If you would cooperate with such a law and tell other people to obey such a law, then you are either racist or a suck-up to tyranny.
This is about civil rights, NOT democracy. And marriage isn’t a “fundamentally religious construct” either.
I’m straight, but it is my secret hope that one of the first campaign promises Obama breaks is his objection to gay marriage. More realistically, it could quite possibly be one of the final acts of his Administration before he leaves office (hopefully at the end of his second term).
You need to organize a wedding every week during which two people of the same sex will be marry/reaffirm their long held vows to each other. I’m sure that in California it will be possible to find somebody to officiate. Invite twenty or thirty thousand of your closest friends. Make sure there are many thousands of leaflets to hand out explaining in plain terms the rights that are being denied to you and apologizing for the disruption. Do it in front of government buildings, make sure the crowd are chilled and document absolutely everything. Keep doing it, and then increase the tempo, making local government unworkable.
The Czechs did something similar, albeit with a different and harder objective, but the end was met peacefully. They called it the Velvet Revolution. I’m sure that the People of California can come up with something similar. Hell, you can look a lot closer to home to find righteous civil disobedience.
Didn’t the Supreme Court of California already refuse to hear challenges to Prop 8 based the revision vs. amendment issue before the vote? Why would they hear it now? What about the fact that the original petitions people singed were to prevent same-sex couples from acquiring the right to marry and the question of the ballot was about eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry? Could Prop 8 be overturned on those grounds? As far as the US Supreme Court getting involved the only way I can see that happening is if the Cali Supreme Court rules the existing 18K+ marriages invalid. As I see the only way Prop 8 can be overturned is if the petioners can establish that it either; violates the United States constitution (which overides any state constitution), or that Prop 8 wasn’t passed properly and thus didn’t actually change the California constitution.
I have a vague memory of them trying to fight it and the Supreme Court ruling that with the election so close, there was no need to devote resources to the appeal/challenge process if the measure was about to fail?
democracy functional definition
Not quite. The above link is from the US State Department website describing American ideals and principles. It goes into the distinction between majority rules and protection of the minority viewpoint. These two ideals are compatible when we do not allow the majority to use it’s power to oppress the minority, even through due process.
So, a democratically implemented law can still be not democratic of it turns out that it oppresses the minority.
Thanks for the compliments on “Straight Against 8.” Feel free to steal it and use it- I did. I got it from a big sign painted on the back window of a small SUV being driven by a high school girl in San Clemente, CA.
Prop 8 was necessary because if we allow gays to have adequate access to a loved on in the hospital, comparible benefits as heteros, and the right to marry, well what’s next? The vote? The draft?
:rolleyes:
Hope all is going well out there in the streets, Antinor. Give 'em hell - wish I were there with you.
Incredibly, I find myself agreeing not merely with the substance of Der Trish’s remarks, but their tone as well. The passage of Proposition 8 is an example of the tyranny of the majority, and it behooves us all to oppose it if we can.
The Santa Barbara vigil was well attended. There were over 500 of us there, not bad for something that was planned a day and a half ago. It was positive and upbeat for the most part. Many people spoke. Some told their stories about their lives as a gay person or about loved ones who are gay. Others just talked about their feelings. Local politicians and members of the clergy (Unitarian, Methodist and Episcopalian) also spoke.
After the vigil, we all marched down State Street (the main street down town) with our signs. All along the way people gave us thumbs up and honked their car horns in support. I did not see or hear a single negative comment or gesture against us.
I found out that Santa Barbara County was the only county in Southern California with more No votes than Yes votes. The city of Santa Barbara certainly had a higher rate of No votes than the rest of the county. Maybe it’s that I live in such a gay friendly community that I was shocked at the outcome.
It’s not over. Eventually justice will prevail.
So is the purpose to bring attention to the cause? Does bringing attention to the cause in that manner help the cause?
I’m just interested to hear your thoughts on that.
From that website:
It doesn’t very clearly define who these minorities are. It clearly doesn’t say that people of different sexual orientations are minorities or fat people or criminals. How do we determine which minorities are protected under this?
blink Are those really questions you have?
Well, yes. Why do you ask?
(if your post was directed at mine)
It also doesn’t mention blind people, dwarfs, or paraplegics. So what?
I was disappointed and embarassed when Nevada passed our own DOMA a few years back, and feel the same about the laws passed in this election.
I’m too tired to write too much (which is prolly a good thing to many here lol), and I see that both Bricker and Der Trihs have been doing an excellent job of knocking this, so I’ll just express my support for those negatively affected, my disdain for those who supported it, and leave it at that for now.
Bo
Straight Against 8, indeed
The Domestic Partner law gives them all but the last.
Honestly, although you can blame bigots for this, you also have to blame gays who didn’t even bother to vote. The voter turn-out in SF (for example) was shamefully low.
I offer this to NAF1138, Antinor01, hajario and everyone else in Cali fighting the good fight. It should be fairly easy to work this into at least one speech given during every protest.
AP is reporting that 2000+ people protested outside the Mormon Church headquarters in Salt Lake. There’s also calls to move Sundance and other boycotts. Glad to see that they’re carrying the war to the enemy’s camp, as it were. (One of the protesters was carrying a sign that read, “Love not 8” and another one asked why it was okay for Joeseph Smith to have forty wives, but they couldn’t have one.)
I would expect to see a large shift on this in the near future. One of the things you tend to see when a country transitions from an rigid government to a more flexible one is that marginalized groups tend to come out rather aggressively. I have a feeling that the protesters will be able to make progress quickly because to allow them to continue will prove embarassing. Not to mention, when people realize that the anti-8 crowd isn’t going to go away and that it’s damned hard to fix the economy when you’ve got a thousand protesters outside your window every day. Keep it up, folks. They’ll crack before you do if you squeeze them hard enough.
I think that question evolves over time and deliberately written to be open-ended. There was a time just a few decades ago no one would have considered sexual orientation to be protected class, and now it is (you can’t fire someone simply for being gay, for example). There is also a philosophical and legal difference between protected classes and “minorities” (or disenfranchised) groups. The first group is explicitly named, the second doesn’t have to be (IMHO).
I think this is the crux of the argument: to show that gays deserve equal access under the law and they are being prevented access to their civil liberties.
I suppose I’m surprised that you ask because Antinor01 answers your first question with his original statement. To paraphrase: civil protests (some disobedient) have been a successful component of social change and striving for social justice.
I say striving in response to your other question, which I was sure you were already aware that recognition of minority and oppressed populations within the documents of our government’s principles has been in a state of evolution since the dawn of this country.
I think we will always struggle for a silver-bullet definition of perfectly worded explanation of who the government is obligated to protect from majority actions when they cannot functionally protect themselves. We will always be peeling away that onion of prejudice and bigotry, somehow.