I had planned a post today on the hearing the California Supreme Court this morning on the constitutionality of Prop 8, but realized that I would basically be repeating a point I had made over and over again, with a slight twist to reflect the circumstances. But, some things, I believe, bear repetition.
This return journey along the judicial route shows (yet again) that most (but not all) advocates of state recognition of same-sex marriages would rather make legal arguments to a small pool of judges than social arguments to a large group of citizens. They seek to change society by appealing to a narrow class of people with arguments which, at least on the issue of marriage, don’t resonate with many of the people who currently oppose gay marriage (and even with some who are ambivalent about it).
There are a great variety of reasons why I believe the court should uphold the popular initiative, primarily because I don’t believe the propositions alter the fundamental meaning of the state constitution (as required to overturn a such an initiative).
That said, should the Court uphold Prop 8, I do believe the people should overturn it, with, as I have suggested previously, an initiative amending the constitution to make the elected legislature responsible for defining marriage. The legislature then vote, as it has, to expand the definition of marriage, conferring legitimacy on the new understanding of this ancient institution. At that point, we will have effected a fundamental social change and hopefully achieved a social consensus doing so.
I say, “hopefully” because I believe building that social consensus depends entirely on advocates of gay marriage making the case (as Jonathan Rauch long has done) why it’s a good thing to expand the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions.
In the wake of the passage of Proposition 8, we saw anger and name-calling, but also a commitment to do a better job next time. To turn that commitment into effective action, advocates of gay marriage must lose the sense of entitlement which dominated the last debate and refuse to demonize opponents of gay marriage.
Instead, they must understand their arguments and counter them with better ones, attempting through gentle suasion to change their minds. Many, if not most, opponents of same-sex marriage, do not hate gay people. They merely define marriage by gender difference.
Understand they hold that meaning in good will and without malice. Thus, when we challenge them, we must respond accordingly.
As I long have said, gay marriage advocates need to make better arguments to promote their cause. This, I believe, is the path which will lead to the social change they seek. And should they show respect for their adversaries (on the issue) and challenge with ideas not insults, they could see that change as soon as the next election.
“They seek to change society by appealing to a narrow class of people with arguments which, at least on the issue of marriage, don’t resonate with many of the people who currently oppose gay marriage (and even with some who are ambivalent about it).”
This same argument could, of course, have been made against all civil rights litigation including “Brown v. Board of Education”. Or do you agree that schools should have remained desegregated until the majority of whites felt differently? Although ideally political change may be best made through legislative bodies, the role of courts is to decide the law independent of majority opinions. You also miss that it works both ways, court decision often lead to change in public opinion. Prior to the Massachusetts’ gay marriage case the polls showed relatively high opposition to gay marriage. Although oppositon has not evaporated there has been a significant shift in favor of gay marriage and even its most staunch opponents no longer have any hope of changing that in Massachusetts. The attempt to vote in anti-marriage legislators post Goodridge was a complete failure and in fact legislative and popular support has only increased.
yes, but Brendan, post-Goodridge, a whole raft of state initiatives passed.
Brown is an entirely different thing. Brown was overturned laws passed in the wake of a very bad Supreme Court decision (Plessy v. Ferguson) which clearly ran counter to the plain meaning of the 14th amendment.
The issues aren’t even related. We had resolved the issue of race relations with the Civil War, subsequent constitutional amendments and legislation, later ignored by the Southern States and given legitimacy by Plessy.
Brown was effectively one Supreme Court decision overturning another. Your comparison just doesn’t work.
The right to vote vs. the right of same-sex marriage. It seems like a no-brainer and one that the anti-Prop 8 folks were foolish to challenge. One is a God-given right, the other a right granted by the state.
I’m not even sure where on earth it says that marriage is a “civil right”?? How did that myth get started?
Off topic a bit.. why on earth is the CA Supreme Court housed in San Fran and not Sacramento?
“yes, but Brendan, post-Goodridge, a whole raft of state initiatives passed.”
yes and some other states have passed gay marriage and some civil unions. Despite your dismissive tone to anyone who anyone who disagrees with you, let me paraphrase you and say respond to what and not what you wanted me to say. My point again is that the interaction between judicial decisions and public is complicated and not simply one of backlash or progress. court decisions can help change public opinion and though you are right about some backlash in others, you don’t dispute my point about how Goodridge had the opposite in Mass.
Yes Brown overturned Plessy, but it was far more than that. Brown was one of many cases brought by the NACCP in the 50’s which aimed and won at getting judicial victories for African Americans that were widely unpopular with the vast majority of white americans. These victories helped change public opinion for the better. The same is equally true for some of the landmark gender discrimination cases brought in the 60’s and 70’s. You are absolutely correct that judicial victories can lead to political backlash, but there times when rights can be won in court even against public opinion and that is not in itself a bad thing.
“One is a God-given right” And where exactly has god said we have right to vote?
I think that minority agendas on both sides are defeated by having the debate. It is never in the interest of a minority to have something controlled by mob rule, which essentially the definition of government intervention. The best interests of all involved, gay interests and the interests of those who are in the “religious right”, would be better served by attempting to toss government entirely out of the issue. When I was a younger woman, we protested when city government taxed newspaper sales because the right to tax is the right to regulate. Yet, we would casually assume government has the right to define marriage and tax it via certificates. Why should I pay a government employee to marry someone else? Why would I ask one of my employees (government employees do work for me in some sense) to ignore their deeply held religious beliefs in order to marry a gay couple? Along the same lines, what right do I have to ask my employee to ignore their deeply held religious beliefs and NOT marry a gay couple? We the people have zero right to intervene in this matter and would be better served backing completely out of it. This is a great example of why minorities should not be liberals. Their best interests are never served by mob rule, only by extremely limited government.
Brown vs. Board of Education did not change black people into white people. Gays are trying to assimilate a tradition designed for heterosexuals. Gays are not straights. We can have equal rights without marriage. We can use civil unions to create lifelong, monogamous relationships which are the envy of geese and Catholics. We can be separate but better.
filtered.
“Brown vs. Board of Education did not change black people into white people. Gays are trying to assimilate a tradition designed for heterosexuals. Gays are not straights. We can have equal rights without marriage. We can use civil unions to create lifelong, monogamous relationships which are the envy of geese and Catholics. We can be separate but better.”
What on earth does this possibly mean? Does it mean anything? Seriously, this is not an argument.
ashpenz — one could make the very same argument for voting, i.e. that black people were trying to assimilate into a historically (in america) white institution: voting. voting was, at that time, a white institution, and i’m sure many people thought it should stay that way.
gpw: i just read your entire post, so please don’t accuse me of not doing so. do you not understand the role of the courts? i agree with you that part of our approach to achieve equal rights should be to present a positive case to the larger society for why gay marriage — an institution promoting monogamous relationships, let’s not forget — would be a good thing. but trying to convince your neighbors that you’re not evil and are worthy of equal rights should not be the entirety of the struggle. the court system is there to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. the court system is there to uphold the constitution and to determine which laws in society are unconstitutional. the massachusetts supreme court found that banning gay marriage violated their constitution. there is a little clause in the constitution about equal protection under the law, you know. straight people are allowed to marry a person of their choosing from the pool of people to whom they are attracted (i.e. people of the opposite sex). gay people are not given this same right. [and please, let’s not let this evolve into an argument about incest; that is a preposterous, and i’ve explained why it’s illogical as well in other posts.] and i think we can all agree that there are rights and privileges bestowed upon individuals that go beyond having babies, can’t we?
if you want to spend your free time trying to convince fundamentalist christians of your right to marry, be my guest. i would like to have the right to marry before i’m an old man, however, and so i think we should pursue all avenues available to us — including the courts, which i think are actually the appropriate method for an issue such as this.
It has meaning, Brendan. If you want I’m sure bob will be along to tell you you’re too stupid to understand it.
I believe what Ashpenaz is trying to say is that Brown didn’t change an institution, rather it affirmed the right of all people to that right.
State recognition of marriage is not a right, it’s a privilege with specific critera, determined by the state. In this case the people of California have determined (like 29 other states) that the requirement of two and only two people of the opposite sex can qualify.
California benefits its gay/l-e-s-b-i-a-n couples by domestic partnerships/civil unions.
no, livewire, it’s you that is stupid. applying the argument mentioned, people could have argued back then that voting was a white institution and that blacks were trying to change that institution.
“it has meaning, Brendan. If you want I’m sure bob will be along to tell you you’re too stupid to understand it.”
okay, this is getting to be fun–“it has meaning”==and someone will be along later to tell me what the meaning, but of course in the duraration it is me who is stupid?
As for the right/privelege distinction, let’s just say this is a distinction thay is very difficult to coherently articulate and even conservative judges have veered away from it. See Goldberg v. Kelly.
“no, livewire, it’s you that is stupid.”
Could not have said it better myself, but off to sleep now to go to work another day to research on a voting rights case, still looking for the part ofthe constitution where god said we had the right to vote in contrast to other rights. Hopefully the original Gay Patriot will provide me some citations by early morning or at least some anecdotes how the war on terror should deprive everyone of rights except gay business men with sleep apnea.
Just as a question of law, does the California constitution permit an amendment that denies jurisdiction to the Supreme Court for any question? I am just asking, because there are other states that have amended their constitutions with language that specifically denied jurisdiction to their highest courts in the interpretation of various elements.
Just a legal question.
This return journey along the judicial route shows (yet again) that most (but not all) advocates of state recognition of same-sex marriages would rather make legal arguments to a small pool of judges than social arguments to a large group of citizens. They seek to change society by appealing to a narrow class of people with arguments which, at least on the issue of marriage, don’t resonate with many of the people who currently oppose gay marriage (and even with some who are ambivalent about it).
Dude, this is America, a nation of laws. Not a nation of ‘making social arguments to large groups of citizens.’ You can pretend that it’s a cop-out to go to a court room if you want, but that’s how this country is supposed to work. If you have a sound argument with logical reasoning supported by legal precedent, that’s all you need. I know that a lot of people are opposed to gay marriage, but I’ve heard them out, and they don’t have the law on their side.
There are lots of things in American history where large groups of people opposed something that was still unquestionably the right thing to do. If you support gay marriage, you don’t have do it apologetically. We’re absolutely right about this — who cares if people are offended?
#12
Made more sense than your harrangue against white Americans earlier. Guess you didn’t know that not all blacks wanted integration and were just fine with their children attending schools with other black kids. No matter. “Well meaning” higher ups came along with dolls and tried to convince black kids that they weren’t as good as white kids as long as they stayed segregated. They made the decision for the people because we’re all too damn stupid to decide on our own.
Not to mention the fact that black parents weren’t too happy with having their kids packed on busses and shipped two hours each way to schools outside of their communities. No matter. Folks higher up knew what was best. Nevermind that it accomplished nothing but pissing everybody, on both sides, off.
But you’re not supposed to know that, so keep it under your hat.
Conversely, who cares if you’re offended?
Guess you didn’t know that not all blacks wanted integration and were just fine with their children attending schools with other black kids… Not to mention the fact that black parents weren’t too happy with having their kids packed on busses and shipped two hours each way to schools outside of their communities… Nevermind that it accomplished nothing but pissing everybody, on both sides, off.
TGC… did you seriously just imply that blacks liked, approved of and would have preferred that we kept racial segregation, and tossing it out accomplished nothing constructive? Because if so, I’d like a show of hands from the other conservatives on here who agree.
GPW and GP: Any thoughts on the new law suit in D.Mass. challenging the portion of the DOMA that prohibits federal recognition of a same-sex marriage within the state where it was performed (i.e., refusing to recognize a Massachusetts marriage between two Massachusetts citizens who remain in Massachusetts)? My understanding of the lawsuit is that it is actually very narrowly focused but almost certainly viewed as a “foot in the door” if successful. Anyway, would be curious to hear your thoughts. Cheers.
A liberal take on it: http://www.slate.com/id/2212893/
I didn’t imply anything. I stated the fact that many did prefer their kids going to a school close by along with their friends. What’s more, I said the busing kids to the other side of town, in the name of fairness, accomplished nothing.
Conversely, who cares if you’re offended?
Who says I’m offended? Offended by what?
no, livewire, it’s you that is stupid. applying the argument mentioned, people could have argued back then that voting was a white institution and that blacks were trying to change that institution.
Sorry, but the Constitution is quite explicit on that one.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
This is why I’m always amused when libbies like boob scream about “losing” their constitutional rights; they don’t even know what’s in the document they cite. Boob and Brendan both are apparently under the impression that the Constitution explicitly guarantees gay marriage. but says nothing about the right to vote.
If you have a sound argument with logical reasoning supported by legal precedent, that’s all you need.
Indeed. Then, since the Supreme Court established in its dismissal of Baker v. Nelson that states are perfectly within their right to ban gay marriage and that this is not a violation of the Federal Constitution, you will now accept that as finished law and perfectly moral.
Or, what is more likely, you’re now going to demonstrate that you don’t believe in legal precedent and that court cases establish nothing when they don’t rule the way that you like.
TGC… did you seriously just imply that blacks liked, approved of and would have preferred that we kept racial segregation, and tossing it out accomplished nothing constructive?
Obviously CR has never heard of the Black Muslims, Black Panthers, and other such groups — not to mention the Obama-endorsed Chicago educational system.
To learn what the rites of passage movement was all about, we can turn to a sympathetic 1992 study published in the Journal of Negro Education by Nsenga Warfield-Coppock. In that article, Warfield-Coppock bemoans the fact that public education in the United States is shaped by “capitalism, competitiveness, racism, sexism and oppression.†According to Warfield-Coppock, these American values “have confused African American people and oriented them toward American definitions of achievement and success and away from traditional African values.†American socialization has “proven to be dysfuntional and genocidal to the African American community,†Warfield-Coppock tells us. The answer is the adolescent rites of passage movement, designed “to provide African American youth with the cultural information and values they would need to counter the potentially detrimental effects of a Eurocentrically oriented society.â€
The adolescent rites of passage movement that flowered in the 1990s grew out of the “cultural nationalist†or “Pan-African†thinking popular in radical black circles of the 1960s and 1970s. The attempt to create a virtually separate and intensely anti-American black social world began to take hold in the mid-1980s in small private schools, which carefully guarded the contents of their controversial curricula. Gradually, through external partners like CIESS, the movement spread to a few public schools. Supporters view these programs as “a social and cultural ‘inoculation’ process that facilitates healthy, African-centered development among African American youth and protects them against the ravages of a racist, sexist, capitalist, and oppressive society.â€
We know that SSAVC was part of this movement, not only because their Annenberg proposals were filled with Afrocentric themes and references to “rites of passage,†but also because SSAVC’s faculty set up its African-centered curriculum in consultation with some of the most prominent leaders of the “rites of passage movement.†For example, a CIESS teacher conference sponsored a presentation on African-centered curricula by Jacob Carruthers, a particularly controversial Afrocentrist.
Read on. It gets better.
Carruthers is a defender of Leonard Jeffries, professor in the department of black studies at City College in Harlem, infamous for his black supremacist and anti-Semitic views. Jeffries sees whites as oppressive and violent “ice people,†in contrast to peaceful and mutually supportive black “sun people.†The divergence says Jeffries, is attributable to differing levels of melanin in the skin.
Levi, at the risk of again expressing something in a dismissive tone, so you’re saying that going to court is the way this country is supposed to work? And that’s where I disagree strongly with you. Strongly.
Yes, America is a nation of laws. And that’s what we have a thing called the legislature for. (The root word of that body “legis” comes from the Latin word for law, lex. Look it up. It makes the laws. We’re not just a nation of laws, we’re a nation built on an idea. And we preserve and protect and defend that idea through our system of government.
So, if you’re absolutely right about gay marriage, then it should be easy for you to do what I suggest in the post, make the case for gay marriage to your peers.
And you can start by using this forum to make your case.
CR, in #19, didn’t hear about suit challenging DOMA, will have to learn the particulars before expressing my opinion one way or another. For the record, I do agree with NY Governor Paterson’s decision for his state to recognize same-sex marriages performed in another state (as articulated here).
The thing you’re not supposed to know, CR, is that integration was voluntary. Forced busing came about because blacks weren’t steppin’ n integratin’ fast enough for the social engineers.
Why? Because they liked their kids where they were. Those who know what’s good for us, better than we do, couldn’t accept that.
Ooops! Forgot to add:
Another thing we’re not supposed to know is that integration was working itself out. That’s caused some to wonder if Brown was really necessary.
Now as for the topic, acceptance of gays is working itself out. As GPW has noted many times before, many companies offer same sex benefits, most notably, without being forced to do so. A lot of people accept gays for who they are and, I’m fairly certain, that it didn’t come about from threats, screaming “NIGGER” at the top of your lungs, mailing envelopes with white powder, or even pride parades.
One can therefore conclude that gay marriage will come about naturally. Perhaps it will come about quicker if the “gay community” (chuckle) would help people to understand why they should support it (ROFLMAO). Threatening people doesn’t usually help one’s cause much.
But the bitchy, gay Veruca Salts have to have it their way and NOW and to hell with everybody else.
Think I’m wrong? Prove it.
Levi, at the risk of again expressing something in a dismissive tone, so you’re saying that going to court is the way this country is supposed to work? And that’s where I disagree strongly with you. Strongly.
Yes, America is a nation of laws. And that’s what we have a thing called the legislature for. (The root word of that body “legis†comes from the Latin word for law, lex. Look it up. It makes the laws. We’re not just a nation of laws, we’re a nation built on an idea. And we preserve and protect and defend that idea through our system of government.
So, if you’re absolutely right about gay marriage, then it should be easy for you to do what I suggest in the post, make the case for gay marriage to your peers.
And you can start by using this forum to make your case.
First of all, don’t worry about expressing something in a dismissive tone. I can take it.
Second of all, you’re just wrong. This isn’t something to agree or disagree about, the judicial branch is a co-equal part of our government, and this sort of issue is exactly what it was designed to address. Certainly at some point in your political life you’ve heard someone invoke the ‘tyranny of the majority?’ The judicial branch is the best remedy there is for that particular weakness of our democracy.
I know what the legislature does, I’m not sure I understand what your point is with that particular paragraph. I can make the case for gay marriage easily, but that’s not really what we’re talking about here. This is a discussion about the different roles of the various parts of our government, and what are the best ways to effect changes in the system. If you want gay marriage to be a reality, the courts are the best way to get there. You can wait until someone takes a vote and 50% plus one people support gay marriage if you want, but that’s a wholly unnecessary step. If it’s truly an injustice that you want to see changed, as I do, why wait? Sorry, but I’ll take lawsuits over winning a hearts and minds battle against stubborn religious doctrine any day of the week.
Aw… look,
bob couldn’t come up with a valid arguement so he resorted to calling me stupid. Good thing I actually know about the ammendment process.
Brendan, let me make something clear. I was not calling you stupid. I was mocking bob’s arguement that anyone who can’t understand his incoherent ramblings is stupid, as he’s said in the past. http://www.gaypatriot.net/?comments_popup=9340#comment-380900
Now since you can’t seem to understand this little bit of the Constitution:
“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”
I have to ask, are you ignorant, or just willingly blind, like our friend bob here.
So, do you have an actual basis for your arguent, or just insults to throw around when ignorant of reality?
#26 Anectodal evidence:
I was raised until I was 4 in a house that was two blocks from ‘my’ elementary school. When I was 4, the ctiy decided to bus our neighborhood all the way to the south end of Columbus. My grandparents had a farm house in the boonies, so we moved there so our local school would be, well, local.
non-anectdoal. Look up Great White Flight. At least some of the urban decline can be blamed on that.
Levi,
My concern with this lawsuit madness is that the Court’s function is to interpret the constitution. The constitution of the state of California now says marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman. The Court should follow the example of Hawaii, namely “The constitution now says ‘this’ there’s no reason to rule on it.”
If they invalidate 8, they’re saying “You can ammend the constitution, except when we say you can’t.”
That’s not democrac. That’s not a republic. That’s not ‘the role of the Court’ That’s the tyranny of the minority. That’s what a revolution was fought over 200 years ago for.
While I abhor the idea that my legal rights are to be put up to a vote, I think it’s better all around if gay marriage is enacted by popular vote (or at least with the consent of a majority of citizens in that state) than by a group of judges. Having judges decide opens up a line of attack from the right that distracts from the real issues at hand (and allows the anti-gay crowd to attack gay rights while pretending they really object on grounds other than anti-gay bigotry…that lie was betrayed when Ann Coulter went on Mike Huckabee’s Fox television program and argued over who was more “anti-sodomy”.)
Levi,
My concern with this lawsuit madness is that the Court’s function is to interpret the constitution. The constitution of the state of California now says marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman. The Court should follow the example of Hawaii, namely “The constitution now says ‘this’ there’s no reason to rule on it.â€
If they invalidate 8, they’re saying “You can ammend the constitution, except when we say you can’t.â€
That’s not democrac. That’s not a republic. That’s not ‘the role of the Court’ That’s the tyranny of the minority. That’s what a revolution was fought over 200 years ago for.
If they invalidate Prop 8, it’s because it’s unconstitutional, not simply because they’re saying that you can’t because they don’t like it, or whatever. The argument is that the equal rights part of the Constitution is more important than a provision eliminating rights that the conservative movement got enough people to vote for. Just because you got that into the Constitution doesn’t mean it’s locked in for all time, that it’s unreviewable or set in stone. That’s just not how this country works. You can call it undemocratic all you want, but this is our system. Courts can review these sorts of things and can undo them. I wouldn’t want it any other way.
While I abhor the idea that my legal rights are to be put up to a vote, I think it’s better all around if gay marriage is enacted by popular vote (or at least with the consent of a majority of citizens in that state) than by a group of judges. Having judges decide opens up a line of attack from the right that distracts from the real issues at hand.
Who cares if it opens a line of attack? That’s a reason to give up on the legal process? Someone might come at you with a silly, breathless stream of B.S. about activist judges? Why would you back away from a political fight against such a morally bankrupt crowd? Why play on their terms? Supporters of gay marriage have the law and precedent on our side, the only thing the opponents have going for them is popular support, which is utterly meaningless in this particular instance.
Good points, Houndentenor in #32, I almost agree with everything you said, just a minor quibble here and there. 🙂
Goes to my legitimacy point.
So, Levi,
I want to make sure I’m understanding you correctly.
The people cannot invalidate parts of the constitution through the process given? You’re saying that in Levi’s USA blacks still count as 3/5s of a person for voting, Senators are still appointed by the state governments, women don’t have the right to vote, and the voting age is still 21?
Ignoring for the moment that Proposition 8 does not “eliminating rights that the conservative movement got enough people to vote for” You’re saying that some parts of the document are more important than others.
Who gets to decide? Men in black robes?
You’re still promoting tyranny, just with a smiley face.
livewire,
Yes, some parts of the document are more important than others, and yes, men in black robes get to decide. A law enacted by the legislature is more important and takes precedence over a public referendum that eliminates rights for people, yes, yes, a million times yes. Welcome to America, you should learn how things work before you start opining.
Ok, so you do believe in 3/5th of a person, women shouldn’t be voting and men in black robes deciding that you should be enslaved, tortured or worse.
Wow, I’m glad I live in America and not Leviland.
You also don’t believe in the ammendment process or the rule of law, unless it agrees with you.
Incredible, but at least you’re honest.
“We’re absolutely right about this — who cares if people are offended?”
I don’t. Frankly, I don’t care if we get gay marriage by armed revolt (and if it comes to that, you better believe I’ll not only support it but participate in it).
“Better to be married in a tyranny than fred in a republic!” Attmay?
“Give me same sex marriage or give me death!”
If they invalidate Prop 8, it’s because it’s unconstitutional, not simply because they’re saying that you can’t because they don’t like it, or whatever. The argument is that the equal rights part of the Constitution is more important than a provision eliminating rights that the conservative movement got enough people to vote for.
And do you know how the “equal rights” portion got there, Levi? THROUGH AMENDMENT.
So what you’re saying is that people should be allowed to amend the constitution if it benefits you, but not if you don’t like it. Just like you believe in “the rule of law”, except when you don’t like the law, in which case you scream that it should be arbitrarily overturned and rewritten by whatever loony-left judge you can find.
attmay offers: “Frankly, I don’t care if we get gay marriage by armed revolt (and if it comes to that, you better believe I’ll not only support it but participate in it).”
Hey attmay, always nice to see the Nancy crowd act like men for once and show some bravado. Except, I’m betting, your sense of armed revolt is making the transgendered revolters show up in sleeveless dresses ala Michele Obama?
Truly, the End Days are here. I 100% agree with a comment from Houndentenor.
Everyone, get your personal things in order…..
And do you know how the “equal rights†portion got there, Levi? THROUGH AMENDMENT.
So what you’re saying is that people should be allowed to amend the constitution if it benefits you, but not if you don’t like it. Just like you believe in “the rule of lawâ€, except when you don’t like the law, in which case you scream that it should be arbitrarily overturned and rewritten by whatever loony-left judge you can find.
I have no problem with amending the Constitution, but there has to be a good reason to do it. A bunch of religious fanatics foretelling the end of human civilization based on misinterpretations of an ancient comic book does not constitute a good reason. The people that founded our government dedicated whole sections to the legislature and the judiciary and none to public ballot initiatives, so those branches of government supersede those initiatives. They designed our system specifically so that the general public wasn’t just holding votes to make laws. You elect a slate of representatives that make the decisions for you.
Did anyone pass junior high civics in the conservative movement? It sounds like most of you need to pick up a textbook.
TGC: I certainly won’t argue if you’re saying that busing and forced integration was… a less than completely successful endeavor. I might disagree on the particulars, but I will certainly agree that much. I think, however, it was fair to infer from your post that something other than (or perhaps “in addition to”) busing was being referenced. If not… fine. 🙂 My sincere apologies for ascribing “ungood” thoughts.
GPW: Definitely read up on it as it could have some interesting repercutions. My understanding of the law suit is that challenges -only- the part of DOMA that prohibits the federal government from recognizing a same-sex marriage that is recognized by the citizens’ own state. (I’m sure it’s worded more artfully than that in the complaint.) The argument kind of flips a conservative on its head, by saying if marriage is a state issue, then the federal government has no business decided which state marriages are valid and which aren’t. Certainly, it ought to be giving full faith and credit to marriages in the states where they are recognized. The suit does NOTHING to challenge another state’s ability to refuse to recognize an out-of-state same-sex marriage. If successful, I think it will almost certainly be viewed as a foot-in-the-door to interstate recognition (the lead attorney appears to be the same from Goodridge), but viewed in isolation I think it’s an interesting way for liberals to co-opt a typically conservative argument. Anyway, hope you look into it at some point.
The people that founded our government dedicated whole sections to the legislature and the judiciary and none to public ballot initiatives, so those branches of government supersede those initiatives.
Now who knows nothing about civics?
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL
SEC. 9. (a) The referendum is the power of the electors to approve
or reject statutes or parts of statutes except urgency statutes,
statutes calling elections, and statutes providing for tax levies or
appropriations for usual current expenses of the State.
(b) A referendum measure may be proposed by presenting to the
Secretary of State, within 90 days after the enactment date of the
statute, a petition certified to have been signed by electors equal
in number to 5 percent of the votes for all candidates for Governor
at the last gubernatorial election, asking that the statute or part
of it be submitted to the electors. In the case of a statute enacted
by a bill passed by the Legislature on or before the date the
Legislature adjourns for a joint recess to reconvene in the second
calendar year of the biennium of the legislative session, and in the
possession of the Governor after that date, the petition may not be
presented on or after January 1 next following the enactment date
unless a copy of the petition is submitted to the Attorney General
pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 10 of Article II before
January 1.
(c) The Secretary of State shall then submit the measure at the
next general election held at least 31 days after it qualifies or at
a special statewide election held prior to that general election.
The Governor may call a special statewide election for the measure.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL
SEC. 10. (a) An initiative statute or referendum approved by a
majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election
unless the measure provides otherwise. If a referendum petition is
filed against a part of a statute the remainder shall not be delayed
from going into effect.
(b) If provisions of 2 or more measures approved at the same
election conflict, those of the measure receiving the highest
affirmative vote shall prevail.
(c) The Legislature may amend or repeal referendum statutes. It
may amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that
becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their
approval.
In short, the California Constitution explicitly states that the voters have the right to directly overrule the Legislature through referendum, and that the Legislature has no power to alter those referendums without the voters’ approval to do so.
And you know what? The California Constitution’s provisions are perfectly acceptable under the US Constitution.
I have no problem with amending the Constitution, but there has to be a good reason to do it. A bunch of religious fanatics foretelling the end of human civilization based on misinterpretations of an ancient comic book does not constitute a good reason.
So you support denying the right of people based on their religious beliefs to vote on and amend their own Constitution.
That’s why gay liberals like you amuse me, Levi; you can find any “right” you want in the Constitution — except the ones that are actually written in it.
47 That’s why they terrify me.
Though I suppose if a bunch of athiest judges decided to lock all the gays up, siting the commerce clause he’d be fine with that.
That scares me.
Or whatever transfes more money to the trial bar, right?
#44: “The people that founded our government dedicated whole sections to the legislature and the judiciary and none to public ballot initiatives, so those branches of government supersede those initiatives.”
You’re right, Levi. The Founding Fathers devoted whole sections of the Constitution to the legislative and judicial branches of government. Interestingly enough, they were also a “bunch of religious fanatics foretelling the end of human civilization based on misinterpretations of an ancient comic book.” Of course, you would know that if you had ever picked up a textbook.
“Frankly, I don’t care if we get gay marriage by armed revolt (and if it comes to that, you better believe I’ll not only support it but participate in it).”
So you’ve told us, Attmay. How about you keep those earrings on at least until we get a decision from the California Supreme Court, okay? Thanks.
#46: Thank you for your comment, NDT. As an attorney, for some reason I find it refreshing when someone discussing the law has actually read it and bothers to cite to it. Granted, Levi’s approach of simply making up Constitutional jurisprudence off the top of his head is formidable, but nothing beats an analysis of the actual words themselves. I’m not sure which of Levi’s Constitutional doctrines is my favorite.
“The argument is that the equal rights part of the Constitution is more important than a provision eliminating rights that the conservative movement got enough people to vote for.”
“A law enacted by the legislature is more important and takes precedence over a public referendum that eliminates rights for people, yes, yes, a million times yes.”
“I have no problem with amending the Constitution, but there has to be a good reason to do it.”
“Yes, some parts of the document are more important than others, and yes, men in black robes get to decide.”
I would love to see a meeting between Levi and Justice Clarence Thomas outside the US Supreme Court. Levi would start furiously warbling about how he personally ranks the amendments contained in the Bill of Rights by order of importance, and Justice Thomas would start to respond, but then he’d think better of it and just drag Levi behind a pillar and beat his as*.
That’s why gay liberals like you amuse me, Levi; you can find any “right†you want in the Constitution — except the ones that are actually written in it.
Why do you think I’m gay?
#53: From your comments, I would assume that you’re gay so that you’ll have something to bit*h about.
I, for one, pray that you’re not. We don’t need such colossal dumbassery pretending to speak for us. We have too much as it is.
We don’t want him either TGC. You can’t have all the Abercombe and Fitch models 😛
#52: I don’t wear earrings. I have no piercings anywhere.
You are an attorney? No wonder people (myself included) hate lawyers.
#58: Now that’s original. Of course you hate attorneys, Attmay. That is, until you need one to save your ass from being prosecuted for engaging in “armed revolt” to force others to validate and approve of your personal choices in life. And I have to assume that your hatred of all lawyers necessarily includes Gloria Allred and Mike Maroko as well, right? I mean, you’ve already admitted that same sex marriage is so important that you would kill for it, so surely you know who Allred and Maroko are. Well, to save you the trouble of making a feverish google search to get up to speed, I’ll just let you in on the big secret–they are two HETEROSEXUAL attorneys who spent last Friday morning in front of the California Supreme Court arguing that YOU have a fundamental right to same sex marriage and that Prop. 8 is invalid. Now, the way I was brought up, it seems to me you owe them at least a little gratitude and maybe a muffin basket, but what the fu*k do I know? Given the outspoken hatred and condemnation of heterosexuals you’ve expressed on this blog in the past, you must REALLY, REALLY hate Allred and Maroko because they are straight AND attorneys. I’m scheduled to attend some depositions in their office in a couple of weeks on a different case, so I’ll be sure to pass along your feelings of contempt and disgust while I’m there, okay? It’s no trouble at all, I’m happy to do it.