Slog
News & ArtsThursday, March 5, 2009
Homo "Disaster."
Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 5:13 PM
Rex Wockner's take on the Prop 8 hearing today before the California Supreme Court.
Disaster. They constantly interrupted the gay side with aggressive questions, but let Ken Starr go on and on and on. They were obsessed with the fact that the domestic-partnership law gives the same rights as marriage, and they completely ignored the fact that they so eloquently argued that separate isn't equal in their previous ruling. They seemed enamored of the notion that the people can do almost whatever they want via the ballot-box amendment process—including repealing freedom of speech, banning gay adoption, pretty much any damned thing they choose. We're not winning this one. It could even be unanimous.
Read the rest of Rex's depressing analysis here.
1
As far as I can tell the united states constitution can be amended to remove freedom of speech, equality under the law, etc etc.
It's not "natural rights" that protects our rights in the US constitution, it's the fact that amending it is such a pain in the ass.
Why would the CA state constitution "unamendable"? Sucks that it's so easy to amend but there you have it.
It's not "natural rights" that protects our rights in the US constitution, it's the fact that amending it is such a pain in the ass.
Why would the CA state constitution "unamendable"? Sucks that it's so easy to amend but there you have it.
2
It requires a supermajority in the US Const, and not just a popular vote of 51%. Part of the argument is that it's not ok to take rights away from people with a 51% popular vote, not that the CA Const is unamendable.
5
Yeah the Gay side was weak and often interrupted. Starr was allowed to talk away. But the one gal attorney, Stewart? made a great point. Those voting to take away the right are they themselves NOT effected by the law and so they think it's no big deal. I thought that was well said. I hope it moves the hearts and minds of the Court.
6
Enough already. You lost. You believe in the democratic process only when you agree with the outcome. I'm not saying Prop 8 is right, but bitching about the court is not going to bring equal rights. Let me ask you this: If there was a measure to legalize gay marriage in CA that was passed by the voters and subsequently overturned by the CA Supreme Court, would you have the same attitude? Would you respect the court's decision to overturn the will of the people? Probably not. If you are a Californian serious about changing this shit, then bring on your own gay marriage referendum. And don't get lazy like people did with Prop 8 and make sure it gets passed. People who whine lose, while people who actually act win.
7
#6 the minority has NEVER EVER EVER won a popular vote and they NEVER EVER EVER have the majority. Surely you understand that simple concept.
Not Women, Not African Americans, Not Chinese Americans, Not Mormons, Not Catholics, Not Jews, Not any minority. WHY would you think another minority; Gay Americans would win such a popular vote?
Not Women, Not African Americans, Not Chinese Americans, Not Mormons, Not Catholics, Not Jews, Not any minority. WHY would you think another minority; Gay Americans would win such a popular vote?
8
My understanding from the articles I read earlier in the week was that the burden of proof rested on the pro side because this was something passed by the voters, so that Ken Starr was ignored (as he should be) is a moot point.
Also some appellate judges will ask tough questions in order to get the arguments more clearly entered into the record when they know they are going to be needing them when arguing with their colleagues.
Anyway, it won't be a slamdunk, but I'm not giving up hope yet.
Also some appellate judges will ask tough questions in order to get the arguments more clearly entered into the record when they know they are going to be needing them when arguing with their colleagues.
Anyway, it won't be a slamdunk, but I'm not giving up hope yet.
12
I wouldn't be surprised if they let Prop. Eight stand, but I would be shocked if they invalidated the pre-existing marriages, even by relegating them to some other status. If Prop. Eight is thrown out, I think it will be because it was not clear concerning the existing marriages.
Also, Kenneth Starr needs to quit obsessing about the personal lives of everyone else. And his bullshit flattery was pathetic. Justices can see right through that.
Also, Kenneth Starr needs to quit obsessing about the personal lives of everyone else. And his bullshit flattery was pathetic. Justices can see right through that.
13
@7, then you can enjoy the consequences of inaction. Surely you can understand such a simple concept. The fact is that the gay community refuses to acknowledge the hard truth: They are going to lose this (for now). It is time to step back and create a new plan. Bitching about it isn't going to do anything.
Additionally, your argument is completely fallacious because it presumes, without providing evidence, that the only people who support gay marriage are gay people themselves. While the gay community may be the minority, I can assure you that a superficial reading of voters who support gay marriage (including those who are straight/bi) is not comprised of a minority. It is the job of people who oppose Prop 8 to get those motherfuckers out to vote for it! Don't bitch, come up with a plan.
Additionally, your argument is completely fallacious because it presumes, without providing evidence, that the only people who support gay marriage are gay people themselves. While the gay community may be the minority, I can assure you that a superficial reading of voters who support gay marriage (including those who are straight/bi) is not comprised of a minority. It is the job of people who oppose Prop 8 to get those motherfuckers out to vote for it! Don't bitch, come up with a plan.
14
@6 Fuck you. We lost the battle, we haven't lost the war, and you might as well shut the fuck up and give in, because we will never stop fighting by any avenue open to us.
15
@10, what a completely fitting response from someone who presents no thoughts of their own. How is that GED working out for you?
16
@14, You really need to take a basic reading comprehension course. I am anti Prop 8, but I don't agree with the ineffectiveness of the tactics taken to overturn it. Calm the fuck down.
17
"zzzzzz" you are most assuredly wrong in part. People who DO GET involved DON'T always win. People who fight for equality and are the minority often lose when they plead their case to the majority (African Americans, Mormons in the 1800s, Women, Gay Americans, others). I agree that one must fight fight fight, but each and every minority, EVER ONE has won equality via the courts or law makers and NOT the popular vote. SO plan B should be the legislatures and the courts. Bitching about a lose is within the rights of the losing side. Other paths outside of the courts and law makers NEVER bring victory to the minority when they attempt to gain the civil equality enjoyed by the majority. Just look at Initiative 200 here in WA a few years back.
19
I'm hoping things in the CA courts turn around, but damn those proceedings. I couldn't be happier to have moved out of that fucking state.
24
Not a good day to be sure, but still it would be nice if they junked the entire notion of state endorsed marriage altogether. It's an antiquated and oppressive institution based in delusions of a godhead ordering of the universe/society. A proper secular state would have nothing to do with that sort of nonsense.
25
@15:
Sorry, I reserve reasoned commentary for people who managed to grasp basic high school-level civics. Morons who think the US is run by mob rule need to STFU.
Sorry, I reserve reasoned commentary for people who managed to grasp basic high school-level civics. Morons who think the US is run by mob rule need to STFU.
26
I'm not a lawyer, and won't pretend that I understood everything I heard on that webcast. But something that kept troubling me was this convoluted (IMHO) logic. *Civil unions are not effected by this ruling, thus not need to worry about discrimination under the law. Gay couples still have all the same rights, they just can't get 'married'. And that’s because marriage is a religious institution, universally upheld as the union of a man and a woman…
So...all of this effort was so that California could now define theological issues in their State constitution? What’s next? Should they have a ruling on the real meaning of the Trinity? Oooh, how about the answer to the question of theodicy in the crucifixion of Christ?! If this is all about a religious matter, then why the hell is the state talking about it?
I like the civil union ideas myself. Lets just take away the state's recognition of marriage for everyone. You can still have your pretty church ceremony, but it won't mean crap until you pay your bucks for a state stamp.
Again, just my humble opinion.
So...all of this effort was so that California could now define theological issues in their State constitution? What’s next? Should they have a ruling on the real meaning of the Trinity? Oooh, how about the answer to the question of theodicy in the crucifixion of Christ?! If this is all about a religious matter, then why the hell is the state talking about it?
I like the civil union ideas myself. Lets just take away the state's recognition of marriage for everyone. You can still have your pretty church ceremony, but it won't mean crap until you pay your bucks for a state stamp.
Again, just my humble opinion.
28
No matter what happens in this case, same sex marriage will be a reality in the not-so-distant future. I'm sure I'll inspire some haters, but from a purely political point of view, I'd say that this is a good case to lose.
I wish Prop 8 had failed, but it passed. The language was pretty clear. Nothing in Prop 8 said that the state would recognize those who married prior to Prop 8 passing.
Let California voters experience the consequences of Prop 8.
Yes, it will hurt to see the state declare that those 18,000 marriages are no longer recognized by the state, but the fix -- a new proposition that repeals Prop 8 and affirms marriage equity -- will help many more than those 18,000 couples.
And there won't be jack shit that Ken Starr can do about it.
I wish Prop 8 had failed, but it passed. The language was pretty clear. Nothing in Prop 8 said that the state would recognize those who married prior to Prop 8 passing.
Let California voters experience the consequences of Prop 8.
Yes, it will hurt to see the state declare that those 18,000 marriages are no longer recognized by the state, but the fix -- a new proposition that repeals Prop 8 and affirms marriage equity -- will help many more than those 18,000 couples.
And there won't be jack shit that Ken Starr can do about it.
29
I watched most of it. It saddens me to think that discrimination might be upheld, but I have to admit that I think the justices did their jobs well today and listened and weighted everything. I don't think they gave favoritism to anyone as far as I could tell. They showed up today, that's for sure, there was no phoning this one in.
30
# 8 is right. the burden, in the courts mind, was on starr. the fact that they hammered the gays was a sign that they were trying to sharpen their argument. in appellate arguments, the goal is to get every argument out. the fact they they let starr ramble on and on is actually a good thing in my mind.
31
Civil unions now, for everyone, please, regardless of gender or orientation.
Let "marriage" be left for the churches--let the Mormons and the Catholics and the Fundies and the Zorastrians and the Buddhists and the Unitarians have their own little ceremonies--whatever. Some will bless same-gender unions, some wont. So the fuck what. That's the magic of that magical thinking called "religion"--and why it should be kept separate from a secular government in a secular country called the United States of America.
We want CIVIL rights, right? Keep it civil. Civil unions for all. That's not a 'disaster.' That's America.
Let "marriage" be left for the churches--let the Mormons and the Catholics and the Fundies and the Zorastrians and the Buddhists and the Unitarians have their own little ceremonies--whatever. Some will bless same-gender unions, some wont. So the fuck what. That's the magic of that magical thinking called "religion"--and why it should be kept separate from a secular government in a secular country called the United States of America.
We want CIVIL rights, right? Keep it civil. Civil unions for all. That's not a 'disaster.' That's America.
32
Nothing in Prop 8 said that the state would recognize those who married prior to Prop 8 passing.
Nothing in Prop 8 said its passage would dissolve anyone's previously valid marriage.
Nothing in Prop 8 said its passage would dissolve anyone's previously valid marriage.
33
(And for those whining about the simple majority-ballot measure problem of Cali's constitution--the upside is that means it's just as easy to OVERTURN Prop 8--we just need 50% plus one. If we could run a better campaign than was run by the No-on-Prop 8 folks. Learn your lessons, folks; regroup; attract a more diverse coalition and go for it again.)
34
Stupid queers. No wonder why you lost. You are incredibly unable to defend your position. Grow up, faggots.
35
#32: Right. As was argued today, legislation is presumptively prospective. Retroactive effect requires an express purpose.
The AG attorney was dreadful. A friend at a firm that submitted an amici brief warned me how poorly the AG attorney performed, but I was shocked. They implored the AG's office to be ready for the inalienable right argument, which was the argument the court beat the AG atty over the head with at the end of his time. Starr looked that much more in control (which he was) on the heels of that bozo.
The AG attorney was dreadful. A friend at a firm that submitted an amici brief warned me how poorly the AG attorney performed, but I was shocked. They implored the AG's office to be ready for the inalienable right argument, which was the argument the court beat the AG atty over the head with at the end of his time. Starr looked that much more in control (which he was) on the heels of that bozo.
36
@31. I agree. Just as long as the civil unions carry the same weight as marriage under the law. Then it becomes a semantic argument as to how 2 people refer to their union, which should be up to them. I think it's better to be a partner than a spouse, regardless of gender.
37
WHAT ABOUT THE 13, 14, 15, 19,
depends on whether your talking about involunteer slaves or volunteer slaves. for instance the 19 amendment is under the Corporation of the UNITED STATES.
THE 13, 14, 15 were amended under the United States Country Constitution before 1871, when the bankers told the founding fathers to let them take over.
White women who were co-slave owners was so greed with priviledge, they allowed slaves black men to get the right to vote 50 years before then. These same stupid gay lesbians still don't know everytime they file 14th amendment claims. They are claiming their volunteer slave rights. And so are the gay males. Believe it or not Blacks at 3/5th upheld by the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott, are the only ones who could not give consent, thus they are the only true Americans under the Constituition of the Country, not Corporation like all the volunteer slaves, the Gays, the white women, the hispanics , the immigrants of Ellis Island and all their descendants. SEE BLACK OLMEC ANYWAY WERE THE FIRST AMERICANS. IN THE AMERICA AND MEXICO BEFORE the whites, Mexicans and Natives. Therefore President Obama ancestors from Africa was in the Americas before his White Ancestors 291 BC. 24 to 40 Ton Carbon dated Statues to prove It.
The Mayan Calendar is the Egyptian culture, in the Americas , Mexicans hate this truth, because they lost the Mexican American War in 1842 and to add Insult they are finding Blacks before Christ, all in Lousianna, Mexico, Navada, North America, South America.IN OTHER WORDS BLACKS ARE THE KEY TO EVERY RIGHT YOU HAVE IN AMERICA, AND THEY ARE THE MOTHER AND FATHER OF HUMANITY YOU MUST HONOR. FOR IF YOU DON'T YOU VOLUNTEER FOR GLOBAL SLAVERY, AND HELL.
depends on whether your talking about involunteer slaves or volunteer slaves. for instance the 19 amendment is under the Corporation of the UNITED STATES.
THE 13, 14, 15 were amended under the United States Country Constitution before 1871, when the bankers told the founding fathers to let them take over.
White women who were co-slave owners was so greed with priviledge, they allowed slaves black men to get the right to vote 50 years before then. These same stupid gay lesbians still don't know everytime they file 14th amendment claims. They are claiming their volunteer slave rights. And so are the gay males. Believe it or not Blacks at 3/5th upheld by the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott, are the only ones who could not give consent, thus they are the only true Americans under the Constituition of the Country, not Corporation like all the volunteer slaves, the Gays, the white women, the hispanics , the immigrants of Ellis Island and all their descendants. SEE BLACK OLMEC ANYWAY WERE THE FIRST AMERICANS. IN THE AMERICA AND MEXICO BEFORE the whites, Mexicans and Natives. Therefore President Obama ancestors from Africa was in the Americas before his White Ancestors 291 BC. 24 to 40 Ton Carbon dated Statues to prove It.
The Mayan Calendar is the Egyptian culture, in the Americas , Mexicans hate this truth, because they lost the Mexican American War in 1842 and to add Insult they are finding Blacks before Christ, all in Lousianna, Mexico, Navada, North America, South America.IN OTHER WORDS BLACKS ARE THE KEY TO EVERY RIGHT YOU HAVE IN AMERICA, AND THEY ARE THE MOTHER AND FATHER OF HUMANITY YOU MUST HONOR. FOR IF YOU DON'T YOU VOLUNTEER FOR GLOBAL SLAVERY, AND HELL.
39
You can't always tell by oral arguments how a court will decide things. Sometimes the winning side gets the hardest time during oral argument. Professional reporters who follow the US Supreme Court talk about this all the time (as do lawyers who follow courts). Go ask Nina Totenburg how easy it is to predict votes based on oral argument. I doubt CA is that different in this regard.
It's easy to freak yourself out looking at oral argument. A better idea is to look at past decisions for an idea of how the court as a whole votes, and for an idea of how individual justices vote. Vote counting will tell you a lot more than what happened during oral argument.
It's easy to freak yourself out looking at oral argument. A better idea is to look at past decisions for an idea of how the court as a whole votes, and for an idea of how individual justices vote. Vote counting will tell you a lot more than what happened during oral argument.
41
Marching and candlelight vigils OBVIOUSLY DONT WORK.
Maybe if us homos start rioting and trashing the town like its Watts, WE MIGHT GET TAKEN SERIOUSLY.
Wheres our bus seat to rufuse the white man (and all the black and mexican people)that voted for PROP8 in the first place?
Maybe if us homos start rioting and trashing the town like its Watts, WE MIGHT GET TAKEN SERIOUSLY.
Wheres our bus seat to rufuse the white man (and all the black and mexican people)that voted for PROP8 in the first place?
42
Somehow you really have to applaud the sheer gall of these people given the times. Unemployment all time highs, economy all time low, foreclosures, global banks in the toilet, overcrowded prisons, underfunded schools, infrastructure in dire need of funding, health care crisis, terrorism, war….
But the biggest issue in some folks lives is if 2 strangers want to be wed.
Gee, thanks for the humanity.
I pray to Jesus that you are allowed to stay wed but that all the above atrocities befall you since your madness has blinded you to so many other real-world daily problems. It's about time you wake the fluck up.
PS. When God does answer my prayers, don't you dare come whining to church. Do unto others – forget ye not.
But the biggest issue in some folks lives is if 2 strangers want to be wed.
Gee, thanks for the humanity.
I pray to Jesus that you are allowed to stay wed but that all the above atrocities befall you since your madness has blinded you to so many other real-world daily problems. It's about time you wake the fluck up.
PS. When God does answer my prayers, don't you dare come whining to church. Do unto others – forget ye not.
44
@41 -
Plessy vs Ferguson, the Dred Scott decision, etc. There are so many Supreme Court cases where people fighting for civil rights have lost. It was once law that the races could not intermarry. I think part of the problem here is that you expect this to come quickly and easily. It will not. Change - dramatic, substantive change - never comes easily. The process of getting things changed starts at the ballot box, but not with amendments first. You can't fight the majority vote that way. What has to happen is grassroots support for progressive candidate running for office. Ultimately, the way to win is to stack the court. The way to get there is to elect liberals and moderates to office. Remember it took a war to end slavery. It took countless deaths, protests, years of organization, fund raising, and legal battle after legal battle to end Jim Crow - and it's still not over. This won't come soon and it won't come easily. It won't come through referendums and popular vote on the issues. It starts with electing leaders who are not the enemy to your cause. It takes more than refuses to get out of a seat. Rosa wasn't the first to do it. Montgomery was not the first bus boycott. You know of it because it was the first one that achieved the goal. Progress certainly didn't come from Watts. It came from all the little lost battles that showed us what was done wrong and what was done right. For every public action, there were private meetings and planning sessions, and A LOT of grassroots organization. People were trained BEFORE they sat at lunch counters. It will take a long time, but you have to keep taking it to them.
Plessy vs Ferguson, the Dred Scott decision, etc. There are so many Supreme Court cases where people fighting for civil rights have lost. It was once law that the races could not intermarry. I think part of the problem here is that you expect this to come quickly and easily. It will not. Change - dramatic, substantive change - never comes easily. The process of getting things changed starts at the ballot box, but not with amendments first. You can't fight the majority vote that way. What has to happen is grassroots support for progressive candidate running for office. Ultimately, the way to win is to stack the court. The way to get there is to elect liberals and moderates to office. Remember it took a war to end slavery. It took countless deaths, protests, years of organization, fund raising, and legal battle after legal battle to end Jim Crow - and it's still not over. This won't come soon and it won't come easily. It won't come through referendums and popular vote on the issues. It starts with electing leaders who are not the enemy to your cause. It takes more than refuses to get out of a seat. Rosa wasn't the first to do it. Montgomery was not the first bus boycott. You know of it because it was the first one that achieved the goal. Progress certainly didn't come from Watts. It came from all the little lost battles that showed us what was done wrong and what was done right. For every public action, there were private meetings and planning sessions, and A LOT of grassroots organization. People were trained BEFORE they sat at lunch counters. It will take a long time, but you have to keep taking it to them.
46
If the court lets Prop 8 stand as well as preserves the existing marriages, it certainly sets up a good opportunity for a new ballot initiative. Many people's minds may be changed by that incongruity.
48
Is it wrong that I want to see Ken Starr rolled in honey and left for fire ants to devour on national television? It seems pretty normal to me.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Putting It In by Dan Savage
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
Meet the UW "Swagga Suit" by David Schmader
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (48) RSS