Last week in a piece for the Advocate, Drew Sweetwater wrote:
In California from 1999 to 2003, Democrats controlled the state legislature, and there was a Democratic governor, Gray Davis. During this time marriage equality (sic) legislation was not made law and upheld in California.
To the present time, many gay rights activists are comfortable dumping millions of dollars into the campaign war chests of Democrats running for office — Equality California, the Human Rights Campaign, and other so-called nonpartisan gay organizations — and they have nothing to show for it. Talk about a bad, fraudulent investment.
He notes a well that at the national level, neither the 110th nor the 111th Congress, both controlled by Democrats, have moved forward on repeal of DOMA.
But, Calfornia is a special case. The leading gay advocacy group, “Equality California,” while, little more than a (gay) front group for the California Democratic Party has great sway in a state capital dominated by Democrats. And they wear their partisanship on their sleeve. Stroll down the street in the city where Drew and I live and you’ll see their storefront headquarters decorated with Boxer and (Jerry) Brown signs.
They’ve long had influence in Sacramento, but never use that influence to put forward innovative solutions to address their concerns. Instead, they constantly lobby for measure upon measure, assuming that whatever they want, they can get through the legislature.
Well, that’s not always the case. In the wake of the passage of Prop 22 in 2000, a measure which codified the traditional definition of marriage as one man and one woman into state law, they stomped their feet and gnashed their teeth and hoped and prayed some nice, kind judge would spare them the hard work of making the case for state recognition of same-sex marriage.
Did it ever occur to them to play on the conservative rhetoric that elected legislatures, not courts, should decide such issues (rhetoric we have been hearing at least since the 1990s) and lobby the legislature to put a referendum on the ballot to empowering the legislature to define the qualifications for state-recognized marriages in the Golden State? It would be hard to organize opposition to such a measure. And once that passed, the Democratic legislature could have moved forward on recognizing same-sex marriages.
Yeah, they had the power in the legislature, but they also needed to use that power to go directly to the people.
(Of course they did get the legislature to vote on gay marriage in 2005, but Prop. 22 and Governor Schwarzenegger’s veto stood in their way.)
And now, they have what they thought was their dream, a court overturning a popular initiative they don’t like, only to have an appellate court stay the ruling. Fellas, we’re back on the gay marriage roller coaster, elation one day at a favorable ruling, despondency the next week when another court acts contrary to their wishes.
Better to learn from the fine folks in the Granite State which recognized gay marriage the right way, through the elected state legislature, followed by a back-and-forth with the elected Governor who wanted to ensure that the measure protected the liberty of individual churches,s I wrote last June, “to define marriage according to their creed.” A compromise was reached (by elected officials). And the law was signed.
If you go the way of the legislature, you won’t be subject to judicial whim.
And that might have been possible had our gay leaders learned to think outside of the box — and working with the California Democratic legislature and a Democratic Governor when they had a chance, developed innovative means to push their agenda..
And the other thing about NH is there aren’t huge groups vying to change what has already happened. At least not well funded vocal ones. I will assume there are some groups not happy with the marriage initiative here in NH, but they don’t get media attention.
There was controversy when the bill was being debated and passed, but once it was law the controversy went away.
It probably helps to some degree that NH is a more naturally libertarian state and while it is of pretty fiscally conservative, it isn’t very socially conservative. CA seems to be filled with social cons and social liberals both vying for control of an issue.
I do find it interesting though, that none of the standard issue liberal trolls will bring up NH as the ‘right way’.
Just like we didn’t have any of the self same trolls here cheering Ms. Gilbert on.
Disclaimer: While I prefer ‘Fred’ I am content with methods like NH.
These points of the idle YEARS the Dems controlled Congress and/or the White House have been my most clear-cut reasons I’ve given for no longer supporting the Democrat Party any longer than I did. {This amounted to about 30 minutes, after my divorce in October, 2004.}
Being strictly ‘active’…I’ve never cared for reach-arounds; and having the Democrats pull it out with one hand, once every four years, while their other hand reached in my wallet…yah…not so much.
I prefer that individual rights, responsibilities and privileges are promoted {this by definition excludes ‘grouping’ for the sake of victimhood} and that I’m not singled out to be ’empowered’ by a group of people who think they know me, my life, my needs and my dreams better than I do.
That was a good article in the Advocate. I actually got more enjoyment out of reading the responses. Hardly anyone addressed the arguments but rather just outright dismissed the author as uninformed, young, or knocked his religion. Either that or they took a shot at the Advocate as deseperate for writers or having poor judgement on what it publishes.
Such maturity and tolerance….
Fellas, we’re back on the gay marriage roller coaster, elation one day at a favorable ruling, despondency the next week when another court acts contrary to their wishes.
>>>>
I guess I don’t have a lot of sympathy here. This was so obviously going to happen that the people who acted like the judge overturning Prop 8 was the endgame just seem like drooling idiots. I tried to point out that celebrating a minor victory in a long campaign was foolish but I got told in no uncertain terms to Shut the Hell Up. Well here you go. Welcome to reality.
Instead you get the legislature repealing a statute you hate only for a subsequent legislature to reinstate the same statute.
There’s absolutely nothing to stop a legislative solution ending up on exactly the same rollercoaster as a judicial solution. Both are equally capable of reversing their own decisions.
The problem here is one of a tug-of-war. The pro-SSM side and the anti-SSM side. A while back the anti-SSM side was on top, and things were stable. In the future it seems likely the pro-SSM side will be on top, and things will once again be stable. But right now public opinion is very much split, both sides are determined, both sides are noisy, both sides think they can win, and both sides will fight with all they’ve got to get the decisions they like and kill the decisions they don’t through whatever means necessary.
In a democratic society with any such social debate, a rollercoaster is inevitable no matter what route ends up being chosen, that’s the nature of the debate.
Except, Serenity doesn’t understand Democracy apparently.
With a Legislature, and those things that liberals don’t seem to understand called laws you have to convince serveral people (what we call a Majority) to change the law.
By letting the judges throw out the legal and enacted will of the people, you only have to convince one.
Also, the legislative is slower. This might be a novel concept to the MTV generation, but it is designed that way. It’s called a deliberative body for a reason. Issues are to be understood and debated.
Again, I am astounded at how backwards is your understanding of American civics. There is exactly one reason why conservatives claim to want the legislature to decide the issue; because legislation is easily encumbered. The conservative objective isn’t to resolve the issue (in fact, I can think of no political issue where that is the conservative objective), it is prevent the change from occurring at all, by bogging it down in state legislatures where members can be pressured and committees can be created and obstructionist tactics can be sued. The conservative recommendation to use the legislature to decide this issue is nothing more than a transparent stall tactic that coincidentally gives cover to the homophobia that drives opposition to gay marriage. This way, you can pretend it’s a states’ rights issue, and not just another instance of some fundamentalists trying to tell the rest of us what to do.
The basic question of gay marriage is whether or not it is constitutional for the government to deny a gay couple a marriage license. Framed in this way, the question is undeniably one that requires a definitive judicial decision grounded in legal precedent. Conservatives would like to pretend that the question is whether or not exceedingly minor cultural and social changes can be put up to a vote – which is a stupid question, and to reiterate, mainly serves as cover for the bigotry and mean-spiritedness that we all know motivates the bulk of gay marriage opposition.
This is all just so basic. I’m literally in awe of the people on this website that have repeatedly asserted that the only thing that matters in this country is how many people you can get to vote for something. Were all of you home schooled by Pat Robertson?
So, Levi, since you’re looking for “…a definitive judicial decision grounded in legal precedent” I take it you support Baker v. Nelson which is exactly that.
Oh and thank you again for not understanding how our government works. Levi wants to be ruled by tyranny by men in black robes. Fortunately, the Republic isn’t designed to work that way.
I’m literally in awe of the people on this website that have repeatedly asserted that the only thing that matters in this country is how many people you can get to vote for something.
Evidently you missed this part of the Constitution, Levi.
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
In short, the Constitution would not exist or be valid had enough people not been gotten to vote for it.
And furthermore, you missed this portion as well:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress
So yes, majority vote IS what matters. You obviously prefer a Nazi-style government, similar to your fellow Nazi-style progressives, in which you make dictates Nazi-style and ignore the voters completely.
But that’s not the way ours works. Why do you hate voters and democracy, Levi? Why do Nazi-style progressives like you oppose legislatures and instead demand rule by fiat?
American history is pockmarked with judicial decisions that were terrible and eventually overturned. But I don’t want to spoil it for you; your teacher will get to that once you get to middle school.
No, Levi, the constitutional question is whether a state can make sexual difference a qualification for marriage.
in other words. Levi wants “…a definitive judicial decision grounded in legal precedent” he agrees with. He has one, he ignores it as a ‘bad decision’.
Poor little communist.
NDT.
We know the answer. If we rely on the people and the legislature to make laws, he’ll never be able to drag them “Kicking and Screaming” into the future.
How sad to see so many people agreeing with the notion that civil rights should be voted on by the public.
The CA legislature passed equality TWICE and the governor vetoed it both times.
So one man decided the issue.
Then 7 million voted to take away my right to marry, while 6.4 million voted against Prop 8.
I would love to see a vote where Christians, or White Republican Men were denied some right, and see how fast you people change your tune.
My, my, my, my, my, my, Sad, we do harbor prejudices, don’t we.
This is not a civil rights issue, no matter how much you dress it up as such. Please tell me where any gay couple has been prevented from living together and openly. Thanks.
How sad that a rational argument should be made.
After all, using ‘Sad’s’ ‘logic’ he should be deploring the decision of the state of NH to expand the definition of Marriage, since that was the people voting on it (through their represenatives).
Or maybe he laments the passage of the 14th ammendment (by a vote).
Or maybe he laments the passing of the constitution…
And since marriage to whatever to which you’re sexually attracted is a “civil right” that no majority should ever be allowed to vote on, Sad demands that laws blocking child, plural, incestuous, animal, and other forms of marriage be overturned as well.
Gay-sex marriage proponents like Sad simply are not rational people.
I fail to see how that’s significantly different from how I framed the question. More importantly, if you’re accepting the premise that this is a constitutional question, than you have no choice but to admit that the judiciary is the branch of government most suited to resolve the issue. The legislative branch was not designed to interpret the Constitution or settle issues such as this.
If your stated position is that you’re pretty much indifferent about whether or not gay marriage should be allowed in this country, then you’re completely undercutting yourself by insisting that its advocates abandon the best means at their disposal for achieving their objective. You can say you’re indifferent, but in reality your feet are firmly planted in opposition.
Daniel:
I agree that the most effective and permanent way to pass same-sex marriage is legislatively. But like Sad said, that was already attempted and Schwarzenegger vetoed it. Since the legislative route was already attempted (and, let’s be honest, if Meg Whitman becomes governor, she’s likely to veto SSM as well), isn’t attempting the judicial route acceptable in this case? I find it hard to believe that going through the courts is ALWAYS wrong… after all, they’re there for a reason.
What are your thoughts?
So you run it through the legislature (because that’s the “people’s representatives”) and by passing (twice) via a majority, THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN. And, Yay!! we all run around thankful that vox populi was audible and noted!! Woohoo!
Oops, then there’s that damn veto thing {that couldn’t be overriden?} Where’s all the support then?…gosh darn it.
THEN we’ll go directly to the people…the pure, un-autotuned vox populi…what revelation! Surely the people knoweth truly!
Ooops! damn..out-voted. {Begin whining of cheating, ignorant, payola etc. etc. people of the opposition}
Well, gosh, the vox populi….uhmm..well, uhmm..they don’t know what’s right all the time… I mean, well OBVIOUSLY this won’t do! Surely the wise guy in the black dress…what does he say?
And still you don’t have what you WANT…and seeing the number of times the words ‘advocate’ or ‘objective’ come up in this discussion, disgusts me.
It is NOT the ‘objective’ that is most important. It is not the ‘ends justifying the means’ that is paramount. It IS that our nation has a prescribed manner of majority rule and address of such questions, whether we like it or not. Our nation’s founding principles and governing infrastructures are too proven, too true and too right in their administration of justice and protections to let your pettiness, whining and foot-stomping even make a nick in them.
Hmm, I want to drive 75 MPH down I-70. There are laws that say I shouldn’t.
So using Rodney’s logic, I should drive 75, then complain that my rights have been violated and have some judge decree that left handed people can drive 75.
Yes that’s stupid, and yes that’s Rodney’s argument
Society sets the speed limits on I-70. They define how fast you can go. Anyone can drive the speed limiit, it doesn’t discriminate against handiness.
Society can (and has) defined the legal institution of marriage. anyone can participate in that institution. They just have to meet the qualifications.
What you are asking, nay, demanding, Rodney, is for one man to extend a middle finger to the people who elected him, or elected the people who pay his salary. The People, without whom, there would be no society.
All because you can’t bear to live in a world that won’t accede to your demands. Pathetic.
And Levi,
If you accept that it is to be determined by the courts, then you have to accept it has and that the courts should be bound by precedent. You said so here.
Of course the truth of the matter is that you have no respect for the rule of law, or judges, unless they agree with you.
I agree that the most effective and permanent way to pass same-sex marriage is legislatively. But like Sad said, that was already attempted and Schwarzenegger vetoed it. Since the legislative route was already attempted (and, let’s be honest, if Meg Whitman becomes governor, she’s likely to veto SSM as well), isn’t attempting the judicial route acceptable in this case?
Not really.
California’s marriage law was a voter proposition (Proposition 22). Under the state constitution, a voter proposition is cannot be amended, changed, or overruled by anything other than another voter proposition (or the explicit permission of the voters to allow the Legislature to amend or change it).
Hence, the two attempts by the Legislature to allow gay-sex marriage were not only foolish, but also illegal and unconstitutional.
Gay-sex marriage supporters have alienated and turned off the public, and have thus failed in every attempt. The courts are not appropriate in this case, especially since gay-sex marriage supporters, with their open antireligious bigotry, racism, death threats, and vandalism of property, have no one to blame but themselves for the Proposition 8 vote going against them.
The argument in the Advocate article ignores history. In 1999, California got its first statewide domestic partnership law, which established very basic rights to hospital visitation. In every year after that from 2000 through 2003, the umbrella of rights and responsibilities given to “domestic partners” expanded, until in 2003 the Democratic Legislature and Democratic Governor enacted a comprehensive domestic partnership law that gave domestic partners nearly all the same rights, responsibilities and benefits given to spouses under California law.
So the notion that Democrats were not using the legislative process to advance LGBT rights and relationship equality is a lie, plain and simple. It is untrue.
Then we got a Republican governor, who twice vetoed marriage equality legislation.
In truth, the steady legislative march toward marriage equality in California came to a screeching halt with the election of a Republican.
It may be true that the LGBT community has been over-reliant on the courts, but that is only because conservative Republicans have been unremittingly hostile to LGBTequality.
Jeff, fair point about the domestic partnership legislation, but, well the whole notion of “LGBT equality” rubs many the wrong way because of the socialist connotations of the word.
Why not focus on freedom, the animating ideal of this great republic? And anyway, who was it who determined that “equality” should be our goal?
No, LiveWire, that’s specifically false. By being the “people’s representative” and ‘the people’ having spoken via a majority vote directly, the best fit would have the representative doing exactly what his job is..representing the majority opinion; NOT “extending his middle finger” to the voters.
You’re supporting my point exactly: I was making fun of all the whiney douchebags that can’t get it their way so they try another, decrying their previous attempt and yet another, and when AGAIN they don’t get their own little way… want to bend and break the rules that have led public policy, dissent and action for over 222 years…just as you seem to support.
Daniel- The name doesn’t matter. Fine, let’s call it “LGBT Freedom”- I want the freedom to get married, the freedom to visit my partner in the hospital without problems, the freedom to not be double taxed on the health insurance my partner gets through my employer. Jeff calls it “equality” and you call it “freedom.” We can call this different ways, but ultimately we all want pretty much the same things.
You have the freedom to get married. You just now don’t get the benefits associated with state recognition of your marriage.
You the difference? You may fault me for quibbling over semantics, but it’s distinction with a difference. Equality and freedom are not the same thing — and indeed, there is a tension between the two “ideals.”
The other things you talk about are not freedom. That said, I do support laws allowing same-sex partners hospital visitation privileges–privileges that exist now in the Golden State (indeed in most states) even if Prop 8 is upheld.
As to the double taxation on health insurance, well, go ask Mr. Obama and the congressional Democrats why they didn’t do anything about that in their health care plan which will increase the cost of all of our health insurance.
Can you clarify what wanting “freedom” as opposed to “equality” means in terms of same-sex marriage? Does it mean wanting the benefits of marriage without necessarily the title, versus wanting the benefits AND the title?
As for the taxation issue, it’s not like Republicans tried to amend the healthcare bill to fix that… Don’t get me wrong: I’m not trying to defend the Democrats here. I honestly think both parties are equally incompetent and are full of self-interested criminals. I just don’t think one party should get a free pass here…
rodney,
On reflection, I think I misread your post.
My point was that the other side wants to short circut the process and fight until they get victory, then declare the war over. I think, in rereading, you meant the same or similar thing. If this is the case, then I appologize.
This is a civil rights issue, and the court has several times stated that marriage is fundamental right. And it is only a matter of WHEN not IF we finally win the right across the nation.
To the person who suggested if I want the right to marry the WOMAN I love (funny how you all assumed I am a man) I also want to legalize incest or plural marriage: you are out of your mind if you think that wanting marriage equality for LGBT people automatically means you want that stuff too.
I am not against legislation to fix inequality nor am I against the judiciary doing it’s job and ruling on the constitutionality of legislation or ballot measures, they do it all the time!
I am against the notion that the mob can vote away rights for any minority group they happen to dislike at any given time.
And I feel confident that the lack of rational or factual reasoning on the Prop 8 side will help assure my equality sooner rather than later.
If the arguments here are the best you have, well, we already won.
This is a civil rights issue, and the court has several times stated that marriage is fundamental right.
Funny, in Baker v. Nelson, it made it clear that gay-sex marriage did not qualify as a “fundamental right”.
To the person who suggested if I want the right to marry the WOMAN I love (funny how you all assumed I am a man) I also want to legalize incest or plural marriage: you are out of your mind if you think that wanting marriage equality for LGBT people automatically means you want that stuff too.
Of course you do, Sad. You are screaming that you must be allowed to marry to whatever you are sexually attracted and that laws forbidding you from doing so are unconstitutional under any circumstances. Therefore, it is unconstitutional for you to prevent people from marrying whatever they are sexually attracted to regardless of age, blood relationship, species, or existing marriages.
The reality is this: marriage is NOT an absolute or fundamental “right”. It is a PRIVILEGE extended by the state to relationships which have the ultimate potential of benefiting the state.
Your gay-sex relationships do not benefit the state. It’s just that simple. You consume resources, but provide no means of refilling them.
wow, I must admit I am a bit surprised to see the level of vitriol here that I am seeing from this person from Dallas.
You are simply wrong, and you know it. I assume losing is hard. You will get over it North Dallas thirty, they always do.
You are simply wrong, and you know it.
Childish and immature. Please try to act like an adult, especially if you are demanding marriage, and explain why you are throwing tantrums because society refuses to recognize your need to marry whatever sexual partners you choose this week.
Are you for real NDT? Seriously, suggesting I act like an adult (I am 50) after your comments is almost funny it were not so sad.
Baker was a 9-0 decision. Among those who voted to dismiss the appeal in Baker was Justice Thurgood Marshall.
Marshall had a broader interpretation of due process and equal protection than his peers; he voted for the dissents in Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County and Crawford v. Board of Education . If Thurgood Marshall believed that there was no equal protection or due process violation, there was none.