I can't express my disappointment that my home state let segregation stand today. In other words, Proposition 8 - a ballot measure that outlawed marriage equality after the California Supreme Court's decision allowed it - is still law.
Hello! How is this possible? Not only the fact that a fucking ballot measure can override a state supreme court, but how is the "left coast" so far behind the likes of Maine and Iowa - Maine and Iowa!! - when it comes to civil rights?
Sadly not all of the people I know support marriage equality. Peeps, I hate to tell you, but it comes down to segregation because of dick: one dick too many or one dick short, and the government decides who you can and can't be with.
Yes, that sounds ridiculous, but it's true! That is the reason we're fighting these battles for civil rights: the government and right-wing nuts think they have the right to tell you how much dick should be in your life.
Tell me how this is any different than any other kind of segregation and discrimination? I am a product of interracial marriage, and not too long ago the same kinds of arguments were being made against that (it was also illegal until a few decades ago.)
Why not just set up separate restaurants, straights or in-the-closets only?
That is the sick, sad state of affairs that the court has handed us, folks.
And fuck you to California's embarrassment of a governor, who said, essentially, "Well, some day civil rights will be granted, but in the meantime, I won't protest or risk any of the skin on my political ass. I'll just sit here and be complacent."
Fuck you, Arnold.
The rest of us - as humans - have no excuse not to champion the cause of equal rights.
Get out there and do something!
18 comments:
I sadly have to disagree with you on at least one point, specifically the ballot measure versus courts. The initial design of these here Divided States of America was a separation of powers to create checks and balances*.
The Courts have repeatedly over-ridden law made by the Legislative branch which again is in direct violation of the Constitution and one reason many of us get our backs up over so-called "activist judges" who create law from the bench instead of adjudicating the laws passed.
If a law is wrong it should be changed by will of the majority of the people, not some judge or small handful of judges with an agenda.
Never forget it was activist judges who "discovered" the separate but equal in the 1896 travesty Plessy v. Ferguson and the horrific concept of "precedent" that allowed it to continue until Brown v. Board of Education We need to get back to the three-pronged checks and balances approach before it is too late; let the Executive branch execute instead of legislate, the judicial branch judge instead of create law, and the legislative branch actually do their job instead of passing it off on those who would abrogate the authority of the other branches.
Okay, rant over. For now.
* One key reason I absolutely hate it when a President proposes the budget in direct violation of the Constitution...or changes law via "executive order"...these things contradict the protective nature of the checks and balances. Oddly, it goes back to Thomas Jefferson who, by his own admission, violated the Constitution in making the Louisiana Purchase)
Very disappointing. Every day I am thankful that I don't belong to any organized and more so discriminatory religious group. Seriously these people are out of their ever lovin' minds if they think that denying rights to people is doing God's work. It doesn't even make sense to me. But what the hell do I know?
Of course, this sickens me. What sickens even more is that people still really care so much about another persons sexuality. Why is everything judged on whether we are in love with someone with or without a dick anyway?
Love is love, and that should always be celebrated in this world of hate.
Right on! Someone's sexual orientation makes no difference when the state grants them a driver's, hunting, or fishing license. Why should it matter with a marriage license? I am as angry as you are... and completely loved your "amount of dick" summary. Priceless.
I have to disagree on the point about the voters not being able to outrule a court. In a democracy, the majority of the voters should be able to get whatever they want from their government, regardless of how stupid their decision is. In a democracy, 51% gets to tell the other 49% what to do. Sure, it doesn't always work out that way, but that's democracy in a simple extreme.
I have to disagree with a few of you - I do not think we should legislate by ballot initiative. Why, then, do we have legislators or courts? Why not just have a vote every week? The job of the court is to interpret the law, and not be affected by the bias of the often bigoted population. The court in this case essentially said, "Oops, our original decision, well, never mind."
We would never have had an end at the time that we did to horrors such as segregation, slavery, or many discriminatory laws that hurt women and ethnic and religious minorities had we left it to the general populace to determine what they wanted. The bigots in this case claim no legal ground, no legal basis - they claim marriage should be religious, should be for procreative purposes, etc.
Well, that rules out my marriage.
And it is so unconstitutional they don't have a leg to stand on, in my opinion - which is why the lost the court case to begin with.
The only people I know who use the term "activist judges," frankly, are right-wingers who want to activate their own agenda. Darth, I know that doesn't apply to you, but it's really the hardcore jerks who use that term.
you said it quite well....oh you will not believe my word verification is peter.
I don't want to get anyone here pissed at me, and I may be wrong, but my understanding of what the CSC was ruling on was whether the ballot for Prop 8 was all done legally according to California law.
If people were looking to the court to throw out Prop 8 and they succeeded, wouldn't that open up the laws that passed in Iowa and Mass. to being overruled by the courts there if someone challenged them?
Like so many other things that have to do with civil and Constitutional rights this may be better handled by Federal courts. If a Federal court rules that same sex marriage is granted in the "all men (people) are created equal" section of the Constitution, then, I would think, no state can refuse equal rights to same sex marriages.
Please don't take me wrong here. I agree that same sex marriage is Constitutionally protected as much as opposite sex marriage.
Ahnold is a giant Hemorrhoid.
California is on its way to bankruptcy because of all it's
initiative's.
Why anyone gives a big f how other people live their lives I will never understand.
Where are all the Libertarians when you need them?
our legislators are supposed to represent us. when they fail as those here in Oregon do consistently and almost without exception, there needs to be some way of accomplishing what needs done. The failures of representatives to represent is a large part of what has led to the popularity of ballot initiatives.
I never thought I would say this but I have nearly come to the point where I do believe a parliamentary system would be far superior for at least there I would be able to truly be represented by someone who holds to the things important to me whereas right now with the two party system I have a choice to vote for trash or garbage. not much of a choice...the ballot initiatives at least give partial redress for that.
What a special place to live this California. Do people actually vote there, or just a few who want to rule the world?
I like where Darth Weasel is going here. Bring in a different system. I wouldn't say a parliamentary system. I would bring go the other way and bring in some form of incredibly centralized system. Some sort of dictatorship. Sure, all the power would be in the hands of one person (or small group of people) but that's basically what seems to be happening anyway. Might as well let it happen and hope and pray that the person left in charge actually wants what's best for everybody (or at least, most people). In the least, there will be a reduction of bureaucratic redundancy in the government. And, instead of having to educate the voters to not be mindless sheep, activists only have to educate and persuade one person.
I agree with you 100%. My father and his partner have been 'married' and together now for 17 years... my brother in law and his partner almost 10... it is sad when the 'land of the free' is not really the land of the free.
Being English, I'm not sure, but over here we all thought Arnie swung both ways anyhow!
What makes the west coast so different from the east?? I don't get that...and there are no "equal rights" in any kind of discrimination.
.
The problem with these ballot initiatives is that there is no regulation or oversight of them. They can be written and titled in a sometimes deliberately confusing manner, even to the point where they cannot become law if passed because they are so badly written.
Sometimes you have two initiatives on opposite sides of the same issue, and the one in favor of it requires a "NO" vote, while the one against it requires a "YES" vote.
Then you have the sufferance of millions of dollars from unregistered out-of-Staters' and unknown local special interests hiding behind phony "Concerned Citizens" instant-org's flooding the airwaves with deliberate lies and scary pictures.
Most of these Prop's get voted down just because people do not understand them. In off-year elections, when there is no major candidate running, as few as 25% of the electorate even bothers to vote on these questions. That was the case last week when Californians essentially voted themselves into bankruptcy. Hope they like building their own freeways and doing their own brain surgery.
The worst of it is, the Legislature and the Governor are so undermined by this, that they never have to take responsibility for anything that happens. If a Proposition didn't cause the problem, a Proposition can still solve it, so why should the pol's do anything that might get them kicked off the gravy train? The whole system is whack.
But having the California Supreme Court come out and say that INALIENABLE rights are now subject to this whack system is just too much. Now even the Judiciary is Prop-ing out. It's a pretty good example of why the Founders feared direct democracy: It's too easily subject to manipulation and incompetence, without any checks or balances or oversight of any kind; and it undermines the authority of government to do anything worthwhile.
The New England States have it right: Let your representatives know that you will support them if they do the right thing and end discrimination against a minority, and let them go to work on it through the legislative process, where there may be people who actually know how to write a law, and respect the Constitution. Let them hold public hearings and take expert testimony. Let them wrangle and negotiate in public, and run it all by legal experts who can ensure that the law will do what it was meant to do, and Constitutionally.
Human rights cannot be subject to a popularity contest or a lottery. Legislators have to be able to stand up and fight for something that is right and just and lawful, even if a frightened, ignorant and prejudiced majority disagrees. The people can always vote out the courageous legislators, in a regular election. It's an open process: If you don't like the results, work to change them. Popping off a Prop every few years is just too easy, too lazy, and it doesn't work. Just look at what a mess California has been since Prop 13.
.
Hey, I love seeing new people here! How did you all find my blog?
I know and the beat all is that the people who are against it claim they believe in the sanctity of marriage - yea, right, save it for someone else who doesn't know the stats. 50% divorce rates - yea, sounds real sancti-fucking-monious if you ask me.
Post a Comment