Comments on: MAD PROPS http://www.ginandtacos.com/2009/05/28/mad-props/ OPIATE OF THE ASSES Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:36:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: dbsmall http://www.ginandtacos.com/2009/05/28/mad-props/comment-page-1/#comment-15518 dbsmall Fri, 29 May 2009 13:46:13 +0000 http://www.ginandtacos.com/?p=1892#comment-15518 Folks, I don't think we *can* just put it back on the ballot. Based on my cursory reading, I think we need to have the legislature enact a law that says it's legal, and *then* we can modify the constitution. The crushing blow here is that the SC essentially said that the constitution could have this language added, without legislature oversight, because gay marriage was not a "right" before. And Nick, while I appreciate what you say: 1) The LDS church surely isn't <i>solely</i> responsible for prop 8 passing. But they bear some responsibility for incitement. And they violated their np rules by "campaigning from the pulpit" by policy. 2) A majority of Californians are not hateful bigots. I still believe that. 52% of those <i>who voted</i> voted for prop 8. I'm going to go with "too lazy to vote" in a lot of cases. And yes, lazy people, I blame you, too. 3) There are other np's who supported this (Knights of Columbus, for example), but I haven't seen evidence that they overstepped the bounds---there's a big difference between having a position, and between being the largest financier and producer of propaganda. http://twitter.threadless.com/tweet/26115/rejectprop8_because_we_re_not_hateful_bigots (Vote on the shirt) Folks, I don't think we *can* just put it back on the ballot.
Based on my cursory reading, I think we need to have the legislature enact a law that says it's legal, and *then* we can modify the constitution. The crushing blow here is that the SC essentially said that the constitution could have this language added, without legislature oversight, because gay marriage was not a "right" before.

And Nick, while I appreciate what you say:

1) The LDS church surely isn't solely responsible for prop 8 passing. But they bear some responsibility for incitement. And they violated their np rules by "campaigning from the pulpit" by policy.
2) A majority of Californians are not hateful bigots. I still believe that. 52% of those who voted voted for prop 8. I'm going to go with "too lazy to vote" in a lot of cases. And yes, lazy people, I blame you, too.
3) There are other np's who supported this (Knights of Columbus, for example), but I haven't seen evidence that they overstepped the bounds—there's a big difference between having a position, and between being the largest financier and producer of propaganda.

http://twitter.threadless.com/tweet/26115/rejectprop8_because_we_re_not_hateful_bigots

(Vote on the shirt)

]]> By: OliverWendelHolmslice http://www.ginandtacos.com/2009/05/28/mad-props/comment-page-1/#comment-15509 OliverWendelHolmslice Thu, 28 May 2009 21:19:58 +0000 http://www.ginandtacos.com/?p=1892#comment-15509 As another one of "teh gays" I'm finding some silver linings in this decision: 1) If the court had overturned Prop 8 then the right wing would have had a huge rally point about "activist judges" just as Obama is nominating a new Supreme Court Justice. The fact that the right wing still has no legitimate political traction right now is definitely a good thing. 2) as Michael said, put this issue on the ballot box every year until we win. The tide of public opinion is turning on this issue. It's actually the perfect decoy issue to sucker the right wing in. Make the LDS and other right wing groups burn metric shitloads of money trying to oppose the inevitable. As another one of "teh gays" I'm finding some silver linings in this decision:

1) If the court had overturned Prop 8 then the right wing would have had a huge rally point about "activist judges" just as Obama is nominating a new Supreme Court Justice. The fact that the right wing still has no legitimate political traction right now is definitely a good thing.

2) as Michael said, put this issue on the ballot box every year until we win. The tide of public opinion is turning on this issue. It's actually the perfect decoy issue to sucker the right wing in. Make the LDS and other right wing groups burn metric shitloads of money trying to oppose the inevitable.

]]> By: Nick http://www.ginandtacos.com/2009/05/28/mad-props/comment-page-1/#comment-15504 Nick Thu, 28 May 2009 14:03:53 +0000 http://www.ginandtacos.com/?p=1892#comment-15504 dbsmall: I live in Utah, and lots of people here have (rightfully, IMO) been protesting the LDS Church's stance on the issue and their encouragement of pro-Prop 8 votes. But by the same token, LDS voters are nowhere near a majority of Californians. The LDS Church weren't the ones who passed the initiative, that was done by the good people of California all on their own. While I by no means agree with the actions of the Church in getting politically involved, placing the blame at the feet of one organization is unfairly ignoring the fact that if a majority of Californians weren't (as your son so wonderfully put it) hateful bigots, this measure never would have passed. dbsmall: I live in Utah, and lots of people here have (rightfully, IMO) been protesting the LDS Church's stance on the issue and their encouragement of pro-Prop 8 votes. But by the same token, LDS voters are nowhere near a majority of Californians. The LDS Church weren't the ones who passed the initiative, that was done by the good people of California all on their own. While I by no means agree with the actions of the Church in getting politically involved, placing the blame at the feet of one organization is unfairly ignoring the fact that if a majority of Californians weren't (as your son so wonderfully put it) hateful bigots, this measure never would have passed.

]]> By: dbsmall http://www.ginandtacos.com/2009/05/28/mad-props/comment-page-1/#comment-15503 dbsmall Thu, 28 May 2009 13:55:38 +0000 http://www.ginandtacos.com/?p=1892#comment-15503 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2009/05/27/notes052709.DTL http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2009/05/27/notes052709.DTL

]]> By: dbsmall http://www.ginandtacos.com/2009/05/28/mad-props/comment-page-1/#comment-15502 dbsmall Thu, 28 May 2009 13:49:55 +0000 http://www.ginandtacos.com/?p=1892#comment-15502 Unfortunately, another part of the decision said they couldn't declare Prop 8 illegal, because it <i>wasn't changing any existing situation...it was documenting the status quo</i> . My point: we're screwed to undo this through another vote...<i>that</i> would need approval of the legislature. So, now we need to have the legislature declare marriage to be a right of all consenting human adults (perhaps limiting it to couples, perhaps not). And then we need the electorate to get that written into the constitution. Only then is the SCoC likely to support the new amendment. I'm not at all mad at the SC. I'm pissed that the mongoloid masses did this. I want to see the LDS church lose it's non-profit status. (I'm not sure I can see the logic in the KoC losing theirs). I want to see everyone who supported this given the slap in the face that my (then 5-year old) son gave to an older person who decided to argue for prop 8. My son, when asked why he was opposed to prop 8, answered: <b>"Because we're not hateful bigots."</b> (And yes, that was his diction, not mine.) Once Threadless comes back up, I'm making that a t-shirt: http://twitter.com/dbsmall/statuses/1924121085 Unfortunately, another part of the decision said they couldn't declare Prop 8 illegal, because it wasn't changing any existing situation…it was documenting the status quo . My point: we're screwed to undo this through another vote…that would need approval of the legislature.

So, now we need to have the legislature declare marriage to be a right of all consenting human adults (perhaps limiting it to couples, perhaps not). And then we need the electorate to get that written into the constitution. Only then is the SCoC likely to support the new amendment.

I'm not at all mad at the SC. I'm pissed that the mongoloid masses did this.
I want to see the LDS church lose it's non-profit status. (I'm not sure I can see the logic in the KoC losing theirs).

I want to see everyone who supported this given the slap in the face that my (then 5-year old) son gave to an older person who decided to argue for prop 8. My son, when asked why he was opposed to prop 8, answered:
"Because we're not hateful bigots."
(And yes, that was his diction, not mine.)

Once Threadless comes back up, I'm making that a t-shirt: http://twitter.com/dbsmall/statuses/1924121085

]]> By: Michael http://www.ginandtacos.com/2009/05/28/mad-props/comment-page-1/#comment-15501 Michael Thu, 28 May 2009 13:36:15 +0000 http://www.ginandtacos.com/?p=1892#comment-15501 Speaking as one of teh gays... Ed's right. This thing needs to get changed at the ballot box. Put it out there every year on election day. Speaking as one of teh gays… Ed's right. This thing needs to get changed at the ballot box. Put it out there every year on election day.

]]> By: Samantha http://www.ginandtacos.com/2009/05/28/mad-props/comment-page-1/#comment-15500 Samantha Thu, 28 May 2009 12:48:19 +0000 http://www.ginandtacos.com/?p=1892#comment-15500 Thanks for explaining this, Ed. For all the news coverage I've seen on the issue, I've never understood exactly how happened. Thanks for explaining this, Ed. For all the news coverage I've seen on the issue, I've never understood exactly how happened.

]]> By: Ed http://www.ginandtacos.com/2009/05/28/mad-props/comment-page-1/#comment-15499 Ed Thu, 28 May 2009 06:06:07 +0000 http://www.ginandtacos.com/?p=1892#comment-15499 Your point is well taken and I should have been slearer: I don't consider the odds high that the court would consider the right to use the term "marriage" a fundamental right. The legal system has a history of clamming up once the legal groundwork to guarantee rights is present. Your point is well taken and I should have been slearer: I don't consider the odds high that the court would consider the right to use the term "marriage" a fundamental right. The legal system has a history of clamming up once the legal groundwork to guarantee rights is present.

]]> By: Michael http://www.ginandtacos.com/2009/05/28/mad-props/comment-page-1/#comment-15498 Michael Thu, 28 May 2009 05:39:15 +0000 http://www.ginandtacos.com/?p=1892#comment-15498 I agree that there was little hope of the court knocking this one down. The court already took its stand, and the voters came right back with a response. However, from what I've read in the press, the Prop. 8 opponents' legal arguments weren't absurd. Evidently, another CA quirk is that there are different routes to amending the state constitution and the voters can't impact fundamental rights. The court this time around said no harm to fundamental rights because same-sex couples are still entitled to everything a civil union provides, it just can't be called a "marriage." Of course, then what was that first ruling in favor of gay marriage all about? Here in WA, the state legislature just bolstered the rights associated with civil unions. The initiative to repeal has been filed. Depending on the result, I may be quoting the Simpsons even more than usual: "I've said it before and I say it again, democray simply does not work." I agree that there was little hope of the court knocking this one down. The court already took its stand, and the voters came right back with a response. However, from what I've read in the press, the Prop. 8 opponents' legal arguments weren't absurd. Evidently, another CA quirk is that there are different routes to amending the state constitution and the voters can't impact fundamental rights. The court this time around said no harm to fundamental rights because same-sex couples are still entitled to everything a civil union provides, it just can't be called a "marriage." Of course, then what was that first ruling in favor of gay marriage all about? Here in WA, the state legislature just bolstered the rights associated with civil unions. The initiative to repeal has been filed. Depending on the result, I may be quoting the Simpsons even more than usual: "I've said it before and I say it again, democray simply does not work."

]]>