Wet Tuesday

[altivo]

First, thanks to everyone who has sent well-wishes to Tess. She has a very slight limp this evening, but is doing fine otherwise. I predict she'll be back to completely normal within two or three days. Six months ago, after a hoof "adjustment" she was really limping, and holding that foot up pitifully, but had forgotten about it in two days time. This doesn't look nearly as traumatic, thank goodness. She let us examine her foot and medicate it tonight, without any fuss, and then went right back to eating her dinner.

Now, the topic of the day is the sheer inconsistency and boot-licking cowardice of California's supreme court justices. However, everyone else has already been ranting about that. I'll just say that they've created inconsistencies so huge that even the US Supreme Court will be hard pressed to find a way to let things stand in California as they are. Approximately 18,000 same sex couples remain "married" under the law, and that cannot be nullified or rescinded, yet new marriages will not be recognized. In essence, they have said that in California, the majority is allowed to do whatever it wants to the minority, and there is no way to stop it. That cannot stand.

California, you are about to be shown just how incredibly brainless your voters are, that they believed the pure hate BS that was being shoved at them by the religious right. When states like Iowa and New Jersey can recognize gay marriages without a big fuss, yet California (which probably has the largest gay population of any state in the union) somehow can't get it's act together to say no to the bigots, just who looks like a fool? Even Colorado's courts rejected efforts by their state's right wing to abridge the human rights of gays by popular vote years ago. Yet California's justices are so lily-livered that they can't stand up for what is right.

Comments

[dakhun.livejournal.com]

I think the California Supreme Court justices are just too wishy-washy. :-P

May 15, 2008 - California Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage
May 26, 2009 - California Supreme Court upholds same-sex marriage ban

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Precisely. Of course, California also has this incredibly stupid constitutional revision process that will allow issues like this to be refloated again and again at every election, and swing back and forth depending on who gets in the best sound bites and most persuasive lies on television.

Their excuse is that they have still declared that same sex couples have the right to "separate but equal" recognition, just not the right to the word "marriage." That's a pile of bullshit, and they know it perfectly well.

[captpackrat.livejournal.com]

It takes a 2/3 vote to pass a budget, but only a simple majority to deny rights to hundreds of thousands of citizens.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

California's constitutional structure is flawed. This has been obvious for a long time. There is a reason that effective constitutional government is built around a document that cannot be easily altered or abrogated, and California has lost touch with that reason.

[bladehorse.livejournal.com]

It really suucks here in this state, and not just because of this idiocy. Look at our lack of fiscal budgeting. The govenator threatens uas with essential cutbacks, but we keep dumping money into saving sea otters(Only150k this year ) as opposed to 250k last. Illegal immigrant education, and medical costs are over 13 BILLION /year for this state, but NO we have to cut infastructure.This is the reason why 100% of the counties voted no to all tax increases, and 100% said No to unstoppable pay increases for the governing bodies.
The whole mess just pisses me off, and there is really Nothing we can do but get pissed and march, and get more bad plublicity.
The whole no to equal rights is soo bigoted, yet we say we overcame racism.. I tend to think were the new (Ok everyone agree to pick on that group, and well all feel really good) And the sad part, is almost all non white ppl voted in prop 8(Its sorta disturbing).

[heavens-steed.livejournal.com]

Ah, but my dear stallion, you are talking about disastrous liberal fiscal and economic policy which I think Tivo tends to support.

California is the perfect symbolic microcosm of what President Obama wants to do with the rest of the nation. High taxation, excessive and unsustainable spending, and nationalization of the free market which will leave the nation bankrupt just like California.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

The nation is already bankrupt, Finrod. Obama didn't do it. Republicans, who constantly screech about smaller government and less spending, have far exceeded any non-Republican group in both spending and governmental expansion during my lifetime.

[keeganfox.livejournal.com]

Do you propose cutting my military retirement (the one I worked 20 years for, as per contract) and intend to collect for at least another 40 years?
Everyone wants a freebie, so what's it going to be?

[heavens-steed.livejournal.com]

I do not hate gays. I am not a bigot. And although I can be brainless sometimes, I am not when it comes to important political, philosophical, and moral issues.

I am glad to hear that Tess is okay.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

And you don't live or vote in California so what I say here doesn't directly apply to you.

However, if you think you could ever get me to agree that those who believe in some particular religious concept have any right to co-opt the civil rights of others who do not accept that concept, think again. Civil law and religious belief do not mix well, they never have, and never will.

[heavens-steed.livejournal.com]

And you don't live or vote in California so what I say here doesn't directly apply to you.

Correct. It applies to me indirectly because the clear implication of your statement is that anyone who voted for Prop 8 or would have voted for it if it were applicable is stupid, hates gays, and is blindly following religious dogma. The general message you are conveying is that anyone who supports the "traditional" definition of state marriage is a bigot and an idiot. So yes, you lumped me in with a group and painted with a broad brush without making any distinction. So you think I am a bigot and an idiot. Fine, that is your opinion. You are also throwing many other gays and bisexuals like me under the bus who do not agree with you. I know in my heart that I do not hate gay people. If I did, why would I have ever talked to you in the first place? I certainly don't hate gay people anywhere near as much as you hate humanity in general.

However, if you think you could ever get me to agree that those who believe in some particular religious concept have any right to co-opt the civil rights of others who do not accept that concept, think again.

Why would I do that? No, I don't think I could get you to agree with the majority of conservative and evangelical Christians about marriage and sexual morality and I have no desire to. This entire statement is a straw man and a false accusation. I don't really care what your personal opinion is on gay marriage. I do care when you falsely accuse me and attack my character simply because I think differently than you do. I also hope that you will actually listen to me and what I am saying instead of attributing everything I say to my religious beliefs. I answered one of your friends with a perfectly valid argument against same sex marriage and there was not an ounce of religious theology or doctrine involved. If one of us is having a hard time preventing his own emotional bias from corrupting his reasoning and perspective, it is not me. You are emotionally and psychologically invested in this subject and in my opinion, you seem incapable of examining it objectively. I am not emotionally invested. I am not really concerned with the outcome one way or another.

[schnee.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that decision seems like a particularly strange one. If California's constitution has a clause against discrimination, how can this stand? Even if you have civil unions, I vaguely recall that there was, oh, some SCOTUS decision a couple of decades ago concerning the concept of "separate but equal". Ah, can't have been that important, though, or the California justices would've known about it, right?

On a less sarcastic note, I've also been wondering how things like this are actually resolved in legal theory. Obviously, if you have a law contradicting the constitution, the law is unconstitutional and therefore null and void, but what if one clause in the constitution itself contradicts another?

*headshakes* Everything will be resolved in time, of course, but it sure would've been nice if it had been resolved now.

Oh well.

Best of luck again to Tess, too - I hope she'll heal up properly soon.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Yes, I expect this issue to eventually come before the US Supreme Court, properly presented, and to be settled by the "separate but equal" precedent. How long that will take is hard to guess. It may take more than one abortive attempt, because that court is noted for its ability to dodge such issues and try to avoid being definitive. However, when forced into it, they usually take the correct road.

It's amusing that the California decision in this instance seems to still force the state to provide and accept a "separate but equal" domestic partnership affirmation. It lets the wingnuts "own" the word marriage, but not the rights and responsibilities that are attached to it. It does not nullify, but rather confirms the thousands of same sex marriages that were already legally formed. I foresee further court battles on this that can only lead to a total mess. In the end, either California will have NO legal recognition of the term "marriage" or this decision will be overturned.

[schnee.livejournal.com]

Or both...

Yes, one way or another, this is just going to be the beginning, not the end.

[heavens-steed.livejournal.com]

Just out of curiosity... do you support zoo marriage? What about my right to marry an animal partner and the state government to acknowledge and support it?

[altivo.livejournal.com]

I do not believe that a legal contract of any sort can be formulated between a human and an animal who cannot signify understanding and legal consent to that contract.

This doesn't mean there couldn't be a spiritual connection. I don't claim to know for sure about that.

This topic is not really relevant to the issue of same sex marriage between human beings. I do firmly believe that civil matrimony and religious marriage are separate issues and should stand separately for a great many reasons.

[heavens-steed.livejournal.com]

Oh, yes it is relevant because it shows just how inconsistent your position is. You don't acknowledge that zoophiles have equal rights.

I don't believe in zoo marriage and I agree that a human and an animal cannot formulate a legal contract. However, there are just as rational reasons to maintain the unique distinction between opposite-sex marriage and same-sex marriage. My question and your expected answer was to prove that your position lacks consistency and is, in fact, discriminatory.

You have just acknowledged and admitted that there is a rational basis to discriminate against zoophiles and yet you cannot see that there is also a rational basis to discriminate against gays in terms of marriage. So in your view it is okay to discriminate against others that you do not agree with but no one can discriminate against you, no matter how rational the justification is. There is another word for this and it is called hypocrisy.

[dar-han.livejournal.com]

Yeah, something like that.

I'll be for legalizing zoo marriage if you manage to prove without a single doubt that the animal can understand each and all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage, and that the decision to marry was taken by the animal by its own will, not by the will of someone/something else. In short, zoo marriages are okay if the animal involved is proved without doubt to have the same level of consciousness, intelligence and sense of responsibility that we use to expect from human adults.
I define marriage as the committed union of two conscious, willing, legally responsible human beings. That bars zoophilia, pedophilia and most other "non-human-object-or-animal"-philias, I would assume.

And for incestuous marriage, which is also often implied? It was frowned upon only because of the risk of consanguinity causing lethal or harmful genetic defects in the couple's descendants. Although I'm personally quite uncomfortable with the idea of incest, I guess it is logically okay if the couple can ensure there is no risk of putting their descendants at risk (e.g. by ensuring posterity via adoption, or by NOT having posterity at all)

As for the continuity of the human race as the goal of marriage, I usually have an humorous but true response to that : "Don't worry, my cousins on my father's side have enough kids of their own to cover for me and a good dozen other gay couples (or two dozens of Catholic priests, see it as you like)."

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Yes, that last argument is an absurdity. Less humans, not more, would be best for everyone at this point.

[heavens-steed.livejournal.com]

So just like Tivo, you believe there is a logical reason to discriminate against zoophiles. But of course, no one can discriminate against you. That just wouldn't be fair now would it? Your position is totally inconsistent.

I define marriage as the committed union of two conscious, willing, legally responsible human beings.

And that is your own subjective definition, one that is not consistent with the standard definition that has been, at its most basic level and nature, universally agreed upon for thousands of years. It is also a definition that the majority of Americans do not agree with.

As for the continuity of the human race as the goal of marriage, I usually have an humorous but true response to that : "Don't worry, my cousins on my father's side have enough kids of their own to cover for me and a good dozen other gay couples (or two dozens of Catholic priests, see it as you like)."

I'm sorry, but the fact that the human population is doing well at this point in time is not in any way a logical justification for state endorsed same-sex marriage or a valid basis upon which one can reject the fundamental quality that elevates and separates straight marriage from gay marriage: reproduction and the continuation of the human race and society.

Homosexual couples by nature and by definition do not produce offspring and therefore, they do not contribute to the most fundamental need of the state and society which is to continue the human species. This is also why the state has a vested interest in endorsing opposite-sex marriage over same-sex relationships. Opposite marriage is the most productive, efficient, and reliable way to produce the next generation of citizens and is a integral and fundamental foundation for human families and human civilization itself. Yes, gay couples can raise children and even form healthy and productive families. But they cannot produce children and must rely on heterosexuals in order to produce their own families, thus reaffirming the supreme necessity of the relationship that defines traditional marriage to society. Not only does the continuation of the population depend on opposite sex marriage but so do the families of same sex parents! That is the irony of it.

Consider a theoretical proposition that completely dismantles your "overpopulation" excuse. Although it is unlikely, consider the possibility of entire society becoming gay or choosing to only have homosexual marriage. What would happen to the population of that society? It would go extinct. Why do I mention this? Because this argument, even though hypothetical, proves that the idea that gay marriage is inherently and intrinsically equal and just as valuable to society as straight marriage is fundamentally wrong and unsound. If gay marriage was non-existent, society would continue. If straight marriage was non-existent, society would face oblivion. And if such a situation existed where the population was severely threatened, then the state would have a moral obligation to actually outlaw same sex marriage and same sex relationships period while all physically able citizens would be obligated to breed. In such a case, same sex marriage would be invariably ruled out as an immutable and unalienable civil right.

In other words, if same-sex marriage were innately just as dignified and valuable to the state and human society as opposite-sex marriage, then there would be no possible condition that would impose a moral demand to forbid it or at least discourage it. Since there is a conceivable and possible situation where same sex marriage would be unquestionably deleterious to human society and unethical by every definition, you cannot make the case that same-sex marriage is, by its very nature, equally as good and important to society as straight marriage. There is no counter-factual, no similar case that can be made against "traditional" marriage. Thus, by logic, your argument and your definitions are rendered fallacious and unsound.

[jmaynard.livejournal.com]

The court wound up doing what it had to. The argument that Proposition 8 was a revision was simply wrong; that word has a specific meaning (effectively, it means more or less a complete rewrite), which Proposition 8 failed to meet. There was simply no way that the court could have said that Proposition 8 was a revision and not an amendment without completely destroying the concept of citizen-proposed changes to the state constitution.

As for not nullifying existing marriages, given California's precedent that amendments aren't retroactive, there was no real way they could have done that either.

Yes, the result is absurd. That's because California's voters apparently wanted it that way. That doesn't surprise me. They're Californians.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

But they left open the contradictory nature of the amendment. Can you add an amendment that is contrary to other provisions of the document, and expect both contradictory provisions to stand valid? Ultimately, I think not.

In 1890, conservatives were opposing rights and citizenship for immigrants from Ireland, Eastern Europe, and Asia.

In 1920, the same folks frothed at the mouth over the notion that women might be allowed to vote and hold elective office. It was "against God and nature" and would "destroy the fabric of society and the family."

In 1950, they were using the same words to argue against equal civil rights for persons of non-caucasian descent.

In 1980, they were using the same words to argue against equal civil rights for gays and lesbians. (And around 1990, Bush Sr. was making his still unrepented remarks that atheists should have no civil rights and not be permitted to vote.)

I seem to see a pattern here, and it's not a pretty one.

[jmaynard.livejournal.com]

There is simply no way for a state court to invalidate the constitution of the state. It is that document that gives the state government its existence, and the court cannot abrogate it. They cannot do anything but interpret it in some way that makes sense. They came up with about the only answer that does - even though that sense is distinctly Machiavellian.

It was beyond the court's power to throw away Proposition 8.

The pattern you see is about personal rights. The pattern I see is about property rights: liberals have an unblemished record of destroying them to pay for programs to buy votes every chance they get. That pattern is no prettier, for it will destroy the economy we all depend on - and without a functioning economy, all the civil rights in the world are meaningless.

[saythename.livejournal.com]

*sends Tess wuv!*

As for Cali...

You man not agree with the voters (I do not agree that Obama should
be President) but its the system, and its worked so far.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Actually, I'd say the California system has produced a horrendous amount of chaos in the state's legal and economic stability.

The rights of any minority should not be determined ultimately by a simple majority vote. This is open to far too many abuses and inequities, one example of which has just been amply demonstrated. Likewise, effective management of a state's budget cannot be achieved by simply putting it to a popular vote. That is about as effective as just letting children always eat whatever they want. Malnutrition or worse will inevitably be the result.