Proposition 8 (and later same-sex marriage developments)

I was really disgusted by the Judge saying he was wary of going against public votes "Willy nilly".

As if homosexuality is just a big FAD. :manson:
 
VoR said:
I was really disgusted by the Judge saying he was wary of going against public votes "Willy nilly".

As if homosexuality is just a big FAD. :manson:
Click to expand...

Isn't that similar to how the National Socialist Party got into power?
 
Hopefully the U.S. Supreme Court will HEAR ABOUT THIS

OBama picked a new liberal justice today
 
Last edited:
Moonbaby said:
I JUST DON'T GET IT
Click to expand...

You know what? I'm so used to talking about this issue and and so used to the idea of people opposing gay marriage that it has almost rationalised their opinion in my mind.

But at the core, I just don't get it either. I mean, how thick are these people? What is their problem? Why are their lives so full of hate that they actively campaign against everyone having equal rights? Can they not see how ashamed their grandchildren are going to be of them?
 
The court should not "willy-nilly disregard the will of the people to change the state constitution as they have in the past", said Judge Joyce Kennard
Click to expand...

You'd think an Asian-American amputee born in a Japanese concentration camp in Indonesia would have a more refined sense of justice.

Still, I don't think teh gayz have done much for themselves. Too wrapped up Britney, I guess.
 
Last edited:
I'll be marching in Hollywood tonight during the demonstrations against this decision. Will do my best to represent Moopy and all of you who would be here marching next to me...
 
Raucous Bitch said:
I need to get me a reject prop 8 badge to wear while I am in California.
Click to expand...

You won't have to do a lot of searching, the signs and buttons are everywhere. The march last night was great, over 5000 showed up in West Hollywood and were met up by many more when they got to Hollywood (over 15000 total). Among our supporters in the march were Drew Barrymore, Kelly Osbourne (and her cute boyfriend), Deborah Gibson, George Takei, Sally Kirkland, Pete Wentz, Mark Hoppus, Lisa from The Veronicas, Emmy Rossum, Eliza Dushku, Perez Hilton and Kathy Griffin.
 
Last edited:
It really is incredibly sinister that a mojority vote allows legal rights to be removed from a law-abiding minority population.

This ruling means no-one's rights are safe. Watch out women - your right to vote may be up for debate next.
 
I agree with this viewpoint. :)

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UToAWHBVrk0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UToAWHBVrk0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
 
I think there should be a LDN march, I would take part in it.

I so don't understand this at all. Like, you know how sometimes a situation is jsut so logical, and when the logical explanation doesn't happen, you are like 'wtf?'. That is how I feel.

Wow, for someone who for writing is their trade, I really need to sort it out.
 
aaarrgh said:
You won't have to do a lot of searching, the signs and buttons are everywhere. The march last night was great, over 5000 showed up in West Hollywood and were met up by many more when they got to Hollywood (over 15000 total). Among our supporters in the march were Drew Barrymore, Kelly Osbourne (and her cute boyfriend), Deborah Gibson, George Takei, Sally Kirkland, Pete Wentz, Mark Hoppus, Lisa from The Veronicas, Emmy Rossum, Eliza Dushku, Perez Hilton and Kathy Griffin.
Click to expand...

Loads more, literally every other tweet I saw yesterday related to Prop 8, not one was in favour of it.
 
Commotion said:
It really is incredibly sinister that a mojority vote allows legal rights to be removed from a law-abiding minority population.

This ruling means no-one's rights are safe. Watch out women - your right to vote may be up for debate next.
Click to expand...

Sinister is right.

Next, I propose we take away womens' right to vote and also ban black people from using the same buses as whites.

All in favour?
 
Commotion said:
It really is incredibly sinister that a mojority vote allows legal rights to be removed from a law-abiding minority population.

This ruling means no-one's rights are safe. Watch out women - your right to vote may be up for debate next.
Click to expand...

014_l02.jpg
 
This decision is terrible - mostly down to the stupid direct democracy ballots that really don't do anything for ANYONE. Also how can the California Supreme Court write discrimination into their constitution?! Makes no sense.

You know, we have a very SIMILAR issue in the UK. We have "civil partnerships", as do California in the same sense that gays and lesbians are afforded all the rights of marriage but without the name tag. What is being campaigned for across the US is equal recognition under the law, they have the rights (in some places) but not the equal recognition. We in the UK do not have equal recognition. I wish some mainstream politicians would stand up and say something about it. Civil partnerships are great yes, but there is still a conscious seperation based on sexuality as if gays are less worthy or something to be allowed to "marry".

One of the lawyers representing gay activists put it well in the New York Times, he said, if you compare it to the civil rights struggle of black Americans, it's like justifying the segregation of blacks having to sit at the back of the bus away from white people because everyone still arrives at the destination on time.
 
*sigh* Now even Saint Obama is under fire after a memo was submitted by his administration comparing Gay marriage with incest and peadophilia, further than even the Bush administration officially went.

A Bad Call on Gay Rights

Published: June 15, 2009

The Obama administration, which came to office promising to protect gay rights but so far has not done much, actually struck a blow for the other side last week. It submitted a disturbing brief in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which is the law that protects the right of states to not recognize same-sex marriages and denies same-sex married couples federal benefits. The administration needs a new direction on gay rights.

A gay couple married under California law is challenging the act in federal court. In its brief, the Justice Department argues that the couple lack legal standing to do so. It goes on to contend that even if they have standing, the case should be dismissed on the merits.

The brief insists it is reasonable for states to favor heterosexual marriages because they are the “traditional and universally recognized form of marriage.” In arguing that other states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages under the Constitution’s “full faith and credit” clause, the Justice Department cites decades-old cases ruling that states do not have to recognize marriages between cousins or an uncle and a niece.

These are comparisons that understandably rankle many gay people. In a letter to President Obama on Monday, Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights organization, said, “I cannot overstate the pain that we feel as human beings and as families when we read an argument, presented in federal court, implying that our own marriages have no more constitutional standing than incestuous ones.”

The brief also maintains that the Defense of Marriage Act represents a “cautious policy of federal neutrality” — an odd assertion since the law clearly discriminates against gay couples. Under the act, same-sex married couples who pay their taxes are ineligible for the sort of federal benefits — such as Social Security survivors’ payments and joint tax returns — that heterosexual married couples receive.

In the presidential campaign, President Obama declared that he would work to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act. Now, the administration appears to be defending it out of a sense of obligation to support a validly enacted Congressional law. There is a strong presumption that the Justice Department will defend federal laws, but it is not an inviolable rule.

If the administration does feel compelled to defend the act, it should do so in a less hurtful way. It could have crafted its legal arguments in general terms, as a simple description of where it believes the law now stands. There was no need to resort to specious arguments and inflammatory language to impugn same-sex marriage as an institution.

The best approach of all would have been to make clear, even as it defends the law in court, that it is fighting for gay rights. It should work to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the law that bans gay men and lesbians in the military from being open about their sexuality. It should push hard for a federal law banning employment discrimination. It should also work to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act in Congress.

The administration has had its hands full with the financial crisis, health care, Guantánamo Bay and other pressing matters. In times like these, issues like repealing the marriage act can seem like a distraction — or a political liability. But busy calendars and political expediency are no excuse for making one group of Americans wait any longer for equal rights.
Click to expand...
 
Not that surprising from an administration which is proving to be far less progressive but far more spineless than many of its supporters envisaged.
 
Rhetoric goes a long way in a campaign... Not to defend Obama's position on this or the fact his administration defended DOMA, but there might be the need for a little bit of time for these things to go through and for DOMA to be repealed. Democrats still have a fragile majority in the Senate - maybe Obama wants to wait for them to gain more Senators to make sure he isn't embarrased by such a bill failing. Or maybe he needs that extra bit of time for the momentum to really gather pace on gay rights issues - a few more states like New York and New Jersey to approve gay marriage.
 
Has Obama commented? Would it definitely have had White House approval, or could this just be the DOJ overstepping the mark?
 
Well the line is that the US administration always defends law that is on the statute book when cases like this come before the Supreme Court. But Joe Solmonese from the HRC says that even so there are many comments in the defending brief that are actually quite offensive and really do not put across a sympathetic policy from the Obama administration towards the LGBT community... You can read the letter here: http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2009/06/a-letter-to-the-president-from-joe-solmonese/
 
Stories like this make me so sad... :(

Two gay men kicked out of Chico's Tacos restaurant for kissing

EL PASO -- Two gay men kissed at a Chico's Tacos restaurant, prompting guards to eject them and a police officer to endorse their ouster.
Civil-rights lawyers say the security staff was out of line. Police, though, contend that a business such as a restaurant can refuse service to anybody, any time.

In all, five men were ordered to leave the restaurant. They say they were forced out by homophobic guards.

"It was a simple kiss on the lips," said Carlos Diaz de Leon, a gay man who was part of the group.

He called police at 12:30 a.m. June 29 because he said the guards and restaurant had discriminated against the group after two of his friends kissed in public.

The five men, all gay, were placing their order at the Chico's Tacos restaurant on Montwood when the men kissed. All five sat down, but the two guards at the restaurant told them to leave.

De Leon quoted one of the guards as saying he didn't allow "that faggot stuff" in the restaurant.

De Leon said they refused to leave and called police for help. He said an officer arrived about an hour later in response to calls from his group and the guards.

As they waited for police, the guards directed other anti-gay slurs at them, he said.

Already angry at the guards, de Leon and his group became angrier at the two police officers who arrived.

"I went up to the police officer to tell him what was going on, and he didn't want to hear my side," de Leon said. "He wanted to hear the security guard's side first."

Police declined to identify the officers who responded, but department spokesman Javier Sambrano described one officer as relatively inexperienced.

De Leon said the officer told the group it was illegal for two men or two women to kiss in public. The five men, he said, were told they could be cited for homosexual conduct -- a law the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas.

That same year, the El Paso City Council approved an ordinance banning discrimination based on sexual orientation by businesses open to the public.

An assistant manager at Chico's Tacos declined to comment Wednesday, except to say the owners of the restaurant were out of town and could not be reached. An official with All American International Security, the firm contracted by Chico's Tacos to supply guards, said one member of the security crew was contacting a lawyer. He would say no more.

El Paso police Detective Carlos Carrillo said a more appropriate charge for what happened at Chico's Tacos would probably be criminal trespass.

"The security guard received a complaint from some of the customers there," Carrillo said. "Every business has the right to refuse service. They have the right to refuse service to whoever they don't want there. That's their prerogative."

Briana Stone, a lawyer with the Paso del Norte Civil Rights Project, disagreed.

She said the city anti-discrimination ordinance protects people on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation in public places. Perhaps more troubling, she said, was that the police officer chose not to enforce that ordinance and might have contributed to discrimination.

"This is such a blatant refusal to uphold the law on account of discrimination," she said. "The result is devastating. The Police Department is allowing that and even participating in it by refusing to enforce an anti-discrimination ordinance, which is what their job is."

Lisa Graybill, legal director for the ACLU of Texas, said that businesses can ask patrons to leave for lewd conduct, but that those standards would have to apply to all customers.

"If a straight couple wouldn't have gotten kicked out for it," she said, "a gay couple shouldn't."

The police officers involved did not file a report about the confrontation at Chico's Tacos. Carrillo said no report was made because officers thought the situation was under control and neither side requested a written account of the incident.

De Leon said he and his friends left the restaurant after an officer threatened to issue a citation for "homosexual conduct."
Click to expand...
 
<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9lNeE4QEVSw&hl=en_GB&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9lNeE4QEVSw&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

Portia De Rossi on 'The View'
 
federal judge said:
Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8.

California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result, see FF 64-66; moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings.
Click to expand...

Hurrah
 
Last edited:
"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples."
 
I really do not know what they were thinking for keeping it around for so long anyway. It's such a BLATANT violation of a group of citizen's basic civil rights, fuck the public vote, are we going to vote next on whether the Black's should live in the same neighborhoods as white people? Thank god this was shot down, I hope this leads to the rest of the country receiving the same inherited civil right.

This is really US Goverment 101, it's about time for some common sense
 
I don't necessarily think "fuck the public vote" is the right sentiment, but I am v glad it has been overturned.
 
DEPSITE WHAT YOU ALL THINK OF ME
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moonbaby said:
I don't necessarily think "fuck the public vote" is the right sentiment, but I am v glad it has been overturned.
Click to expand...
I am pro-democracy but that does absolutely not mean every matter should be voted on by the public, especially if it puts a group of citizen's civil rights at risk.
 
I'm really glad to hear this - I know there'll be appeals and probably the Supreme Court and SO ON, but everything I'm reading so far seems to indicate that this ruling is really comprehensive and wide-ranging. It seems like there are a lot of good precedents in here that could be cited in future marriage equality cases, which is really good news :D
 
No not every matter should go via the public vote, I agree - this being one of those instances, I thought you were saying that the government should have just bypassed the results of the vote regardless of the outcome.
 
The majority voting on the rights of a minority is quite screwed up, and I'm glad it's not something that happens over here :shy:
 
California's bloated and ugly constitution is a great example why people shouldn't be allowed to make laws.

I hear the ninth circuit will hear the appeal in October. I wonder how long it will take until it reaches the Supremes...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top Bottom