If the courts uphold Prop 8 (and you lived in California), would you "fight" for your rights?

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

    Nov 16, 2008 11:33 PM GMT
    ...and, if so, what level of "fighting" or "resistance" would you put up?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2008 3:08 AM GMT
    I don't know how you could "fight" it. I would boycott the haters if possible, but beyond that just continue to advertise and promote gay rights in general.

    I really think there should be more done in exposing discrimination towards gays, and education about the effects of persecution even in relation to young people and gay people in history and around the world today.

    It is kind of amazing how little people know of it and it's seriousness even though bashing and killings happen all the time while only some of them are publicized.

    I am willing to give money towards these kinds of efforts if it is not squandered.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2008 3:14 AM GMT
    I'd stand up and be as vocal as possible, donate money, try my best to edu ate people. As far as 'fighting' goes, if you mean physically, I would draw the line there...no need to sink to their level and do something foolish.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2008 3:24 AM GMT
    I agree. If the courts shoot it down, there isn't a quick run out in the streets and yell something and that's going to fix it.

    You are battling an enemy that out-numbers you and meets every Sunday for it's dose of social programming against your cause. The programming is so good, they pay up to 10% of their income to listen to it.

    All you can do is keep asking for fairness in a thousand ways and places and be visible and un-threatening in society. Over time the arguments against gay marriage in California will weaken when the gay marriages in Massachusetts have proven themselves over time.

    We can win and we will win - but it's not going to be like it was for blacks and women - both of them had greater numbers and both had physical characteristics that defined their societal bias. Gays can hid or be told to keep it secret.
  • metta

    Posts: 52242

    Nov 17, 2008 3:33 AM GMT
    I'm not sure what you mean. We would probably have to put it on the ballot again in 2 years. If the courts ignored us and the people denied us our rights again, well....I don't want to think about how ugly it could get. Lets hope that we don't get there.

    No On Prop 8

    Civil Rights Groups Petition California Supreme Court
    to Stop Enactment of Proposition 8

    LOS ANGELES (Nov. 14, 200icon_cool.gif - Civil rights groups today filed a petition with the California Supreme Court to stop the enactment of Proposition 8 because it would mandate discrimination against a minority group and did not follow the process required for fundamental revisions to the California Constitution.

    In the petition, the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Equal Justice Society, California NAACP and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. argue that in order to protect the fundamental rights of all Californians, a higher standard is required to overturn the right to marry. Minority communities cannot be stripped of their fundamental rights by a simple majority vote.

    "We would be making a grave mistake to view Proposition 8 as just affecting the LGBT community," said Eva Paterson, president of the Equal Justice Society. "If the Supreme Court allows Proposition 8 to take effect, it would represent a threat to the rights of people of color and all minorities."

    The petition filed by Raymond C. Marshall of Bingham McCutchen and Prof. Tobias Barrington Wolff of University of Pennsylvania Law School on behalf of leading African American, Latino, and Asian American groups echo the arguments made in the November 5 lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights: Proposition 8 prevents the courts from exercising their essential constitutional role of enforcing the equal protection rights of minorities.

    The California Constitution requires that any measure attempting to revise the underlying principles of the constitution must first be approved by a two-thirds vote of the legislature before being submitted to the voters. Proposition 8 was not approved through that constitutionally required process.

    "Proposition 8 contradicts the most basic protection guaranteed by the California Constitution, which is the right to equal protection of the laws," said John TrasviƱa, President and General Counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. "We can not allow the Constitution to sanction discrimination against one group of people."

    "Direct democracy cannot override the California Constitution, which requires more than a majority vote to deprive a minority group of their fundamental rights," said John A. Payton, President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.

    "We cannot become a society that picks and chooses who is entitled to equal rights," said Alice A. Huffman, president of the California State NAACP. "We should include all people from all walks of life in the entitlement to all freedoms now enjoyed by the majority of our population As a civil rights advocate, we will continue the fight of eliminating roadblocks to freedom."

    "Consistent with core equal protection principles, minority communities must not be stripped of their fundamental rights by bare majority rule," said Karin Wang, Vice-President of Programs for the Asian Pacific American Legal Center. "California went down this path before when the majority population chose to bar interracial marriages involving an unpopular minority: Asian immigrants. The state Constitution exists exactly for this reason - to protect the fundamental rights of minority communities."

    "Let's not forget the landmark 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia, which allowed two people of different races to marry," said Paterson of the Equal Justice Society. "People then believed it was acceptable to keep Mildred Loving from marrying a white man because of their ideas of who should marry whom. We must not return to those times."

    The court has precedent for invalidating an improper voter initiative. In 1990, the court overruled an initiative that would have added a provision to the California Constitution stating that the "Constitution shall not be construed by the courts to afford greater rights to criminal defendants than those afforded by the Constitution of the United States." That measure was invalid because it improperly attempted to strip California's courts of their role as independent interpreters of the state's constitution.

    A copy of the writ petition filed today is available at http://equaljusticesociety.org/prop8 and http://www.apalc.org.

    The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (naacpldf.org) was founded in 1940 under the leadership of Thurgood Marshall. Although LDF's primary purpose was to provide legal assistance to poor African Americans, its work over the years has brought greater justice to all Americans.

    Founded in 1968, MALDEF (http://www.maldef.org), the nation's leading Latino legal civil rights organization, promotes and protects the rights of Latinos through litigation, advocacy, community education and outreach, leadership development, and higher education scholarships.

    The Asian Pacific American Legal Center (http://www.apalc.org) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to advocating for civil rights, providing legal services and education, and building coalitions to positively influence and impact Asian Pacific Americans and to create a more equitable and harmonious society. APALC is affiliated with the Asian American Justice Center, the Asian American Institute in Chicago, and the Asian Law Caucus in San Francisco.

    The Equal Justice Society (http://equaljusticesociety.org) is a national strategy group heightening conscious on race in the law and popular discourse. Using a three-pronged strategy of law and public policy advocacy, cross-disciplinary convenings and strategic public communications, EJS seeks to restore race equity issues to the national consciousness, build effective progressive alliances, and advance the discourse on the positive role of government.


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

    Nov 17, 2008 3:39 AM GMT
    My level of fighting is economic, being very careful what I spend on and from where (ex - nothing from Urban Outfitters). I can keep it up as I only travel to gay friendly/liberal places, shop at gay friendly restaurants, stores. It's one of our greatest powers (sadly)...and we should all be using great care as to who gets our money.

    That said, I dont mind a good protest, a few stones, some tear gas, a few flipped cars (all in front of Mormon & other nasty religious headquaters).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2008 3:43 AM GMT
    I am leaving it to the responder to say how he wants to define "fight" and "resistance" in his answer ....physical ...civil disobediance ...marching ....violence to physical structures ...whatever. How far would you go?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2008 3:47 AM GMT
    Nothing is final until the US Supreme Court rules on this. Until then, the CA Supreme Court can rule one way or the other, the public an put yet another proposition to reamend the constitution and on and on. There's no reason to "fight" (in terms of the implication of some sort of violence) until all avenues are exhausted, if "fighting" is at all legitimate.

  • imperator

    Posts: 626

    Nov 17, 2008 4:19 AM GMT
    Caslon7000 said...and, if so, what level of "fighting" or "resistance" would you put up?

    If your government takes the same taxes from you but doesn't afford you equal citizenship, if it expects respect from you but doesn't give you respect, if it demands lawfulness from you but withholds equal protection under the law, then it isn't "your government."

    I'd say refuse to pay your taxes. If they come to try and take them from you, walk away. If the pursue you, turn and fight. Self-defense is the only "natural right;" everything else is arbitrary, written by mutual consent into a social contract. If the other parties to that contract break faith with it-- if they attack you, disenfranchise you, exploit you under the colour of authority that they only wield by the consent of the governed-- then the contract is void. You're no longer bound by it, and your prerogative becomes self-defense.
  • phill

    Posts: 117

    Nov 17, 2008 4:36 AM GMT
    this quote from Malcolm x pretty much sums up my beliefs and how far i am willing to go for my rights.

    "When a person places the proper value on freedom, there is nothing under the sun that she will not do to acquire that freedom. Whenever you hear a person saying he wants freedom, but in the next breath she is going to tell you what she won't do to get it, or what he doesn't believe in doing in order to get it, he doesn't believe in freedom.

    A person who believes in freedom will do
    anything under the sun to acquire....or preserve his freedom.
    -- Malcolm X