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 Approximately 18,000 same sex couples remain "married" under the law, and that cannot be nullified or rescinded, yet new marriages will not be recognized.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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[jmaynard.livejournal.com]

Obama's increasing the national debt at triple the admittedly high rate of George W. Bush. See the video I linked in this LJ entry.

[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.

[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)."

[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?

[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.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

I know you directed this at heavens_steed but I'll just say that while I have serious and major issues with military spending and expansion, they do not go so far as reducing or denying promised benefits to veterans, regardless of whether they were in combat or not. Like social security, those promises must be kept and constitute a very high priority. Changing what is to be offered in the future is feasible, but going back on promises already made is not acceptable.

[dakhun.livejournal.com]

And the alternative was? McCain? His numbers added up to a balanced budget even less than Obama's during the campaign. Add the unexpected costs of bail-outs, which started under Bush, and McCain's planned budget would make Obama's current budget look rather good.

I'm not trying to deflect criticism away from Obama, BTW. There's plenty that I would criticize about his economics too. I'm just saying that at this point in history, given what the US has been through the past 8 years, given the decisions that it has made, and also given the high expectations the citizens of the US apparently had during the election of whomever would be their next leader, that a huge monumental deficit of epic proportions would have been pretty much unavoidable.

[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.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

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

[keeganfox.livejournal.com]

A lot of the hardware I look at from a maintenance perspective. Yeah it's all shiny and high speed, but it's going to break eventually and none of it is easy to work on. I'm all about keeping things simple, reliable and effective.
But at the same time, readiness isn't cheap, so someone's got to pay for it somewhere. I don't think we want to get caught out, and not be able to defend ourselves.
That said, I still question the need for the F-22. Yes, it's the world's best jet fighter, and we've come to expect to have the best of everything, but at the same time, I can't see how it's not something we can't live without.
Defense spending is hugely complicated, so I don't see too many quick or easy answers. I think that's why it bothers me to see people with the "ZOMG!! Democrats are raising taxes!! Ohnoes!" argument. Everyone wants affordable health care, strong national defense, good roads and schools, and a retirement plan, but no one wants to pay for any of it.