Massive Setback For American Civil Liberties

[ravergirl]

It is status quo, that isn't setting back civil liberties...It is just an official decision to stay the same.

[grither]

I am completely disgusted of this. It is discrimination! It makes me so angry. People have to lose their rights cause the majority want to take them away? Then you have people whining cause the judges overturned the peoples vote and made gay marriage legal.They were perfectly in the right to do so. If you voted for this to pass you should be ashamed of yourself. Land of the free eh? Bull****. What a great country the U.S. is turning out to be. To think most of this problem is because of religious morons. Most people I find who have an issue with gays are religious.

[ravergirl]

I am completely disgusted of this. It is discrimination! It makes me so angry. People have to lose their rights cause the majority want to take them away? Then you have people whining cause the judges overturned the peoples vote and made gay marriage legal.They were perfectly in the right to do so. If you voted for this to pass you should be ashamed of yourself. Land of the free eh? Bull****. What a great country the U.S. is turning out to be. To think most of this problem is because of religious morons. Most people I find who have an issue with gays are religious.

how is it discrimination. at least it got considered seriously enough to be voted on... That is progress. You might notta got your way but a few years ago it wouldn't have gotten so close. Gay people have never been able to be married, it is very very very close to changing...Just keep pushing. It is excellent we are where we are.

[BlindMessiah]

It is status quo, that isn't setting back civil liberties...It is just an official decision to stay the same.

Gay marriage was legal in California until yesterday. What exactly are you talking about?

[jaylemurph]

Actually, I was playing a bit of the devil's advocate. One of my closest friends, who is now dead, was gay. So I am well aware of gay rights. Truthfully, it doesn't bother me a bit if gays get married. I actually think we should all suffer equally. I was a bit peeved by BM's righteousness that came thru in his posts, at 17 he thinks he knows everything and he doesn't. So I apoligize to you Jay, not BM, if what I said offened you. I am for equal rights for everyone no matter what the difference is. I think righteous indignity, on the other hand, should be banned. Boo ya.

Well, as I said, it was a bit of a shock to see that. And I'm with you on the equal suffering part. And I must apologise if I came over too strongly. But I think my reaction to being "protected" stands in principal if not degree: it does evoke an adolescent response and I'm not immune to it. I imagine to someone who is legitimately adolescent -- and I don't use that as a dirty term -- it'd be far harder to bear. I think I may just be more immune to those sort of responses.

And I'm not at all sure righteous indignation is all bad, although it does sort of smack of a Puritan (anti-)sentimentality -- but self-righteous-indignation is pretty awful.

(Though I don't think BM suffers from that. I was actually pretty surprised that BM was that young, because he comes across as informed and level-headed -- more so than I. I'm not sure what that says about me as an educator, though, that a well-spoken teen-ager is a mild surprise.)

I am not sure if a common law marriage is dependent on sex of partners.

I'm sure it is.

--Jaylemurph

[BlindMessiah]

I am completely disgusted of this. It is discrimination! It makes me so angry. People have to lose their rights cause the majority want to take them away? Then you have people whining cause the judges overturned the peoples vote and made gay marriage legal.They were perfectly in the right to do so. If you voted for this to pass you should be ashamed of yourself. Land of the free eh? Bull****. What a great country the U.S. is turning out to be. To think most of this problem is because of religious morons. Most people I find who have an issue with gays are religious.

To quote myself,

"They took our guns; they gave us peace.

They took our drugs; they gave us medication.

They took our marriages; they gave us unions.

They took our speech; they gave us tolerance.

They took our gods; they gave us law.

They took our liberty; they gave us safety.

They took our freedom; they gave us oppression.

It's time to take back America; land of the free."

- BlindMessiah

It's as I feared.

[ravergirl]

Gay marriage was legal in California until yesterday. What exactly are you talking about?

temporarily legal. in one part.

[+Sherapy]

how is it discrimination. at least it got considered seriously enough to be voted on... That is progress. You might notta got your way but a few years ago it wouldn't have gotten so close. Gay people have never been able to be married, it is very very very close to changing...Just keep pushing. It is excellent we are where we are.

it is religious discrimination rave lets call it what it is.... yet i do agree with you it does show the playing field who the major players are.... i agree with you I'd keep pushing it, and it will change....

it was close real close ......i would not give up, not for a second.....

[BlindMessiah]

Well, as I said, it was a bit of a shock to see that. And I'm with you on the equal suffering part. And I must apologise if I came over too strongly. But I think my reaction to being "protected" stands in principal if not degree: it does evoke an adolescent response and I'm not immune to it. I imagine to someone who is legitimately adolescent -- and I don't use that as a dirty term -- it'd be far harder to bear. I think I may just be more immune to those sort of responses.

I wouldn't consider your response adolescent at all. Your rights are being taken away. When this happened in 1776 we declared war.

And I'm not at all sure righteous indignation is all bad, although it does sort of smack of a Puritan (anti-)sentimentality -- but self-righteous-indignation is pretty awful.

I would call it being passionate about your convictions.

[BlindMessiah]

it is religious discrimination rave lets call it what it is.... yet i do agree with you it does show the playing field who the major players are.... i agree with you I'd keep pushing it, and it will change....

it was close real close ......i would not give up, not for a second.....

Sheri, I so shocked that California of all places would pass this. What happened?

[jaylemurph]

how is it discrimination. at least it got considered seriously enough to be voted on... That is progress. You might notta got your way but a few years ago it wouldn't have gotten so close. Gay people have never been able to be married, it is very very very close to changing...Just keep pushing. It is excellent we are where we are.

They can /now/ in Connecticut and Massachusetts. It may be disappointing to see CA change but it isn't the end of the world. When Conn. legalised gay marriage a few weeks ago, it was a virtual anti-news event.

Gay marriage not arousing this kind of tiresome, conservative, bourgeois hand-wringing (in Conn. of all places) is at least as much of a boon as CA is a defeat.

--Jaylemurph

[ravergirl]

it is religious discrimination rave lets call it what it is.... yet i do agree with you it does show the playing field who the major players are.... i agree with you I'd keep pushing it, and it will change....

it was close real close ......i would not give up, not for a second.....

Yeah, but 20 years ago gay people had so much more discrimination than they do now. Besides (2 months I think) it passed then got smashed, and so go the tides of politics.

it will pass more, the more people get used to the idea. I support gay marriage, BTW. and calling it marriage too.

[ravergirl]

They can /now/ in Connecticut and Massachusetts. It may be disappointing to see CA change but it isn't the end of the world. When Conn. legalised gay marriage a few weeks ago, it was a virtual anti-news event.

Gay marriage not arousing this kind of tiresome, conservative, bourgeois hand-wringing (in Conn. of all places) is at least as much of a boon as CA is a defeat.

--Jaylemurph

Wow. That is really cool. I didn't hear about that at all.

[LogicalPiccolo]

Wow. That is really cool. I didn't hear about that at all.

Yeah, crazy, I hadn't heard that either...

Funny how well the media picks and chooses what is great news and what isn't...

Why does anyone even watch TV or read a newspaper anymore...They're only as honest as the storyteller.

[BlindMessiah]

Wow. That is really cool. I didn't hear about that at all.

Yes, it was legal in three states. However it is now only legal in two, and it'll be a long long time before it's legal in California again. It's near impossible to overturn a constitutional amendment.

[shrewgoddess]

I could be very wrong but I think the point of this is that, this country is supposed to guarantee us certain freedoms. We had a system for ensuring those freedoms. And then people began to use the system to limit our freedoms, which is not at all the intent behind it! Now, California is amending their Constitution to add something that is discriminatory. And while it doesn't expressly go against the word of the Federal Constitution (as the Federal Constitution should have nothing to do with marriage laws) it most certainly does go against the spirit of it.

Therefore, every law that restricts our freedom, no matter how small or how trivial, is a setback for our Civil Liberties. Last election, in Ohio, we enacted a smoking ban that, oddly enough, didn't affect public areas, but private ones. Business owners can no longer choose whether or not to allow smoking in buildings that they own. That, too, is a major setback for Civil Liberties.

Eventually, all this will have a snowball effect until threads like these will be censored, because it's not in the public interest for differing opinions to be made public - it just upsets some people.

[ravergirl]

I could be very wrong but I think the point of this is that, this country is supposed to guarantee us certain freedoms. We had a system for ensuring those freedoms. And then people began to use the system to limit our freedoms, which is not at all the intent behind it! Now, California is amending their Constitution to add something that is discriminatory. And while it doesn't expressly go against the word of the Federal Constitution (as the Federal Constitution should have nothing to do with marriage laws) it most certainly does go against the spirit of it.

Therefore, every law that restricts our freedom, no matter how small or how trivial, is a setback for our Civil Liberties. Last election, in Ohio, we enacted a smoking ban that, oddly enough, didn't affect public areas, but private ones. Business owners can no longer choose whether or not to allow smoking in buildings that they own. That, too, is a major setback for Civil Liberties.

Eventually, all this will have a snowball effect until threads like these will be censored, because it's not in the public interest for differing opinions to be made public - it just upsets some people.

Women had to fight for the right to work and to vote.

It is the American way...everything is attainable, but you have to bust a** to get it.

[BlindMessiah]

Women had to fight for the right to work and to vote.

It is the American way...everything is attainable, but you have to bust a** to get it.

Yes, unfortunately that results in being called an, "and immoral *expletive* loving who is godless and unpatriotic homo." And yes, that was an actual quote.

[ravergirl]

Yes, unfortunately that results in being called an, "and immoral *expletive* loving who is godless and unpatriotic homo." And yes, that was an actual quote.

who said it?

[Guardsman Bass]

Apparently, a legal challenge has been filed to the California Supreme Court - and if it is successful, then the Proposition will have had to have gained 66% of the votes to successfully go into effect (which, of course, it did not). I am sincerely hoping that this works out for the plaintiffs - I want to hear the shrieking of the homophobic "We must protect the Children from the Gay Agenda in California!" people all the way over here in Utah.

The schadenfreude would be absolutely delicious, all the more so because this would stop any effort to ban gay marriage in California short of a national gay marriage ban amendment in its tracks. Had Proposition 8 just barely failed, you know the bigoted asshats would be back next year, to attempt to pass the same thing again, and again - it's what they always do, and what they've done in Arizona. But if the Court overturns Proposition 8, then suddenly the bigots will have to get 66% support on a succeeding Proposition to do what Proposition 8 is supposed to do, which will never happen.

Edited November 5, 2008 by Guardsman Bass

[danielost]

Gay marriage was legal in California until yesterday. What exactly are you talking about?

only because of one man in san fransisco. That isn't a minority that is a dictator

Edited November 5, 2008 by danielost

[jaylemurph]

only because of one man in san fransisco. That isn't a minority that is a dictator

So do you think Abraham Lincoln is also a dictator for deciding to free the slaves even though lots of white folk were against it?

--Jaylemurph

[+Sherapy]

Apparently, a legal challenge has been filed to the California Supreme Court - and if it is successful, then the Proposition will have had to have gained 66% of the votes to successfully go into effect (which, of course, it did not). I am sincerely hoping that this works out for the plaintiffs - I want to hear the shrieking of the homophobic "We must protect the Children from the Gay Agenda in California!" people all the way over here in Utah.

The schadenfreude would be absolutely delicious, all the more so because this would stop any effort to ban gay marriage in California short of a national gay marriage ban amendment in its tracks. Had Proposition 8 just barely failed, you know the bigoted asshats would be back next year, to attempt to pass the same thing again, and again - it's what they always do, and what they've done in Arizona. But if the Court overturns Proposition 8, then suddenly the bigots will have to get 66% support on a succeeding Proposition to do what Proposition 8 is supposed to do, which will never happen.

Do you have a link for this , I have been looking all day for info..thanks GB....

[Jon Blackstar]

That's the problem, though - the bigoted *******s have gotten smarter at avoiding the undesirable outcome. Witness the countless state-level gay marriage bans in the state constitutions, which generally **** over anything resembling the spirit of the Equal Protection Clause. Or the Federal "Defense of Marriage" Act, which, IIRC, stripped the federal courts of their rights to hear Equal Protection Clause challenges over gay marriage. You think the fight against de-segregation and racism would have gone as effectively if the racist pig****ers back then had managed to get a federal "Defense of White Southern Womanhood" Act passed that banned interracial marriage and enforced de-segregation, and which removed the jurisdiction of the federal courts over their ability to hear challenges to it?

As it is, what happened in California was, and will be, a travesty of justice created at the point of majority rule - the same way American bigots seem to have found ways to exempt undesirable groups from equal rights throughout American history. What the "No" movement ought to do, though, is spend the year organizing, then push for a proposition revoking proposition 8 next year, in 2009 (before it can affect the mid-term 2010 Congressional races). They ought to keep doing this, particularly since this is what brings the bigot coalitions success; they just relentlessly push for amendments like these, year after year, regardless of failure.

Florida shows the true colors of this movement clearly, by the way. Some of the anti-gay marriage people may talk about creating civil unions with equal rights, but when they have the overwhelming strength, look at what they really do, which is to completely exclude gay couples from even just the legal rights of marriage.

Actually, we're a society of laws, not men, and the Founders had nothing but contempt for democracy and majority rule. Obama won a legal election through the method they devised, while the anti-gay marriage coalition took advantage of the California proposition system to create an amendment that more or less ****s on the Equal Protection Clause.

well said

[Guardsman Bass]

Do you have a link for this , I have been looking all day for info..thanks GB....

Ask and ye shall receive - from the Los Angeles Times.