This is important.

[Guest PWIT]

>The problem with leaving it to the people to decide by their

>vote is that "the people" should not have the power

>to decide who is not to be treated equally.

 

Who should make that decision in a civilization?

 

In this particular case, it is the courts making an interpretation of a (state) constitution. The purpose of the constitution is to limit and restrict government as defined by and a reflection of the will of "the people".

 

A consensus vote is closer to the will of the people than an interpretation by a few. My argument is that a consensus vote of the people trumps the interpretation of a few judges. It also trumps the legislative body (the people's representatives). Thus it is harder to argue that the will of the people is being ignored.

 

The proposition process in CA trumps the legislative process and will give the courts the unchallenged (or less challenged) authority to make the decision they already have.

 

So bottom line is that if the proposition vote is in favor or same sex marriage, it will yield greater acceptance than if the court acted alone solely because it springs from a decision directly by the people. And since it is already on the ballot, it is important to focus on the opportunity to get a favorable vote.

[AdamSmith]

>A consensus vote is closer to the will of the people than an

>interpretation by a few. My argument is that a consensus vote

>of the people trumps the interpretation of a few judges. It

>also trumps the legislative body (the people's

>representatives). Thus it is harder to argue that the will of

>the people is being ignored.

 

Exactly not. A consensus vote is direct democracy, as opposed to representative democracy. The founders' debates and the Federalist papers abound with warnings of how easily direct democracy yields to mob rule and the tyranny of the majority. For instance, Federalist No. 55:

 

Nothing can be more fallacious than to found our political calculations on arithmetical principles. Sixty or seventy men may be more properly trusted with a given degree of power than six or seven. But it does not follow that six or seven hundred would be proportionably a better depositary. And if we carry on the supposition to six or seven thousand, the whole reasoning ought to be reversed. The truth is, that in all cases a certain number at least seems to be necessary to secure the benefits of free consultation and discussion, and to guard against too easy a combination for improper purposes; as, on the other hand, the number ought at most to be kept within a certain limit, in order to avoid the confusion and intemperance of a multitude. In all very numerous assemblies, of whatever character composed, passion never fails to wrest the sceptre from reason. Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.

 

Thus the founders' brilliant balance between, on the one hand, accountability to the electorate, and on the other, the ability to ride out intemperate passions of the moment. I.e., the 6-year term of Senators, and the staggering of Senate elections so that only 1/3 of them are up for reelection in any election cycle, insulates them to some extent from mob sentiment. The federal judiciary is even more thus insulated, for similar reasons. At the other extreme of greatest accountability is the House, 100% of which can be thrown out every 2 years. In the middle is the executive, accountable every 4 years.

 

So also at the state level. The intercession of "a few" judges (how many would you have?) in precisely the manner just seen follows directly from the structures and procedures conceived by the founders, and agreed to and ratified by the people, to preserve, protect and defend the federal Constitution, and generally followed by the states in their own respective systems of government.

 

We know what happened when civil rights for racial minorities had to wait on the will of the majority. Is that really enough for you now?

[ariadne1880]

It would be a setback to "some gays." Most, if evidence of how little coverage this is getting most places, could care less about this. "Marriage" is about a much a part of their lives as the war in Iraq.

 

There are more important things to be fighting for than hetero marriage. Why pretend otherwise?

[ariadne1880]

You are confusing CT and CA. Easy to do ... seeing they are 2,000 miles apart.

 

This just about the silliest fight -- on both sides -- that I can possibly imagine. People are losing their homes, their life savings, and many other truly important things.

 

And a bunch of loons -- on the left and the right -- want to spend this kind of money on whether or not we should have "gay marriage."

 

What a colossal waste of time, energy, money, and resources. Shows how out of touch the fringe left and right are.

[ariadne1880]

Shows how little you know about the democratic process. When -- and what -- constitution was "ratified by the people."

 

And you are talking about a document that is over 100, 200 years old. Do you think that if the people who wrote it back then had thought that anyone thought marriage was anything other than between a man and a woman that wouldn't have been written into the document? Nope.

 

So for that omission this fight is occurring. What a waste of time.

[ariadne1880]

God forbid that people should have differing opinions. No community is -- or should be -- a monolith that says that only one opinion is valid. That's fascism/communism/totalitarianism. Despite what OUT and ADVOCATE project not all gays feel the same way about any one issue.

 

And the way this was done by the California Supremes goes against everything I believe in. I don't want my fate -- or anyone else's -- legislated by 4 people wearing black robes who are not accountable for their decisions.

 

Because one day they can give you something and the next day they can take it away.

 

I want things decided through a legislative process after long discussion and debate.

 

I want the "right" to marry my partner if I so choose and I will fight to get that "right" but I don't want it granted to me in such a hamhanded way that causes my foes to push for something like the ban on gay marriage.

 

Beware unintended consequences. How any member of any group thinks they will become more accepted by ramming things down people's throats is beyond me.

 

It didn't work for George Bush. It didn't work for Bill Clinton. It has never worked.

[ariadne1880]

Without this same process, the slaves wouldn't have been freed. Senators wouldn't be directly elected. Women wouldn't have the right to vote. And many other things.

 

People have to have the right to amend the federal or a state constitution. That's the process that has been accepted for 220 years.

 

If the people choose to amend a constitution of a particular state to say one thing or another that is their right.

 

And I find it scary that people think that people don't have that right.

[Guest PWIT]

I believe you are discussing the US constitutions and not the CA state constitution. CA is a proposition state and allows for the people to place things on the ballot if they have the pre-requisite # of people that concur it should be on the ballot. Not all states allow this, but CA does. That process trumps the representative government process in CA. We do not have anything similar at a national level and it would be much harder to do on a national level. (Thought it has never been used, there is a way for states

 

And as for the example you cite, I recall that was a national issue and not a CA state issue. At the national level, there was legislation that was signed into law, so it wasn't just an act of the courts.

 

I believe the proposition in CA has the potential to be the best thing to advance same-sex marriage. It just requires work to influence the proper outcome. When the people decide, vs the legislature or courts, it always has greater acceptance. Spending time arguing whether it should have ever been on the ballot, when it is already there, is not the most productive route to get the desired outcome.

[Argos]

NOWHERE in the Constitution does it say that marriage is a civil right. This is a judicially created extension. It marvels me how people spout off there mouth and have no support for their position.

[Tristan Waters]

I agree with you lucky. I just want fair rights. I dont care if it is marriage or a civil union. All means the same to me..

 

 

tristanwaters@aol.com

 

http://www.tristanwaters.com

 

407*473*3053

 

My reviews http://www.daddysreviews.com/finder.php?loc=T-8-98-10&who=tristan_waters_orlando

[AdamSmith]

>I believe you are discussing the US constitutions and not the

>CA state constitution. CA is a proposition state and allows

>for the people to place things on the ballot if they have the

>pre-requisite # of people that concur it should be on the

>ballot. Not all states allow this, but CA does. That process

>trumps the representative government process in CA.

 

Good point. I admit engaging in my own confusion of categories here. My personal view that this is a dangerous way to govern is moot to the discussion.

 

>And as for the example you cite, I recall that was a national

>issue and not a CA state issue. At the national level, there

>was legislation that was signed into law, so it wasn't just an

>act of the courts.

 

For a decade, it was. Brown v. Board of Education 1954; the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

>I believe the proposition in CA has the potential to be the

>best thing to advance same-sex marriage. It just requires

>work to influence the proper outcome. When the people decide,

>vs the legislature or courts, it always has greater

>acceptance.

 

At least until whim blows a different way. See Davis, Grey.

[+ Charlie]

I am philosophically opposed to "marriage" as a legal institution that gives special privileges to certain citizens (a kind of private club whose facilities are closed to those who are not admitted to membership), so as a matter of pure principle, I would like to abolish the institution as a legal entity, and make it a strictly spiritual or religious status. But we don't exist in a state of purity: we exist in a messy political state in which we often have to choose between two less-than-desirable options. Since "marriage" is a legal institution that is not going to go away at any time soon, we then have to consider the criteria for admission to the club. "Domestic partnership" and "civil union" are very nice clubs, but they are not the one with the best facilities or highest prestige, so rules that deny membership to any particular class of citizen (gay, black, Jewish, disabled, etc.) are unacceptable to me. Proposition 8 is on the ballot, and if it passes, it will require the government to say that gays, specifically, cannot enter. I will support those who fight for the legal right to enter the club, even though my partner and I have no desire to do so ourselves.

 

The spurious argument that is repeatedly made by the proponents of Prop. 8 is that "marriage" is designed for the protection of children. When they agree that any heterosexual couple who will not or cannot procreate must accept the state of "civil union" instead, then I will believe they are sincere in their stance.

[Lookin]

Good logic, Charlie, and very well said. Logic is definitely on the side of equal treatment under the law. I hope it will happen in California next month, and throughout the country in my lifetime.

 

One sobering thought, however, is how long other battles for equal rights have taken. While the first woman voted (in Massachusetts) in 1756, it took another century and a half until all women could legally vote in the U. S.; Anthony and Stanton, who devoted their lives to the issue, didn't live to see it happen. Blacks were given the vote after the Civil War, but it took a hundred years before this right was honored in practice.

 

I was proud when the California Supreme Court overturned the ban on gay marriage last May, and glad to see San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom tell a cheering crowd, "This door's wide open now. It's going to happen, whether you like it or not." But a clip from his address was used in an ad by the Mormon- and Catholic-backed campaign to nullify the Court's ruling. "It's no longer about tolerance," their ad says. "Acceptance of gay marriage is now mandatory."

 

 

This one ad is credited with swinging the polls from support of gay marriage to opposition. I was sickened when I saw it, as it panders directly to people's fears rather than appeal to their reason and sense of equal treatment under the law. But fear mongering is exactly what delayed the vote for women and blacks by a century or more.

 

History shows it can take time for people to overcome their fears and do what's right. I hope I live to see it.

[Guest zipperzone]

I fervently hope that it is not overturned in Nov. While it won't affect me directly it will have an enormous importance for the rest of the U.S.

 

However, I am very pessimistic.......

[+ Tygerscent]

Ya... I have thought about this a lot and even done some very contravesial photo shoots on this very topic. While I understand that most current,(and past) legislature has created a provision of "marriage" that included certain privilages of inheritance, tax benefits, shared insurance and more, I don't understand how, as things sit, this can be constitutional by saying only heterosexual partners can benefit from them. The way law and some supporting groups see it, that a personal and potentially religious, (or at least personal Faith/Values), based premise. When should homosexuality be excluded/disregarded by/from various religious practices and beliefs and then somehow infuluence, the privilages to all the nation's Citizens... How is that right? What is it? What does that become? Freedom of religion as long as it follows one or several particular parydimes of any certain religion?

I don't persay support "Gay Marriage"... or "Heterosexual Marriage" for that matter. I feel that perhaps we are concentrating on the distracting side issue.

My wonder is how valid and constitutional is ANY marriage, (str8t or Gay)? How does the law view what is a "marriage" partnership? How valid is that and how discriminatory, or at least limiting, is that definition, (even if gay marriage is provided for)? How constitutional is it???

Given my own personal preference, I would prefer to abolish all marriage in support of rewriting the legislation to abolishing the previous legislation and opting for something that provides, in equity, for ALL partners as Citizens with equal rights to provision... be you str8t, gay, disabled, Elders, multi-racial, transgender, Friends who have a life long partnership of shared living regardless of sex at all... just across the board equal provision! I mean what's next? If you are hetero and you can not sir progeny... you can't get married? A pretty government "fuck off" if you are unable to conceive be you an elder or physically unable because of health or whatever? it's just bringing into question what the current legislation is founded on and considers whether legal Dandys can/should sublimly interject some religious inclinations of belief into the legislature. I challenge teh question: "What constitutes marriage vs partnership in the eyes of the law and why are ANY partners excluded from that should they choose to be partners?

The "Gay marriage thing seems to generally raise the ugly presence of: "Special Rights" when in fact the real issue is Equality among Citizens. I don't by any means mean to devalue the concetp of partnership or gayness. I just want the terms to be clear and equal for EVERYONE!

Okay... so, I have these opinions. I am willing to post my slightly bizarre pix on my site regarding this topic... I think I will submit them for exhibit in LA. They are sort of radical... me not in appearance to how I see myself but what I feel forced into. The pix are much more the statement of: "What I don't want to be forced to be just to get equality in the eyes of the law".

My opinions are somewhat contraversial, as is my understanding of reaction from others but, it seems that we take some double standard point of perspective when fighting for rights... specifically "Our" rights as Gay individuals and couples. We somehow seem to seek for equality and then demand "private club" access... our identities as being gay Men and Women over-ride the simple Human equality/Civil Rights issues. Ya... we want equal rights but then also want our private identities... Gay Pride and Clubs... promoting two ideas: one to be seen as an equal in society but then retain a subculture identity of being gay. I am not discouraging equality or being gay or underestimating the importance of identity. Identity, however, as a constitutional right and allowed practice, should be as written: free and non-discriminating. I realize that things have come a long way since Stone wall. I understand that generationally and historically there has been, (and importantly so), concentraion on identifying and justifying being gay. Those premises laid a foundation for where we are today and all of the progress we have made. Bravo to the Pioneers and Trail Blazers!

I do however, move my own personal concerns to outlining identity within myself and others by NOT their sexual orientation but value as both Human Beings and Citizens of a country based on Democracy and Civil Rights and Freedom. For me, the focus of who I am, (or anyone else might be), is not whether I suck dick or lick ass or go to the white party or gay pride but rather is, my/ones value in society regardless of my sexual preference. Just because you are or are not gay does not mean that I like you or can love you any more or less~

I don't necessarily care or want to be identified/be provided for by legislation, according to my sexual preferences, my religious beliefs, my ethnic background but, rather my/your worth as a Human Being in the relm of this nation!

ie., Is one a productive and conscientious worker... a good parent, a good friend, contribute to the community at large, (str8t or gay or ethnic or what have you), in a productive way, does one fight for my their welfare or the welfare of the common good, (whatever that community might be)? Oh!... and somewhere own the list... ya. I Love cock and Men~ So what? That't not the whole of an individual. There are more parts that have importance and value to who we are as Human Beings!

That is not all of who I am and I don't want to be defined by my sexual preference by law or otherwise. I mean what if you are transgender? Is that a whole nother battle with legislation that THEY must wallow in? What if you are a hermaphodite? How are they represented?

I often wonder if the value of our activism might not be augmented and carry more weight if we refocused our attention to a broader scope of Civil Rights and did not seek to single it out as "Gay Rights" for our own personal benefit? You know... seek for the greater sense of equality and inclusively/consequently, perhaps serendipidously, find our own, (as well as others) and provide for that too?

What greater difference to provide for the potential of Humanity thru the prospects of inclusion of all of it's contributing Citizens then a single group or particular individual?

Let me ask you this? Be either a friend or president, would you favor/support/vote one that prescribed oneself as providing for their own personal gain over the one that battles for you and the greater profile of the Nation as well? "YOU" & the "Nation" includes a lot of different sorts of peoples. Not just Gay or str8t~

Gay Marriage seems particular in cause/agenda to be provisional for "Gay" partners in life.

Perhaps abolish the marriage institution altogether and leave that to one's religious preference and leave the provisions of partnership of couples by legislation and law to some newer, broader concept of providing,(for partners), (regarless of sexual preference/designation, ethnicity, religion, physical majority or minority,age, form, etc.), to Citizens who choose to be partners!

Equality should be about equality? I take the stance that it should. The bigger contribution can be achieved there~!

Does not the true Kings provide for the welfare of not just the people liked but for the wellfare/wellbeing and greater capacity. (for experiencing/realizing the greater potential for life) of all inclusively?~ Step forth community! Let's mbe that kind of conprehensive, collective and Compassionate King! (LOL! So fucking dramatic~ Ugh~)

Tyger!

tygerkink@yahoo.com

503.317.8055

http://www.tygerscent.biz/Galleries.html

http://www.tygerscent.biz

http://www.daddysreviews.com/area.php?loc=63150&who=tyger_portland

men4rentnow.com tygerscent in Portland, Oregon

[Epigonos]

The answer to the premise question you posed in your first paragraph is simple. It is right because the United States Supreme Court, the vast majority of State Supreme Courts and the voters of multiple jurisdictions says it right – end of discussion.

 

Until the composition of the United States Supreme Court and that of the vast majority of State Supreme Courts is radically different than it currently is marriage laws will remain as they currently are. Now in a situation like the one we find ourselves in here in California where the State Supreme Courts outlawed the statute defining marriage as between a male and female all voters need do is change the State Constitution. Once the State Constitution is changed the State Supreme Court is unable to declare a part of the Constitution unconstitutional. ONLY the United States Supreme Court can do that and that isn’t about to happen.

 

What is really sad it that the NO on 8 people really had a chance to defeat the proposition. They just couldn’t get their shit together and come up with an effective ad and T.V. campaign. The sad truth is that YES on 8 assholes have done an outstanding job of frightening and swaying the general public.

[+ Tom Isern]

Y-A-W-N!

[Rick Munroe]

I know; civil rights are such a bore.

[AdamSmith]

>Y-A-W-N!

 

Tom, from your perch of lofty disdain, with which of these fine gentlemen do you feel most affinity?

 

http://file1.npage.de/000623/53/bilder/19240721trib05.jpg

[+ deej]

>Y-A-W-N!

 

That will be my response the next time you are denied a loan, a lease, a mortgage, a job (oh, sorry...), or anything else due to sexual orientation.

 

You are apparently in favor of legalizing discrimination based on sexual preference.

 

If it isn't important to you now, it cannot be important to you when it affects you.

[Argos]

Let's get real! What about Proposition 8 denies someone a loan, a lease, a mortgage, a job or anything else due to sexual orientation? There are laws that prohibit this type of discrimination. Deej, your response is just another example of an uninformed diatribe regarding this issue. Proposition 8 would do nothing to deprive same sex couples of the same rights that are granted to married couples by the state of California. The real battle should be insuring that same sex couples are granted the same Federal rights that heterosexual couples have-- regardless of whether they term the same sex union a civil union or domestic partnership.

[+ deej]

So you're in favor of constitutionally mandated discrimination against gays, eh?

 

Yeah, let's get real.

 

Currently, the CA constitution guarantees equal treatment under the law without regard to race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.

 

Prop. 8 makes it legal (mandates it actually) to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

 

Allow it once and you can't stop it. Leases, loans, and mortgages are just the beginning.

[+ Italiano]

>

>Prop. 8 makes it legal (mandates it actually) to discriminate

>based on sexual orientation.

>

>Allow it once and you can't stop it. Leases, loans, and

>mortgages are just the beginning.

 

I hope the way you described it so clearly opens just a bit the VERY narrow minds of the "real machos" who are yawning or thinking it's ridiculous to convince people to voting NO....

[rentingdad]

Thanks Rick for keeping up the good fight.

 

I actually got a call over the weekend from one of the fundraisers for the CA vote and after much thought and consideration made a sizeable contribution to the cause. I'd made several smaller one-off contributions prior to this time - but am convinced that these last weeks will be critical.

 

I'm also working with a colleague of mine right now to set up a "matching campaign" for the "Vote No on Prop 8" campaign- something along the lines of us together matching any contributions up to $500K during a 24 hour period next week. I'll post details when and if we can work it out.

 

This is important stuff and worthy of those of us who can putting our proverbial money where our mouths are. (no comments on where you might think my mouth has been)! :7

[+ bigjoey]

i am watching the fight on prop 8 from missouri and hope it is defeated because of the influence it would set for other states. a recent posting by andrew sullivan said that diane feinstein is just now making an ad to help defeat prop 8. my question to those of you in california is where are the democratic party leaders on this fight? if senator feinstein is just getting into the fight, why the delay? where is nancy pelosi? where is senator boxer? have all of them been missing in action?

 

it seems to me the gays are generally very supportive of the democrats in votes and money; why does it appear they are not helping in the fight against prop 8? they should be our allies in the struggle. i thought democrats fought for civil rights and justice.

 

i have made no secret of my dislike of bill clinton who made promises to support gay rights only to run at the first sign of trouble. during his first two years when the democrats controlled both houses of congress and the presidency we got no hate crime law, no gays in the military help (we did get "don't ask..." that helped no one), we got no civil rights job protection and to top it off we got DOMA which bill clinton used his signing of to get support when he ran for another term! it was a case of democrats not walking the walk.

 

is the fight against prop 8 another case of the top democrats not walking the walk? while the republicians are terrible on gay issues, i expect more from the democrats but it looks like we are not getting it.

 

until the andrew sullivan column, i had just assumed that the california democratic leaders were fighting to defeat prop 8. guess i was wrong???