I hate to sound like a juvenile, but did I say you said rims? I didn’t even remember that you said TVs.
I don’t live in CA and I didn’t vote for prop 8. So I’m not guilty of anything. You don’t even know my sexual persuasion, by the way. You could very well be talking to a fellow victim.
Secondly, why should only black people pay reparations to gays? They alone did not vote yes on Prop 8. More whites voted yes than blacks. So seeking redress from only black people is not only racist, but it’s stupid. You’d be better off seeking redress from the government that put that referendum on the ballot in the first place.
Thirdly, a person being a raging asshole does not nullify their right to seek legal redress. Black people could be the devil incarnate (I know my horns are coming in nicely), and they would still be owed compensation, if they could demonstrate this in the court of law.
Right, because Jim Crow happened thousands of years ago. No one on this board remembers colored water fountains, people being attacked by police dogs and water hoses, or rallying cries of “Segregation forever!” from elected officials. No sirree! This all happened a looooooooong time ago.
I’ll try to remember that the next time I visit my very active and alive grandmother.
While ago you tried to discredit an article because it was written by David Horowitz. A very opinionated and controversial writer admittedly, but his reputation is irrelevant to his arguments: what did he say, factually, that was wrong?
DailyKos is one of the most notorious wingnut sites on the web. You’re perhaps famiiar with them as the source of Sarah Palin is really Trig’s grandmother, Sarah Palin IS Trig’s mother— but Scott ain’t Trig’s daddy, “Armstrong Williams is a shill who accepts money from Dubya to promote a viewpoint! (unlike our editor who takes his money from John Kerry)” and other nonsense absurd and disproven claims.
But be that as it may, from your OWN LINK a blogger, who makes no claims to being good with statistics and whose methodology uses words like “I would estimate” and guessing- in fact she actually says
Well, that clinches it for me. She’s done her homework. Ah, and of course those who disagree with her are racist.
For the record, I don’t blame black voters alone responsible for the failure of Prop. 8, I blame all people who voted against it for its failure. However, if Prop 8 had passed I’d still be pissed that so many people who have experienced discrimination now deny others their rights, especially when there’s so little doubt that much of it is due to some mumbo jumbo imparted by screaming clowns with Bibles yelling about desert sky gods wanting you to preserve the morality of the family (that 70% illegitimacy rate and the ridiculous number of single parent below poverty line homes- Sky God doesn’t care about those, He wants you to concentrate on other people’s morality and pair bonding and family units)- it’s infuriating.
I said you said rims. What part of that don’t you get? I say you said rims and you get defensive and say I didn’t say rims. New word for the day: contortionist.
Ah ha! Gotcha! You weren’t there, you weren’t responsible. So who pays me my million? You imply you just might be one of us. Should you pay?
I never said blacks only owe gays reparation. I want to know who owes whom, and you’ve implied you might be one of those who is both owed, and owes. Tell me how to work that out.
Well that’s the thing. How recently does it have to occurred in order to deserve compensation? Gays deserve more compensation if we’re going to whip out our dicks and compare how recent the discrimination was.
I know I said rims. But did I accuse you of saying rims, when I made the comment about TV and rims? In other words, why would you think I was paraphrasing you? I was inspired by my own thoughts, not yours.
I don’t live in CA, levdrakon. So that means I did not vote yes on Prop 8. So no, I wasn’t responsible. Are you being purposefully obtuse?
I’m not one of the “owed” because I don’t live in CA. My rights were not denied by Prop 8.
When you asked which part of the “70% of 6%” was going to pay you, I figured you were talking about the black population that voted yes on Prop 8. There is no legal precedence for people getting reparations from specific demographic groups who voted “yes” on certain referenda. There is legal precedence for people receiving reparations from the institutions that allow unjust laws like Proposition 8. So if I were your lawyer, I’d recommend going after the state of CA, not “70% of 6%” or any other crazy thing. Does this answer your question? I hope so because you’re giving me a head ache.
It’s a good thing I don’t have a dick then. And I haven’t been doing the “more oppressed than thou” thing. Don’t accuse me of doing that and I won’t accuse you.
I’d say that if something happens in your lifetime and you have the documentation to prove it, then why not go to court? Institutions exist in perpetuity, so that means the statute of limitations shouldn’t be restricted to some narrow time frame. What is a reasonable statute of limitation to you? Ten years? Twenty? The interned Japanese received their compensation almost fifty years after the fact. Was that too long a time? Why didn’t a statute of limitations apply to them?
Wait a minute, I don’t recall anything justifying that position. There is certainly a precedent allowing for reparations for government actions that violated either the government’s own laws (Japanese internment) or internationally recognized fundamental human rights (Holocaust), but I haven’t seen how either the case of Prop. 8 or Jim Crow fits. Bad policy ≠ actionable offenses.
If you convince me that there is a legally recognized, fundamental right to be protected by the government against discrimination (and that there was such a right prior to 1968), I will be inclined to at least moderate my view. Then again, I’ve only made a couple comments in this thread, so convincing me may remain low priority.
monstro: This is my core argument (with some minor editing):
Smaller points:
No, $20,000 certainly was not meaningless: I’m just saying that it represented but a fraction of the harm done to Japanese Americans interred during WWII. That’s what I meant by “Symbolic”.
I can see the appeal of partial compensation for the victims of Jim Crow. But I think it is politically unrealistic and counterproductive. Far better I think would be to put in place comprehensive social programs (which won’t happen either) or barring that universal health care and AA. But I wouldn’t call AA compensation either: I’d characterize it as very partial and very rough justice.
Right to be protected against discrimination: I think the 14th amendment covers that: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Why are we even talking about Prop 8? How does that tie into reparations for those who lived through Jim Crow? Either I don’t understand or this thread has collapsed in on itself.
Prop 8 set in law, that gays are separate, and deserve separate laws that apply only to them. It’s not hard to follow. Monstro doesn’t feel responsible and shouldn’t have to pay, which makes it relevant. The institution should pay but the “institution” is Monstro, and it’s got to pay. Which results in lots of “huh? No way!”
Well clutch the pearls and call me Nancy, a GD thread has veered off course. I knew it would happen sooner or later. It was prophesied.
Good point (for unlike Monstro I can acknowledge good points on the other side).
My refutation: The Federal Government- which is not all powerful- sent FBI agents to investigate abuses, they sent armed troops to protect students when schools were integrated and to protect voters, they filed lawsuits and prosecuted people on Federal charges when Jim Crow kangaroo courts acquitted them (example: the people responsible for the Goodman/Schwermer/Chaney murders were acquitted of murder, the Feds prosecuted them on violation of civil rights- this was the only prison time these men served). When a South Carolina town refused to allow black soldiers from the military base that said-town’s whole economy was dependent on, the Feds said “alright, we’ll respect your wishes… we’ll close the base” (i.e. financially strong-arming the city into integrating.) It was the FBI that solved most murders, this a generation before the term hate-crime was ever used.
So yes, the Federal government does indeed guarantee these rights, and these rights were not being honored or recognized by the Jim Crow states. In response the Federal government spent billions and deployed almost every agency it had into forcing the states to acknowledge and honor the Constitutional rights of its citizens. They did not sit idly by. Obviously they can’t be everywhere at once and couldn’t prevent everything that happened, but the Feds were the reason that Jim Crow ended, not because the states themselves decided “you know, the protesters have a point”. So, how is the Federal government responsible for Jim Crow?
Jim Crow did more than just deny people the right to marry whom they wanted. It carried economic consequences by preventing access to public education and housing.
I gotta smile at the insistence in this thread that the internment was completely and totally different and incomparable to Jim Crow, while Prop 8 is being treated like it’s twin brother just as soon as it becomes convenient to point out that blacks voted for it and are therefore responsible. Apparently even ones who don’t even live in that state.
At any rate, if you or any other gay person wants to sue California for damages over Prop 8, I give you permission to call me a close-minded homophobic no-life-having bitchface if you hear me whining about it.
