki]

60. Are you suggesting that every company that currently is located in California

move to a state that supports its LGBT employees.

That's kind of the Virginia option--not sure it's the best for the people that live there, but could be an option.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[imdjh]

66. That's remarkably similar to what some conservatives say about gay rights.

If you don't like the laws of Florida then move to, well they would have said California, but now I suppose it's Massachusetts or Iowa. IS that how we define liberty in the US? The ability to move away from your home to have the liberty that you ought to have?

And no, in my title line I am not pulling the ubiquitous and obnoxious forum practice of accusing you of being a Republican because we disagree. It's simply that the "move" comment really is one I have heard from Republicans.

[cali]

71. I was responding to the idiot suggestion that slaves were better off than

GLBT folks in CA because they could buy their freedom. And as a Vermonter who worked for over 10 years for marriage equality, I'd be more than happy to see GLBT people move here . Not only will we have marriage starting Sept 1, but VT has long been a leader when it comes GLBT civil rights.

And yeah, you made an insinuation. It's no better than if I suggested that you think enslaved AAs had more options than GLBT Californians.

[imdjh]

73. Well since I wrote the idiot post, then I best know what it meant.

It meant only what it said. What you inferred was your own imagination at work.

[villager]

6. another good analogy... yep...

n/t

[cali]

7. I know I'll get shit for this but

I think that's a lousy comparison. being owned by another person is not the same thing as the CA decision today. I understand the parallel you're makimg and I think the ruling is unjust but I don't believe the analogy is close enough- or particularly useful. It's much more akin to the status of mixed marriage prior to Loving.

[CBR]

10. I agree. nt

[Bluebear]

12. Goody. nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

14. you'll get shit for it because you KNOW that isnt what bluebear is saying

and you are DELIBERATELY trying to make this a black vs gay thing.

[cali]

19. no, bluebear is the one who brought up the black v white thing

in the context of slavery and sorry but you couldn't be more wrong or more presumptuous. YOU are a shitty mind reader. truly off base. Bluebear made a lousy analogy, one that I don't agree is apt, and I have every right to speak my mind. you simply are wrong about why I commented.

[Bluebear]

21. The context is if you were lucky enough to marry already, you're OK.

We will grandfather your rights. Any further gays and lesbians who want to marry, sorry. You are out of luck.

What is so "lousy" about the analogy?

[cali]

25. I understand that piece of the analogy

I think comparing the status of California same sex couples with people who were enslaved- even tangentially- is a huge mistake and face it, that's how most people will take it, even though that might not be your intent.

[bluedawg12]

55. He brought up an interesting historical fact - it WAS about State's rights

at least, that's what they said in slave holding State's.

We fought a civil war over this matter, that States cannot take away basic human rights, nor deny them.

[EndersDame]

30. The interracial marriage comparrison is more analogous

This is just plain ignorance and insensitivity

[Bluebear]

31. Yeah, that's me, ignorant and insensitive. See #29, OK?

[bluedawg12]

58. California and anti-marriage equality claim that civil rights are a State's rights.

That's another analogous point, so did slave holding State's.

So vehemently that we fought a civil war over it. Human slavery is abhorrent.

However, any version of removing human rights, inalienable rights, civil rights is also abhorrent and the other part of the analogy goes to the part of hiding behind this concept of State's rights.

It was wrong then, about human slavery and it's wrong now about marriage as a civil right.

It's a slippery slope, allowing any civil rights, for anyone, to be removed in the name of State's rights.

I see that as also a part of Bluebear's OP.

[Renew Deal]

59. I think it misses the point.

The reason why the marriages are allowed to stand is that they "legally" took place. I think the point is that the California Supreme Court wasn't willing to overturn the "will" of the voters/a legally passed amendment.

Seperately from this, most people expected this ruling. The next question is...what are people going to do about it? Also, lets say there is a prop 9 that allows marriage and passes. Can there then be a prop 10 that takes away rights and passes too? It seems like California has put itself in a position where this is an endless fight. Now that's an argument that needs to take place!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

22. no, he did not. he made a comparison to how ludicrous the court decision is

and how patently unfair.

[imdjh]

15. Depends on where you stop the wheel.

The principles are the same- inconsistent laws are unjust laws. The fact that we are down to fighting for one or two things which are not exactly life itself, is a testament to the progress made, not the insignificance of those one or two items. If that were true, then the race issue was settled in 1868 or 1870. Clearly it was not.

[hlthe2b]

18. I think you point to a serious area of sensitivity...

and one that is important to recognize strategically as we move forward to reverse the trend of inequality... African American support is important.

[Bluebear]

24. Because just supposing the 13 amendment had that rider will offend African-Americans?

Why?

[hlthe2b]

26. Bluebear,, see my earlier post agreeing with your premise

that a patchwork of "legalities" is untenable and in this respect and in my opinion, the analogy is correct (#3).... I add in the post you responded to that any analogy that includes slavery is one open to misinterpretation and inciting sensitivities and that we should be cognizant of that.

[Bluebear]

27. gotcha....

It's certainly not intended to incite sensitivities, although one would hope that anybody who enjoyed rights recognized for one subgroup and not the other should certainly see the galling unfairness.

[imdjh]

37. Yeah, it's time to break that.

Our courts and our society view things in the context of issues and events in the past, especially in the creation and application of laws. I am not willing to allow others to decide what I consider relevant based on their sensitivity or self image as having a superior claim on oppression. If they want to play that game, we can play it, but it will turn every discussion into a pissing contest.

[Chovexani]

29. You know what, fuck all of this.

It is time to lay this bullshit to rest once and for all.

I am black and queer and agree with this analogy 100%

I am tired of coddling bigots. And that's what the fuck it is, it's bigotry, it's heterosexual supremecists not wanting dirty sinful faggots to "contaminate" the memory of The Struggle completely ignoring the fact we were all up in that shit and continue to be. BECAUSE WE ARE BLACK TOO.

Black straight people who are truly for the rights of their LGBT children understand the score and are not offended. The same tools that were erected and perfected against the black community are being used by the same people against the LGBT community. The same Bible used to justify anti-miscegenation laws, the same Bible used to justify slavery, the SAME. FUCKING. BIBLE.

Coretta was not offended, John Conyers is not offended, nor are any of the numerous black civil rights leaders who support full equality for their LGBT children. A BLACK GAY MAN MENTORED MLK for fuck's sake! It is the same movement BECAUSE WE WERE IN IT TOO.

Civil rights are civil rights are civil rights and FUCK any straight bigot who can't understand that, they are the same ones chasing the gays that run their choirs out of churches.

[ecstatic]

36. True, civil rights are civil rights

But as the other person said, STRATEGICALLY speaking, it isn't wise to act as if slaves had it easier than residents of California (which was done right here in this thread). You're free to disagree and keep making the comparison of course.

[Chovexani]

46. Don't presume to lecture me about strategy Hetero Harry

What are you doing to advance the cause. I'll wait.

[imdjh]

67. If that's a reference to my post, I assure you that isn't what I was saying.

I was simply answering the prediction of an objection to the metaphor. I guess I wasn't as clever as I thought.

[LostinVA]

38. What my Chovie said

:pals:

[imdjh]

42. Beautifully said.

[MuseRider]

49. !

:applause:

[bluedawg12]

51. +10,000 When my family marched with Dr. King in support of civil rights

it was symbolic of all civil rights, for all people, at all times.

Remember well this day. What goes around comes around.

Karma is a bitch. :grr:

[GodlessBiker]

52. Excellent reply. 100% agree.

[Creideiki]

61. The reason you get shit

is because it's stupid.

Try to not be quite so thick and you might find that you're shat on less.

[Number23]

78. Thank you. A million times, thank you.

[jody]

11. IMO it's time for SCOTUS to speak out on pre-existing or inalienable rights that are enumerated or

unenumerated in state constitutions and our Constitution that are supposed to obligate government to protect a minority against the tyranny of a simple majority.

SCOTUS can say all such rights are incorporated in the 14th Amendment and make such matters as same-sex marriage a question for federal courts.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

23. Wonder if any of the justices are descendants of Chief Justice Taney?

He's the one who, on ruling on Dred Scott, said he was not a man and had no rights.

The California judges are denying many many people their rights. Equal justice under the law should prevail!

[EndersDame]

28. Are you Seriously making the comparrison between Slavery and marriage?

There is a joke in there somewhere... I am totally for either letting everybody marry or nobody marry but you cant compare the plight of Africans being ripped from their homes beaten raped taken to america and put into human bondage . They were forbidden to learn how to read and write, those who tried to escape had their limbs cut off to prevent further attempts. And the ugly mess that was segregation and all the other nastiness that continued into the mid 20th century . Are you really going to go there?

[Chovexani]

32. This is not about the oppression olympics

This is about second class citizenship.

Concern troll elsewhere, better yet read my above response. Fuck it I will just copy and paste it for your lazy ass.

It is time to lay this bullshit to rest once and for all.

I am black and queer and agree with this analogy 100%

I am tired of coddling bigots. And that's what the fuck it is, it's bigotry, it's heterosexual supremecists not wanting dirty sinful faggots to "contaminate" the memory of The Struggle completely ignoring the fact we were all up in that shit and continue to be. BECAUSE WE ARE BLACK TOO.

Black straight people who are truly for the rights of their LGBT children understand the score and are not offended. The same tools that were erected and perfected against the black community are being used by the same people against the LGBT community. The same Bible used to justify anti-miscegenation laws, the same Bible used to justify slavery, the SAME. FUCKING. BIBLE.

Coretta was not offended, John Conyers is not offended, nor are any of the numerous black civil rights leaders who support full equality for their LGBT children. A BLACK GAY MAN MENTORED MLK for fuck's sake! It is the same movement BECAUSE WE WERE IN IT TOO.

Civil rights are civil rights are civil rights and FUCK any straight bigot who can't understand that, they are the same ones chasing the gays that run their choirs out of churches.

[Midlodemocrat]

33. +1

[Bluebear]

35. Thank you my sister

[tekisui]

40. Oppression Olympics!

You nailed it.

[MineralMan]

41. Well said!

[Jamastiene]

47. OMG, I bow to you.

:applause:

[EndersDame]

53. I am sorry I offended you

The post was pretty bold and it struck a nerve as mine apparently struck yours.Upon further reflection I guess that shocking statements need to be made to gt people thinking and off their butts.

[imdjh]

68. Relax-

See, our getting married is the end of civilization as we know it. It's the poison which will under western culture. It's the tool of the Devil and industry too.

So, we're talking about extremes here.

[Bluebear]

34. No, I'm not "comparring" that, I am supposing that the 13th amendment had a grandfather clause in it

And I'm not in the habit of being called ignorant and insensitive as you did above, so adios.

[Jamastiene]

43. Give it a break, huh?

Take the goddamn blinders off. Gay people get raped, maimed, murdered, beaten down into straight marriages against our wishes, and discriminated against every goddamn day in this country and worse happens in other countries. Ever heard of the rapes of lesbians in Africa? Don't even give a flying shit about that, do ya? You probably think it's mighty goddamn noble of them to rape the lesbians there, huh?

Quit trying to start some bullshit race war when you know goddamn well you are just refusing to see the truth about what REALLY happens to gay people at this very moment in history. The "Who's Got It Worse" Olympics ended ages ago when the last one standing got murdered for asking for equal rights. Either stand up for equal rights for ALL or move the fuck out of the way.

[EndersDame]

50. I see your point and it is a valid one

It just struck a nerve. As I apparently struck yours .Just for the record I do not want to see lesbians raped in Africa. In Forgetting Sarah Marshall Russel Brand's Character was a rock star and in the music video he had a placard that said "sodomize intolerance" That is what i believe.

[GodlessBiker]

54. Shout it from every mountaintop!!

:yourock:

[tekisui]

39. To the Greatest.

So many prongs to argue for marriage equality-Separation of Church and State, Equal Protection, Discrimination, Civil Rights, and on and on.


Only one to argue against- Bigoted Hatred.

[bluedawg12]

44. This nation should be ashamed.

The Court knew exactly what they were doing and what they were taking away.

"...namely, the constitutional right to establish, with the person of one’s choice, an officially recognized and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage (or, more briefly, the constitutional right to establish an officially recognized family relationship with the person of one’s choice).

What effect does Proposition 8 have on this aspect of the state constitutional rights of privacy and due process as set forth in the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th 757? Although the new constitutional section added by Proposition 8 — article I, section 7.5 — does not explicitly purport to amend either the privacy or due process provisions of the California Constitution, our past cases make clear that this newly adopted provision must be understood as carving out an exception to the preexisting scope of the privacy and due process clauses with respect to the particular subject matter encompassed by the new provision."

[SCantiGOP]

45. I had no idea where you were going with that

but a very apt analogy.

[MuseRider]

48. Just heard about this.

I am not surprised, little surprises me anymore when it comes to bad decision making in this country.

I am so terribly sorry. We will all keep working to change this but we should not even have to worry about it, it should be a given that you are to be treated equally. I am so sorry, I wish there was a visible national leader that would be courageous and fair enough to lead on this. It would be a huge help.

[Dragonfli]

57. VERY apt analogy Bluebear you always know how to point out the obvious

outrageous bullshit that is used to justify "some" injustice.

There is either justice or there is not.
There is either a citizen or a non-citizen - "second class" citizenship does not have a place in a democracy anymore than does "separate but equal" "three fifths of a vote" or "a royal caste".

I have been accused of black and white thinking by those drowning in a thick grey goo and all I can say is, "Don't blame me, blame the constitution - that's where I get it."

You appear to have read that same little old thing once and understood what you read.

I think you are awesome!

[Bluebear]

75. 'There is either justice or there is not.'

Amen. Love and peace back at you!

[NorthernSpy]

62. Asinine comparison.

But no surprise there.

[Karenina]

65. See posts #29 and 32.

[imdjh]

69. The worst part is that I don't have anyone I want to illegally marry. nt

[Bluebear]

74. "But no surprise there" - - - you have a nice day too, instigator.

[Forkboy]

76. What the fuck is it with you?

[TexasObserver]

64. I agree. Sometimes a jurist has to MAKE law.

This is such a time.

[marmar]

70. Justice can't be suppressed forever Bluebear. It's gonna happen.....and soon.

:grouphug:

[cali]

72. It is happening. This year alone it's happened in Iowa, VT, ME, and NH

[JNelson6563]

77. Perfect analogy.

Well said.