2. The term “gay lifestyle” is used by people who think, or say they think, being gay is a choice. It’s not about a monolithic community groupthink.

3. Do we want the state constitution to be amended, then amended again, then amended again on the same issue every time the pendulum swings back and forth across the 50% line? That’s damaging. A higher bar guarantees there’s a concensus, not just a erstwhile majority.

4. I thought PSUdain’s “Screw Madison” comments were offered sarcastically.

5. The “will of the people” in the South used to be that blacks shouldn’t vote or own property or be able to use public facilities. Is anyone in this thread honestly arguing that the US Supreme Court shouldn’t have voted the way it did in Brown v. Bd of Education or that Congress shouldn’t have passed civil rights legislation? The state Constitution is clear.

Why not?

After all, it works both ways; if it takes a small majority to amend, it also takes a small majority to reject the amendment or to reverse it.

The problem here is that gays and lesbians, many of whom throw around words like “mobocracy” to refer to the democratic process, insinuate publicly that voters are neither educated or intelligent, and even publicly state that voters should suffer because otherwise they “don’t trust voters to make the right decision”, inexplicably have trouble even getting a simple majority.

Now getting to amending the Constitution via a proposition. Are you NUTS??? A simple majority should never EVER be the sole requirement to amend asuch an important document. There is a reason the founders made it so damned difficult to amend the federal document – to make bloody well sure we know what we’re doing when we embark on such an endeavour.

I can’t begin to express how much I agree.

Now getting to amending the Constitution via a proposition. Are you NUTS??? A simple majority should never EVER be the sole requirement to amend asuch an important document. There is a reason the founders made it so damned difficult to amend the federal document – to make bloody well sure we know what we’re doing when we embark on such an endeavour.

I hope this make some since. Had my fair share of vino and I’m tired and going to bed!

I guess I just get sick of hearing about how politicians are “defying the ‘will of the people’” because of whatever vote. The “will of the people” is very important, but sometimes a leader must do unpopular things if they think it is right. Do you think that politicians should act just based on polls of their constituents, or should they act on their own principles and then let the public vote up or down for their reelection based on their performance? (I realize it’s not a perfect system, but, to paraphrase: It’s the worst, except for all the others.)

(I’m not saying that I agree with the line of reasoning, but one could make the case that by continuing to support the war in Iraq that the President and Congress are defying the will of the people, as measured by various instruments. Why is that kosher, but this isn’t?)

I think that enshrining the “will of the people” as an absolute or supreme authority can be dangerous, as part of what the founders intended was to protect individuals from “the mob”. I’ll admit that my rhetoric was over-the-top, but it’s a bit of a pet peeve of mine, so I can get a bit heated. Sorry to be so crass (and possibly off topic). Have I better explained my point, now?

To heliotrope:

You propose to broaden the existing order. That is, by any definition, a liberalization of the status quo.

Yeah, let’s play semantics. I didn’t deny that it could be called “liberal”. All I asked was that that not be used as if it were an argument against it, because, “It’s liberal,” would be a neutral point of fact, not an argument.

Sorry, pal, but we have a big problem with some public restrooms at a park. It involves same sex encounters and a few pedophiles thrown in as well.
[...]
We have a doggie park at the park, maybe we should have a doggie-style park, too. But these gays are not representative of all gays. It seems to be the conservative gays who are most honest about the broad spectrum of “lifestyles” among gays.

What the devil is your problem? I say one thing about transgender folks and about how being gay is about so much more than physical ‘relations’, and you jump down my throat with all manner of wild accusations, and tired cliches. I’m really not certain what to take from your jeremiad. Are you accusing me of supporting public sexual acts? Because I don’t. Are you implying that I support paedophilia? Because I don’t. Are you also trying to imply that I want to create government enforced speech codes? Because I don’t.

Clearly, if I think that there are other components that are more than or equally meaningful as the physical, then I don’t personally support actions that are just physical and lack the other components.

I also think that there are plenty of left-leaning gay people who have pointed out that “gay” does not constitute a “lifestyle” precisely because of our diversity. Now sometimes they may be blind to certain aspects (but many are not, so be not too hasty to judge all according to a few), but they get that there is diversity, not monolithic sameness.

You really didn’t make any clear points, just a list of demi-accusations. (If I were you, I wouldn’t bandy about that term, “invective”, without further review, possibly involving a mirror.) I don’t see why you treat any person positions which differ at all from yours as if they are anathema to all your views. The fact that you perceive that we may (or may not, I’d have to hear more from you–I’m not going to jump to conclusions) disagree on one point does not make me your political foil.

I can’t decide if these liberal groups are tone-deaf, stupid or if perhaps they really don’t want to see the gay marriage issue go away in CA. If the amendment passes, then these groups, who rely so heavily on donations from the GLBT community, will have one more badge of victimhood with which to raise funds.

But, FOR GOD’S SAKE, please stop using the words “leftist” or “liberal” or in this case “left wing” to automatically discredit something. That’s not an argument, it’s an excuse not to argue.

Not possible.

You propose to broaden the existing order. That is, by any definition, a liberalization of the status quo. The existing order for marriage has been around for an extremely long time in our culture and the cultures from which we draw common law tradition.

I can not understand the utility in pretending that broadening the standards of marriage is not a liberalization. If the time has come when the heterosexual majority will determine to loosen the standards, then so be it. Change happens. But it will happen after open debate, not by rigging the rules. And here is another drecree:

That’s like when anti-gay folks call refer to “the homosexual lifestyle” or claim that it’s ONLY about buggering other guys (or gals, depending), not things like love and commitment.

If someone refers to “the homosexual lifestyle” is that person automatically anti-gay? Is it possible to disdain buggering other guys while understanding things like (gay) love and commitment?

You paint heavy lines of predetermined rules around your willingness to engage in dialog.

Sorry, pal, but we have a big problem with some public restrooms at a park. It involves same sex encounters and a few pedophiles thrown in as well. It is a well known meeting place for those seeking a well known meeting place for meat market activity. Now if a transgender cross-dresser male decides to choose the ladies’ room, our anti-gay picture will be complete, won’t it. Maybe we should build separate restrooms and label them “straight only” and “gay only.” We have a doggie park at the park, maybe we should have a doggie-style park, too. But these gays are not representative of all gays. It seems to be the conservative gays who are most honest about the broad spectrum of “lifestyles” among gays. You just seem to be trolling for numbers, regardless of “lifestyle” so you can goose up your political clout.

Would that your pious view of the conflicts some bring to the public square could be easily solved by banning words and managing speech. The Canadians are sure doing a bang-up job of it.

So, bring on the invective.

there’s no law saying someone cant dress up like a woman if they want to.

There aren’t any laws anymore, either, saying people can’t do it with the same sex. Should the gay rights movement just stop now?

Trans people have a stake in legalizing same-sex marriage and have given countless hours of work, written lots of checks, and even put their lives on the line for the rights of gays and lesbians. They’ve earned their place in this movement.

GPW~ Thanks for continuing this discussion. That was an interesting and informative post to read!

If the legislature is truly representative, it will vote in the same fashion as the people.

If a legislature ceases to be representative, the supreme power established in the state constitution belongs to the electorate. In this case, the legislature has ceased to be representative, and the people of California are exercising their constitutional rights to govern.

Furthermore, the hypocrisy PSUdain expresses — that the state of California should conjure gay marriage through extreme interpretation, but should ignore the clear language in its state constitution that expressly grants the voters the power to amend it — is a classic example of the tone-deaf attitude GPW has pointed out.

I actually don’t favor the liberal use of popular initiative for which the California constitution provides. But, that’s the way it is here in the Golden State. And in setting up a federalist system, Madison would respect that right.

So, the rest of your exclamations make little sense. Who’s saying get rid of all these institutions? I’m actually saying respect a process established by the California constitution, a response that at least three of the founders you mentioned would have given as well. (I’m not so much aware of Franklin’s constitutional jurisprudence.)

Had there been no initiative on the ballot, then the legislature would have been completely within its rights to change the definition of marriage. But, once the people voted (again, as per the California constitution), the legislature had an obligation to ask them to reconsider before taking up the issue.

And that’s what I’ve been saying at least for as long as I’ve been blogging about the issue–e.g. here.

there’s no law saying someone cant dress up like a woman if they want to

A. Sure, just completely forget about female to male.

B. Is that really all the deeper you see it? Somebody playing dress up in public? Usually, I’d just call that drag. For any of the trans folks I know, it goes much deeper than that. That’s like when anti-gay folks call refer to “the homosexual lifestyle” or claim that it’s ONLY about buggering other guys (or gals, depending), not things like love and commitment.

C. There are logical reasons for the association (I speak of both legal/activism and social/support contexts).
–Because there are laws preventing that person from marrying and from jointly adopting and all those other things (in many cases), so we’re working for the same (or similar) ends on a lot of these things.
–Transgender folks face a lot of crap for the same reasons and from the same sources as LGB folks.
–We are both viewed by many people as “gender non conformist” (if you want to use that terminology), just in varying degrees (or not, depending on who you ask).
–We often have similar experiences in life, a hiding or being closeted, some form of coming out (maybe twice, even for trans folks). We share similar childhood taunts and tormentors. We may not be the same, but we’re awfully similar in a lot of important ways. And we are different in important ways, too, obviously.

D. Every political movement has people it could “throw overboard” to make it easier, but that doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do. That sounds like Utilitarianism, to me. Which is fine, but not very conservative.

E. Do you really think trans folks (who recieve so little attention and coverage) are the overall dealbreaker? From what I’ve seen, I highly doubt that.

So it’s a matter of opinion I suppose. (Isn’t it always?) I’ve laid out some points defending mine. Feel free to respond, in kind. But, FOR GOD’S SAKE, please stop using the words “leftist” or “liberal” or in this case “left wing” to automatically discredit something. That’s not an argument, it’s an excuse not to argue.

The legislature should not take action on its own, EVER! Really, why do we even bother with having one? We ought to just let everything be a direct vote of the people.

And for that matter, I’m not too sure about this “governor” thing, either. I mean, he could veto legislation, even if “the people” wanted it to pass. What is up with that??

Seriously, a direct popular vote is clearly the way we should run everything in this country. Get rid of that president and the congress. What are they, really, but a way to cleverly circumvent the will of the people?

Mob rule forever!! Screw you, Ben Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and company. And an extra-special, “SCREW YOU,” to James Madison. What were you thinking with having these elected “representatives”???

Gosh, the founding fathers were sooo dumb! Good thing we know better now!