Page 5 of 8
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:30 pm
by Okri
A similar story to the theatre director, reported in The Hot Blog.
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 3:02 pm
by flipp525
criddic, when do you disappear again? Aren't there some tapes that need rewinding somewhere?
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 2:52 pm
by danfrank
criddic3 wrote:I agree that the will of the people can be misguided, but I will repeat myself here: If people want to fight this in court, fine. If they want to have a vote, fine. But you can't have it both ways. Don't spend millions of dollars fighting the proposal before the vote, and then threaten litigation when your side loses. It's stupid, condescending to the voters and a waste of time and money.
Criddic, you're misinformed here. The opponents to Prop 8 did not wait until Prop 8 won to threaten litigation. They sued as soon as it became eligible for the ballot with the same argument they're using now, i.e., that Prop 8 represents a revision to the constitution and not a simple amendment. The court decided not to hear the case until after the vote. Yesterday the California Supreme Court asked state attorney general Jerry Brown to respond to the lawsuits, indicating that they are quite interested in hearing this case.
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:02 am
by Penelope
OscarGuy wrote:I think Scalia, Thomas and Alito should be considered activist judges if you can consder Ginsburg and Souter activist judges.
Oh, they are. Indeed, Scalia and Alito are more outspoken than any other members of the court.
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:25 am
by OscarGuy
Magilla brings up a good point. The Legislature is responsible for making law. The Citizens are responsible for electing those representatives. THAT is how they are supposed to get laws enacted, through their representatives. If they don't like the way their rep or senator votes, then they don't vote for them for re-election, it's that simple.
But, you should be against aborting the will of the people in 2000, but you aren't. You admonish the use of lawyers to fight when your side loses, yet that's exactly what happened in Florida in 2000. You ignore that fact because your side won. Had it been the other way around, you WOULD be speaking NOW about the 2000 election like you are talking about the Prop 8 issue now.
If anything, I think propositions and all ballot initiatives enacted by the people through vote should be sent to the legislature for approval first. I also think that there should be more than a simple majority to approve any amendment if it doesn't go to the legislature.
And, Criddic, as your side ALWAYS forgets, the courts are designed to interpret the law and rule laws that are in violation of the constitution illegal. But, you seem to be opposed to that line of thinking because you are opposed to "activist judges" who work on both sides of the issues, but only seem to get "called out" when they are against what the religious right wants. I think Scalia, Thomas and Alito should be considered activist judges if you can consder Ginsburg and Souter activist judges.
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 7:22 am
by Big Magilla
Propositions should not be used to make law. We elect representatives to do that. They certainly shouldn't be used to overturn existing laws that take away people's rights. That is what has happened here for the first time. It's wrong, it's wrong, it's wrong. Did I say it's wrong? It's wrong.
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 1:50 am
by criddic3
OscarGuy wrote:Well, the Democratic thing is a bull shit answer anyway. Everyone says. "The Will of the People". If it were "The Will of the People", Black Rights, Women's Rights and many other issues of Civil Rights would have been set back another twenty years. The will of the people is not always the wisest course of action when it subjugates or demeans a segment of the population. So, should the will of a group of people determine people's rights? In Hitler's Germany, I'm sure a majority of people at the time, who were convinced he was right would have voted for the extermination of the Jews.
Sometimes, the will of the people is misguided and needs to be determined by people who can look at something unbiased. After all, if it really were the will of the people that mattered, George W. Bush would not be president. Al Gore would be.
I agree that the will of the people can be misguided, but I will repeat myself here: If people want to fight this in court, fine. If they want to have a vote, fine. But you can't have it both ways. Don't spend millions of dollars fighting the proposal before the vote, and then threaten litigation when your side loses. It's stupid, condescending to the voters and a waste of time and money.
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:05 am
by Eric
criddic3 wrote:It's not the same as the Civil Rights movement.
God damn if you aren't making it tough for me to make good on my promise never to talk with you about homosexuality ever again!
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:01 am
by Johnny Guitar
Criddic, why do you always capitalize marriage & gay marriage (and constantly mispell them)?
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:39 am
by OscarGuy
Well, the Democratic thing is a bull shit answer anyway. Everyone says. "The Will of the People". If it were "The Will of the People", Black Rights, Women's Rights and many other issues of Civil Rights would have been set back another twenty years. The will of the people is not always the wisest course of action when it subjugates or demeans a segment of the population. So, should the will of a group of people determine people's rights? In Hitler's Germany, I'm sure a majority of people at the time, who were convinced he was right would have voted for the extermination of the Jews.
Sometimes, the will of the people is misguided and needs to be determined by people who can look at something unbiased. After all, if it really were the will of the people that mattered, George W. Bush would not be president. Al Gore would be.
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 7:28 am
by criddic3
The Original BJ wrote:No, criddic it's NOT ridiculous. Polls in California showed that at least 10% of voters thought Yes on 8 meant yes on gay marriage and No on 8 meant no on gay marriage. Was that something which greatly affected the outcome? Probably not, because it affected both sides. But to say that anyone is just making things up when they say that some people were confused by the proposition is completely ignorant.
Also, the example that I ALWAYS use any time a right-winger trots out the old "this is a democracy, activist judges should not be overturning the will of the PEOPLE, who clearly don't want gay marriage" is that, almost always, those are the very same people who want activist judges to overturn the will of the people, who clearly do want women to keep their abortion rights. So, criddic, I truly hope you will go to bat in support of Roe v. Wade, because the American people support it, and we all know that if more than fifty percent of Americans support something, it must be unquestionably right.
Actually, I would rather that people vote on the abortion issue as well. For the record, though, I did say that the public should make a choice as to whether they would rather fight these issues out at the ballot booth or in the courts. I do not think it is wise or democratic to have a vote and then immediately say "oh, we didn't get the result we want so we'll turn now to the courts." What if the vote had gone their way? Would they then want that vote overturned in the court? This defies common sense.
First of all, you have to remember that I am gay as well as a conservative. Of course I want to have the same rights as anyone else. But if the issue is the definition of Marraige, I think the people should have their say. This is why I think that activists who want Gay Marraige should find a new tactic, a different avenue to have their relationships recognized under the law with the benefits that go with that.
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 3:43 am
by The Original BJ
No, criddic it's NOT ridiculous. Polls in California showed that at least 10% of voters thought Yes on 8 meant yes on gay marriage and No on 8 meant no on gay marriage. Was that something which greatly affected the outcome? Probably not, because it affected both sides. But to say that anyone is just making things up when they say that some people were confused by the proposition is completely ignorant.
Also, the example that I ALWAYS use any time a right-winger trots out the old "this is a democracy, activist judges should not be overturning the will of the PEOPLE, who clearly don't want gay marriage" is that, almost always, those are the very same people who want activist judges to overturn the will of the people, who clearly do want women to keep their abortion rights. So, criddic, I truly hope you will go to bat in support of Roe v. Wade, because the American people support it, and we all know that if more than fifty percent of Americans support something, it must be unquestionably right.
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 1:40 am
by criddic3
anonymous wrote:For one celebrity, voting on the ballot measure itself didn't make sense. In a rambling message posted on her MySpace blog Friday, former Hole frontwoman Courtney Love wrote that the language on the California ballot "was confusing and people were voting yes when they meant no or something."
I have a feeling this is one of the major reasons it got defeated. I got confused sometimes myself just reading about it.
That's ridiculous. Anyone who has ever voted on a proposition knows that often times a "yes" means "yes to banning..." It was a proposition to ban something. So you have to actually read what it says. If that's why the measure went the way it did, they deserve it. Always read these things carefully. It's like reading cooking directions the wrong way and getting sick because you skipped a few words. It is not that hard folks! My impression is that such an excuse is a lame attempt to promote the idea that people didn't really intend to vote the way they did. The people spoke. That's Democracy. How would you guys like it if people who voted for McCain all of a sudden said, "hey we're gonna take the election to court and overturn the will of the people." That's why we have elections, and why the courts are not designed to write laws.
I have always been torn on the issue of gay marraige, as we have discussed before. But you have to decide as a public which course is the correct one. Do you allow a vote on the issue or do you take it to court? The state of California has had similar votes in the past. In this instance, a majority said they do not want gay marraige. Arizona and Florida also said the same thing. This is not a mistake. It's what the people want. California and Florida voted for Barack Obama, so it's not a conservative/liberal thing that's going on here. George Clooney would like to portray it that way, and Courtney Love would like to portray the vote as a mistake. They are both wrong. Find a different way to present the cause instead of ramming it down the people's throats. It's not the same as the Civil Rights movement. There are other options available to allow same-sex couples to have recognized relationships. Gay Marraige may not be one of them at this time. Draw up a new plan.
Edited By criddic3 on 1226558640
Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:28 pm
by Big Magilla
I think it's only a temporary set-back. I'm sure the courts will overturn Proposition 8 as unconstitutional.
As for those who voted for it, I think they fall into several categories: the bigoted, the scared, the confused and the not very bright. Some people fit all four categories, but the bigoted are in the minority in California.
The "yes on 8" campaign did scare off parents in the hinterland who were afraid heir precious 5 and 6 year-olds would be taught about same-sex marriage in the classroom before they were ready to talk to them about the birds and the bees, but the campaign also very subtly claimed that it wasn't seeking to do anything other than take the word "marriage" off the marriage certificates of same sex couples, while maintaining their rights to other protections. This is the argument that found favor with the confused and the not very bright or those who didn't/couldn't take the time to delve into what they were voting for.
The Church of Latter Day Saints itself did not give money to cause though many of their members did. How much, if any, of this was done at urging from the pulpit I don't know but most of the Mormons I know have live and let live philosophies and are not very religious themselves, let alone in a position to force their beliefs on others. It seems wrong to me to condemn an entire group for the ideology of some.
Boycotts, pickets and firings work both ways. There have been reports of "no on 8" contributors being threatened "yes on 8" groups.
While it's true the majority of African-Americans in the State voted for the proposition, some of its most vocal opponents were black churches. As my grandmother used to say, "there's good and bad in every race, nationality and religion."
Forty years ago there were still states where inter-racial marriage was illegal. Now we have a President elect whose parents could have been lynched had they married in some of those states. Things are moving rapidly. Within the next forty years we'll have a gay or lesbian couple in high office, maybe a state capital rather than the White House, but it will happen, and no one will blink twice.
Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 4:07 pm
by Damien
If I were a citizen of California, I would start collecting signatures to put a Proposition on the ballot outlawing marriages between Mormons. Why should weirdos who wear magic underpants have the same rights as normal people?
And Orthodox Jews-- they fuck through a hole in the sheets. And as for African-Americans who overwhelmingly supported Prop 8, give me time and I'll think of a reason why they shouldn't be granted the sanctity of marriage.