Prop 8 ruling - Medical Marijuana officially the only reason to live in CA anymore - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

MSD · 05-26-2009, 11:43 AM

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions...ts/S168047.PDF
At least the pre-Prop 8 marriages are still legal.

Constitutions are intended to protect minority groups from the tyranny of the majority. California has a system in place that allows their constitution to be modified by a simple majority vote, while my understanding is that removing amendments like the one Proposition 8 made requires a 3/4 majority vote in both the population and the legislature. This is fucked up and I expect to see a strong push for a constitutional convention in the next few years. Supreme courts have established it as not only their right, but their responsibility to protect the minority when the majority is against them. To treat this as a procedural issue when it violates equal protection is mind-boggling.

I was taught that "separate but equal" was a thing of the past, but my generation is seeing it unfold as one of the biggest issues of our time. Civil unions are not marriages - even if they're identical at a state level, hundreds of rights are denied at the federal level including little things like joint filing on taxes, the right to make medical decisions, and 5th amendment rights extended to your spouse. It's not a religious issue, it's a civil rights issue, and the government of California failed its constituents big time with this one.

Willravel · 05-26-2009, 12:02 PM

Expect this to appear first thing on the next ballot and expect that the ad campaigns to reinstate marriage equality will be a lot stronger. They controlled the message last time. That won't happen again.

Edit: and the federal government still is giving us problems with the medicinal marijuana thing.

Baraka_Guru · 05-26-2009, 12:08 PM

The battle isn't over. They gay community doesn't roll over easily; they've been going strong since the '80s, and they have many allies.

Willravel · 05-26-2009, 12:24 PM

I just read a brilliant passage from Dr. MLK that felt appropriate:

Quote:

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber. I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.

This passage may be about racial equality, but change a few words and it's a beautiful and powerful message about the efforts to establish equal rights for homosexual people.

I sincerely hope that, in my lifetime, a gay person could run for president and win if he or she so chose.

Cynthetiq · 05-26-2009, 12:37 PM

how are you going to tell if it is prop 8 valid? meaning will those that are valid will they have to carry their marriage licenses with them to show at all times?

ametc · 05-26-2009, 12:38 PM

I wonder why people, throughout history, have made such a big deal out of homosexuality. In the greater scheme of things, how does whether or not I like men matter at all?

ratbastid · 05-26-2009, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

how are you going to tell if it is prop 8 valid? meaning will those that are valid will they have to carry their marriage licenses with them to show at all times?

Wow, that's a good question... This thing leaves all kinds of logistical problems to sort out.

I think that the move to leave existing marriages standing (including, to my great relief, George Takei's) leaves the door open to further Prop 8 challenges in the future.

So the wheels of justice turn slowly. But they turn.

Cynthetiq · 05-26-2009, 12:54 PM

It's even something that happens for multi-racial non-same-last name conforming marriages, especially in the early part of the 00's.

I know some women who were denied even after showing their marriage certificate.

Willravel · 05-26-2009, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ametc

I wonder why people, throughout history, have made such a big deal out of homosexuality. In the greater scheme of things, how does whether or not I like men matter at all?

It depends. Some people like to cite religion, though plenty of religious people are okay with homosexuality. Some leaders in the homophobic movement have later been discovered to have been self-hating homosexuals themselves. Some people are simply afraid of something different. It's hard to give one answer.

World's King · 05-26-2009, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

The battle isn't over. They gay community doesn't roll over easily; they've been going strong since the '80s, and they have many allies.

Oh they will roll over...

As long as it's onto another gay man.

Hektore · 05-26-2009, 01:18 PM

Could this still be challenged in federal court under 14th amendment? I mean, If they had amended the constitution to bar blacks from marrying that would fall under equal protection right? why not this?

MSD · 05-27-2009, 04:45 AM

I read this morning that there are over 500 amendments to the CA constitution including things like establishing the lottery, which other states have done with laws. People are saying a constitutional convention was already inevitable with the budget problems, and that this makes it certain. I sure hope so.

QuasiMondo · 05-27-2009, 02:26 PM

*deeleeted*

iwst99 · 05-27-2009, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ametc

I wonder why people, throughout history, have made such a big deal out of homosexuality. In the greater scheme of things, how does whether or not I like men matter at all?

There's a lot of countries that already have legal gay marriage. I think it's only a matter of time before that spread over here. I mean, it's already started with some states, but the fact that California, out of all states, doesn't yet allow it really saddens me.

Halanna · 05-27-2009, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSD

Constitutions are intended to protect minority groups from the tyranny of the majority.

Umm. No.

Historically:

The purpose of a constitution of a country or state is to protect the commitment of freedom under the accepted rules of law.

Generally, the accepted rules of law project that people are governed by accepted rules, as opposed to the arbitrary whims or decisions of the those who rule.

The main purpose of a constitution is to provide the government of those people the ability to protect the lives and liberties of ALL the people under that rule without violating the rights of some to provide gains for others.

Constitutions have absolutely nothing to do with minority/majority.

Read Articles I-IV of the Constitution, it deals with nothing but the branches of government and how to balance. It is all about balance of what the people want. It's simple. It's not a minority/majority conflict.

On this particular subject, all humans should have the same rights, as long as they are not physically hurting others, they should have the absolute right to live their life as they see fit. If that means marrying the same sex, than so be it. We are all equal, we all have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, regardless of gender/race/religion/whatever you can think of. No one, NO ONE has the right to tell another person how they should/could/would spend their short, precious time on this planet. It's absurd.

drag0nmanes · 05-27-2009, 06:44 PM

Exactly, now leave my state and don't come back. There's nothing ya'll want here anymore...

ObieX · 05-27-2009, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drag0nmanes

Exactly, now leave my state and don't come back. There's nothing ya'll want here anymore...

I dunno.. the constant all-year 70 degree weather in southern California is still nice

dksuddeth · 05-28-2009, 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halanna

Umm. No.

Historically:

The purpose of a constitution of a country or state is to protect the commitment of freedom under the accepted rules of law.

Generally, the accepted rules of law project that people are governed by accepted rules, as opposed to the arbitrary whims or decisions of the those who rule.

The main purpose of a constitution is to provide the government of those people the ability to protect the lives and liberties of ALL the people under that rule without violating the rights of some to provide gains for others.

Constitutions have absolutely nothing to do with minority/majority.

Read Articles I-IV of the Constitution, it deals with nothing but the branches of government and how to balance. It is all about balance of what the people want. It's simple. It's not a minority/majority conflict.

This is just about absolutely correct. I would add, however, that at least the US Constitution is set up to protect the minority from the majority, in that it takes such a huge amount of people and majority of states to amend the constitution. Back in the day, at least, when additional government power was considered needed, they would have to amend it, nowadays, all one needs to do is show a greater government interest, pass a law, and have the courts rubber stamp it.

---------- Post added at 06:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:15 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by drag0nmanes

Exactly, now leave my state and don't come back. There's nothing ya'll want here anymore...

not sure about that anymore. If Cali would like to make some extra coinage, i'm sure a bunch of us here in TX wouldn't mind buying up some of that state park land that y'all are getting ready to close.

05-26-2009, 11:43 AM	#1 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	Prop 8 ruling - Medical Marijuana officially the only reason to live in CA anymore http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions...ts/S168047.PDF At least the pre-Prop 8 marriages are still legal. Constitutions are intended to protect minority groups from the tyranny of the majority. California has a system in place that allows their constitution to be modified by a simple majority vote, while my understanding is that removing amendments like the one Proposition 8 made requires a 3/4 majority vote in both the population and the legislature. This is fucked up and I expect to see a strong push for a constitutional convention in the next few years. Supreme courts have established it as not only their right, but their responsibility to protect the minority when the majority is against them. To treat this as a procedural issue when it violates equal protection is mind-boggling. I was taught that "separate but equal" was a thing of the past, but my generation is seeing it unfold as one of the biggest issues of our time. Civil unions are not marriages - even if they're identical at a state level, hundreds of rights are denied at the federal level including little things like joint filing on taxes, the right to make medical decisions, and 5th amendment rights extended to your spouse. It's not a religious issue, it's a civil rights issue, and the government of California failed its constituents big time with this one.

05-26-2009, 12:02 PM	#2 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Expect this to appear first thing on the next ballot and expect that the ad campaigns to reinstate marriage equality will be a lot stronger. They controlled the message last time. That won't happen again. Edit: and the federal government still is giving us problems with the medicinal marijuana thing. Last edited by Willravel; 05-26-2009 at 12:06 PM..

05-26-2009, 12:08 PM	#3 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	The battle isn't over. They gay community doesn't roll over easily; they've been going strong since the '80s, and they have many allies. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

05-26-2009, 12:37 PM	#5 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	how are you going to tell if it is prop 8 valid? meaning will those that are valid will they have to carry their marriage licenses with them to show at all times? __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

05-26-2009, 12:54 PM	#8 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	It's even something that happens for multi-racial non-same-last name conforming marriages, especially in the early part of the 00's. I know some women who were denied even after showing their marriage certificate. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

05-26-2009, 12:38 PM	#6 (permalink)
ametc Psycho	I wonder why people, throughout history, have made such a big deal out of homosexuality. In the greater scheme of things, how does whether or not I like men matter at all?

05-26-2009, 01:18 PM	#11 (permalink)
Hektore Junkie Location: Greater Harrisburg Area	Could this still be challenged in federal court under 14th amendment? I mean, If they had amended the constitution to bar blacks from marrying that would fall under equal protection right? why not this? __________________ The advantage law is the best law in rugby, because it lets you ignore all the others for the good of the game.

05-27-2009, 04:45 AM	#12 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	I read this morning that there are over 500 amendments to the CA constitution including things like establishing the lottery, which other states have done with laws. People are saying a constitutional convention was already inevitable with the budget problems, and that this makes it certain. I sure hope so.

05-27-2009, 02:26 PM	#13 (permalink)
QuasiMondo Wise-ass Latino Location: Pretoria (Tshwane), RSA	deeleeted __________________ Cameron originally envisioned the Terminator as a small, unremarkable man, giving it the ability to blend in more easily. As a result, his first choice for the part was Lance Henriksen. O. J. Simpson was on the shortlist but Cameron did not think that such a nice guy could be a ruthless killer. -From the Collector's Edition DVD of The Terminator Last edited by QuasiMondo; 05-27-2009 at 02:30 PM..

05-27-2009, 06:44 PM	#16 (permalink)
drag0nmanes Crazy Location: Oside	Exactly, now leave my state and don't come back. There's nothing ya'll want here anymore...