So the protests are coming back to California...

  • daveza

    Posts: 22

    Apr 09, 2009 7:41 AM GMT
    We're waiting anxiously to find out what will happen with Prop 8. If it's upheld, we will take the streets....

    But we also are celebrating now, because a LOT of people are coming together, not just lgbt, but all groups, to stand up for gay rights and all civil rights. Check out what we're doing at UCLA on April 19... Can you make it to 1FEST???

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2009 7:43 AM GMT
    daveZA saidWe're waiting anxiously to find out what will happen with Prop 8. If it's upheld, we will take the streets....

    why not take to the streets before then?
  • daveza

    Posts: 22

    Apr 09, 2009 7:46 AM GMT
    Come to 1fest... you might be pleasantly surprised..........
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2009 7:51 AM GMT
    erm.. little far away from me.. since it would take a 14 hour flight...
  • daveza

    Posts: 22

    Apr 09, 2009 8:02 AM GMT
  • brianstephens

    Posts: 96

    Apr 09, 2009 8:05 AM GMT
    Fuuuuck why does it have to be all the way in LA?

    I don't think I can go.

    It should be in San Francisco anyways, its like the gay capital here.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2009 9:24 AM GMT
    It will be a celebration....after Iowa and Vermont, the court in California will also find that there is no bais for depriving gays of their rights....even if the majority wills it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2009 9:28 AM GMT
    I actually hope it is upheld... unfortunately it'd be horrible PR for the Cali Supreme Court. It is good to know people are starting to work now though for next year.... we can do it!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2009 9:31 AM GMT
    cjcscuba1984 saidI actually hope it is upheld... unfortunately it'd be horrible PR for the Cali Supreme Court. It is good to know people are starting to work now though for next year.... we can do it!

    Why do you want the prop upheld? .... icon_eek.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2009 9:53 AM GMT
    Caslon10000 said
    cjcscuba1984 saidI actually hope it is upheld... unfortunately it'd be horrible PR for the Cali Supreme Court. It is good to know people are starting to work now though for next year.... we can do it!

    Why do you want the prop upheld? .... icon_eek.gif


    I feel it is a necessary loss. Everytime a Supreme Court does something progressive--conservatives scream "Activist court!" Well, if prop 8 is indeed upheld that would prove the statement wrong, yes?

    It would make their original decision (before Prop icon_cool.gif all that more powerful and respectable... that these judges are not legislating from the bench, but are indeed looking deep into the laws and the state constitution.

    Maybe my logic is flawed--I don't know. But I know whenever a California hears "Activist Court," they can shoot down that pathetic arguments with this up and coming decision.

    Plus... it scares me when supreme courts make decisions supporting gay marriage--I persoanlly think that is the wrong way to fight for gay marriage.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2009 10:08 AM GMT
    The purpose of the Judicial branch of government is to review laws. In this case, it is the Judicial branch that must uphold the equal protection clause of the constitution to prevent the tyranny of a majority. That's not judicial activitism. That's the job of the court. "Judicial activism" is only the term coin by people who do like the decision of the court. We have had this judicial principle since John Marshall and Marbury v. Madison.

    If a majority can vote away the participation in society of any group, then what prevents slavery from being reinstituted in any state where you can get a majority to vote for it. It would be the same logic. That is why I see the court striking down prop 8. If it stands, then the majority can go after anybody....and that is just why the equal protection clause is in the constitution....nobody, not even the people, can deprive a minority of the right to participate in society.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2009 10:18 AM GMT
    Caslon10000 saidThe purpose of the Judicial branch of government is to review laws. In this case, it is the Judicial branch that must uphold the equal protection clause of the constitution to prevent the tyranny of a majority. That's not judicial activitism. That's the job of the court. "Judicial activism" is only the term coin by people who do like the decision of the court. We have had this judicial principle since John Marshall and Marbury v. Madison.

    If a majority can vote away the participation in society of any group, then what prevents slavery from being reinstituted in any state where you can get a majority to vote for it. It would be the same logic. That is why I see the court striking down prop 8. If it stands, then the majority can go after anybody....and that is just why the equal protection clause is in the constitution....nobody, not even the people, can deprive a minority of the right to participate in society.


    I agree. But that is not how things seem to work. Look at the religious right and the power and momentum they gained after Roe v. Wade. That decision motivated them to become more politically active. Now we are fighting a well-funded oppressive monster.

    Prop 8 was over turned by people in the relgious right. Some voted for prop 8 but couldn't care less about gay marriage--they just did not like the idea of the Supreme Court "legislating from the bench."

    You are not wrong in you assessment. But it seems courts have to watch their necks. And what is the point of the court if the majority can then have the power to override them?

    Grassroots is much safer--though it takes longer. But it ensures a long standing rule. I know Courage Campiagn has already started a grassroots program.

    I don't like it. I think it is wrong. But it does work--going through the courts there is always a danger of the majority gathering together to fight 6-8+ judges. However, if you work to change the minds of the people... people like that sentaor from Iowa who told a story about his daughter on YouTube...if you change the minds of the people, gay marriage laws will be more tangible and less threatened by the religious right.
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Apr 09, 2009 10:38 AM GMT
    cjcscuba1984,

    "I feel it is a necessary loss. Everytime a Supreme Court does something progressive--conservatives scream "Activist court!" Well, if prop 8 is indeed upheld that would prove the statement wrong, yes?
    ....
    Maybe my logic is flawed--I don't know. But I know whenever a California hears "Activist Court," they can shoot down that pathetic arguments with this up and coming decision."


    Yeah it is flawed logic because people like that aren't being logical to begin with. They aren't actually concerned with judicial activism or anything else, they are just trying to say anything they can to demonize what is happening in order to garner support in favor of their movement against homosexuality/homoseuxals. They are smarter than you think, they don't even believe it's judicial activism honestly, if they were seriously that concerned they would be saying the same thing when courts rule in favor against gay marriage or in other issues (like interracial marriages?). Or even when governor's veto pro-gay marriage bills that get passed by a legislature- executive activists! But they never do that, again, because they don't really care. They are just making excuses to cover their bigotry because it's too obvious to say it shouldn't pass because they hate homosexuality itself.

    "Plus... it scares me when supreme courts make decisions supporting gay marriage--I persoanlly think that is the wrong way to fight for gay marriage."

    It's the only real way though. As long as gay marriage is dependent on voter approval it will mean that gay marriages and to a greater extent gay rights are something that must be approved of by a majority of people that can be granted or taken away however it suits the majority, that it's not something that should be considered fundamental or inalienable.

    For example, this new proposition to allow gay marriage that might happen in 2010, that doesn't comfort me at all for the reason I stated above.

    I don't want my marriage or my rights to be declared valid or invalid according to which side happens to get the most votes each election cycle.
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Apr 09, 2009 10:40 AM GMT
    However, if you work to change the minds of the people... people like that sentaor from Iowa who told a story about his daughter on YouTube..

    That wasn't an argument to change minds, it was a flick of the thumb from the bottom of the chin at the people opposed to gay marriage.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2009 1:09 PM GMT
    Anto said

    It's the only real way though. As long as gay marriage is dependent on voter approval it will mean that gay marriages and to a greater extent gay rights are something that must be approved of by a majority of people that can be granted or taken away however it suits the majority, that it's not something that should be considered fundamental or inalienable.



    While I also feel that courts are a perfectly valid venue for advancing all forms of equality, I'm not so sure I agree with your premise here; namely, that a court decision can't be revoked by a majority of citizens. As Prop 8 quite clearly showed--and especially in a state like California with such foolish citizen referendum laws--peoples' rights can quite easily be taken away by citizens, even when a court has ruled on them.

    I'd say that there's just as much chance that a voter or legislature approved law granting marriage equality would stick as there is that it would be overturned the next election cycle. I say this because, generally speaking, the generational shifts necessary for a voter or legislature approved marriage equality win make it more likely than not that if the vote came up again that same voting bloc wouldn't vote to overturn their previous decision; this is especially true as the longer marriage equality is a part of a state's general fabric, the likelier (this is supposition) it is to continue to allow it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2009 1:43 PM GMT
    cjcscuba1984 saidI feel it is a necessary loss. Everytime a Supreme Court does something progressive--conservatives scream "Activist court!" Well, if prop 8 is indeed upheld that would prove the statement wrong, yes?

    Conservatives argue against activist courts when they lose in them, but readily use the courts themselves for their own purposes when it suits them. I would not let their hypocrisy mislead you into granting them what they want.

    A victory is a victory, a loss is a loss. While sometimes there can be Pyrrhic victories in real battle (the cost too high for the win, the greater objectives ultimately lost), that happens less often in these American political struggles. In politics it is usually better to win at the onset, and to keep winning, because to reverse a loss is generally harder to achieve than the original victory was for the other side to obtain, and to sustain.
  • swimbikerun

    Posts: 2835

    Apr 09, 2009 2:16 PM GMT
    cjcscuba1984 said

    Prop 8 was over turned by people in the relgious right. Some voted for prop 8 but couldn't care less about gay marriage--they just did not like the idea of the Supreme Court "legislating from the bench."

    You are not wrong in you assessment. But it seems courts have to watch their necks. And what is the point of the court if the majority can then have the power to override them?

    Grassroots is much safer--though it takes longer. But it ensures a long standing rule. I know Courage Campiagn has already started a grassroots program.

    I don't like it. I think it is wrong. But it does work--going through the courts there is always a danger of the majority gathering together to fight 6-8+ judges. However, if you work to change the minds of the people...
    It seems like you have more of a problem with the California Constitution which allows modifications with a simple majority. On the on hand, this means a simple majority can really turn things over for minorities but on the other hand it encourages activism. Hmmm...
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Apr 09, 2009 7:02 PM GMT
    "As Prop 8 quite clearly showed--and especially in a state like California with such foolish citizen referendum laws--peoples' rights can quite easily be taken away by citizens, even when a court has ruled on them."

    That's the argument happening now though, like how far can people go in this regard and what is the court's place in it. It's only like this right now in California anyway because ultimately gays are not considered to have fundamental rights, like to marriage or even equal protection ultimately in this country. States right now are varying their 'approval' or denial of such things, but ultimately I don't see how any of this is really going to be settled until it goes to the supreme court at the federal.

    I'd say that there's just as much chance that a voter or legislature approved law granting marriage equality would stick as there is that it would be overturned the next election cycle. I say this because, generally speaking, the generational shifts necessary for a voter or legislature approved marriage equality win make it more likely than not that if the vote came up again that same voting bloc wouldn't vote to overturn their previous decision; this is especially true as the longer marriage equality is a part of a state's general fabric, the likelier (this is supposition) it is to continue to allow it.

    Well California legislature voted twice to make gay marriage legal (2005,2007) but both times the governor veto'd it. I'm more concerned about the principal of what is happening, not so much chances of what could happen. I wouldn't feel happy or secure at all if gay marriage was approved by voters in some pro-gay marriage proposition. All I would feel is something like 'Ok, we just happened to get "approved" of this time.' It wouldn't change the problem of having to require something like that to be approved of to begin with. It even violates religious freedoms technically imo!

    Would blacks feel secure knowing their rights could be voted away or if interracial couples could have their marriage equality terminated by voters?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2009 8:35 PM GMT
    Chewey_Delt said
    Anto said

    It's the only real way though. As long as gay marriage is dependent on voter approval it will mean that gay marriages and to a greater extent gay rights are something that must be approved of by a majority of people that can be granted or taken away however it suits the majority, that it's not something that should be considered fundamental or inalienable.



    While I also feel that courts are a perfectly valid venue for advancing all forms of equality, I'm not so sure I agree with your premise here; namely, that a court decision can't be revoked by a majority of citizens. As Prop 8 quite clearly showed--and especially in a state like California with such foolish citizen referendum laws--peoples' rights can quite easily be taken away by citizens, even when a court has ruled on them.

    I'd say that there's just as much chance that a voter or legislature approved law granting marriage equality would stick as there is that it would be overturned the next election cycle. I say this because, generally speaking, the generational shifts necessary for a voter or legislature approved marriage equality win make it more likely than not that if the vote came up again that same voting bloc wouldn't vote to overturn their previous decision; this is especially true as the longer marriage equality is a part of a state's general fabric, the likelier (this is supposition) it is to continue to allow it.


    Exactly. I'm not saying that going through the courts is a bad thing; I get neverous though cause history shows us that the people can override the courts. But when you work to change the minds of the country... rather than a few judges, you ensure the longevity of equal rights.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2009 8:37 PM GMT
    swimbikerun said
    cjcscuba1984 said

    Prop 8 was over turned by people in the relgious right. Some voted for prop 8 but couldn't care less about gay marriage--they just did not like the idea of the Supreme Court "legislating from the bench."

    You are not wrong in you assessment. But it seems courts have to watch their necks. And what is the point of the court if the majority can then have the power to override them?

    Grassroots is much safer--though it takes longer. But it ensures a long standing rule. I know Courage Campiagn has already started a grassroots program.

    I don't like it. I think it is wrong. But it does work--going through the courts there is always a danger of the majority gathering together to fight 6-8+ judges. However, if you work to change the minds of the people...
    It seems like you have more of a problem with the California Constitution which allows modifications with a simple majority. On the on hand, this means a simple majority can really turn things over for minorities but on the other hand it encourages activism. Hmmm...


    That would be correct... in the case of Cali... but I am talking about various states in a broad sense.
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Apr 09, 2009 9:40 PM GMT
    I get neverous though cause history shows us that the people can override the courts. But when you work to change the minds of the country... rather than a few judges, you ensure the longevity of equal rights.

    No I don't agree with this because it is still advocating majority rule for minority equal rights. It shouldn't be about popular opinion or which side has the most in favor. If gay rights succeeded because enough people happened to be persuaded in favor as opposed to not being in favor, that's not a victory for gay rights or even the idea of civil rights in general - it would just mean we happend to win, this time. It wouldn't be edifying the principals of human equality and fundamental rights. I just sets a bad precedent for how people should be treated or even considered as equal human beings.

    For example, interracial marriage didn't become legal across the nation because people's minds were changed, it became legal because a couple finally fought and brought it before the federal supreme court by breaking the law and getting married where it was illegal. When interracial marriage became legal everywhere, the majority of people still were opposed to it. In fact majority opinion wasn't in support of interracial marriages until roughly 30 years later after they were made legal.

    These sort of things shouldn't be determined by what some people think over another group of people.
  • DCEric

    Posts: 3713

    Apr 09, 2009 9:43 PM GMT
    Caslon10000 saidIt will be a celebration....after Iowa and Vermont, the court in California will also find that there is no bais for depriving gays of their rights....even if the majority wills it.


    uhh... that isn't what they are ruling on. They already ruled on that, and were overridden by the states population.

    They are ruling on what degree of modification has been made to the State Constitution.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2009 9:47 PM GMT
    cjcscuba1984 said

    And what is the point of the court if the majority can then have the power to override them?



    I think that's exactly the point the California Supreme Court needs to make clear, which definitely confuses me as to why you think it should be upheld due to the vote. Equal rights doesn't have any place on a ballot.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2009 9:49 PM GMT
    That makes me miss LA, go Bruins :-)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2009 11:32 PM GMT
    Erikk said
    cjcscuba1984 said

    And what is the point of the court if the majority can then have the power to override them?



    I think that's exactly the point the California Supreme Court needs to make clear, which definitely confuses me as to why you think it should be upheld due to the vote. Equal rights doesn't have any place on a ballot.


    I don't think people are understanding my point. I believe everything people are saying about how the majority shouldn't be allowed to control the minority... how people shouldn't be allowed to vote on these issues. I agree with all that.

    But that is not how thing have played out at all. What I am saying is... there is a risk when winning equal rights through the courts. There is a risk because many people do not have the same views as us concerning the role of the courts and the role of the majority. I love the courts! I appreciate what they have done. But there is a risk the occurs when going solely through the courts--there is a risk cause not everyone has tyhe same respect for the courts and/or preventing tyranny by the majority on the minority.

    People on the right don't care about what courst are suppose to do or symbolize. Grassroots ensures a policy which will work more often than the courts.