PROP 8 OVERTURNED- Page 4

[Roscoe]

Posted: 8/5/10 at 9:20am

Love me some Vaughn Walker.

[madbrian]

Posted: 8/5/10 at 9:34am

The link below is to an article discussing the non-legal factors that might influence Justice Kennedy. I found it interesting. It discusses Kennedy's age, the thought of being on the right side of history, the inevitably of same-sex marriage, and the presence and gravitas of Ted Olson.
Kennedy

[romantico]

Posted: 8/5/10 at 10:03am

MSNBCs Rachel Maddow: Pro-Prop 8 case in Perry hinged on 2 witnesses tied to Reckers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cu56T_AirsM&feature=

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/5/10 at 10:57am

I'm glad to hear such optimistic voices on the Supreme Court chances.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/5/10 at 11:53am

David Axelrod confirms that "nothing's changed" as far as the president's position on gay marriage.

Except something has CHANGED, something has definitely CHANGED, and the people who won an election based on HOPE and CHANGE ought to be the FIRST people to understand that, not the last.
W.H. on Prop. 8: 'Nothing's changed'

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 8/5/10 at 11:58am

Well said, PJ.

Whatever happened to leaders, you know, leading?

[Roscoe]

Posted: 8/5/10 at 12:00pm

Obama is all for equality for gay men and women, except when he isn't.

Nothing's changed.

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 8/5/10 at 12:15pm

I believe that President Obama will conveniently forget his position when he realizes he needs our votes in a couple of years.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 8/5/10 at 12:51pm

Dear supporters of Proposition 8,

Please do not take my words as gloating but rather a clear and concise analysis of why you may be feeling dejected now over the overturning of Proposition 8.

In 2008, when you won, many of you stood with your arms raised in defiance of the bitter tears you caused in the lgbt community.

What a difference two years makes indeed.

But let me explain to you why you lost today. It’s not complicated, but rather simple.

Your side lost because you lied.

Oh I know that folks on your side will whine about “activist judges who make laws rather than interpret them,” but let’s be real here.

Your entire narrative has been a lie from the beginning.

Folks on your side, such as Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage, the Family Research Council, and the rest of the pseudo defenders of morality will probably whine about how you all have been unfairly labeled as “bigots.” And I am sure that they will point out that every time there has been a public vote on marriage equality, the lgbt community has always lost.

But they will conveniently omit how these victories were attained. You won’t hear about how they invoked images of gay boogeymen molesting children in false ads nor will they admit to telling lies about children supposedly being taught about gay sex.

You won’t hear them admit to exploiting people’s unconscious fears and ignorance of the lgbt community in order to spin outrageous scenarios of what could happen should lgbts be allowed to marry.

And don’t be surprised by this. Those like Gallagher will never admit to the depths they stooped to win not only in California but other places like Maine.

But there is a reason why this country has checks and balances. And there is a reason why people can’t arbitrarily vote on the rights of others without having to defend this vote in the logical arena of courts, where you can’t invoke panic by proverbially yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

In the courts, you must defend your position. And in the long run, you couldn’t. Or rather many of you wouldn’t. Again, the specters of gay bogeymen were invoked as your leaders spun false images of avenging hordes for their reluctance to be questioned in the courts about the unprovoked lies they said in pulpits, in speeches, and on commercials.

This time, it didn’t work. The court saw through the phony claims and realized something, which I hope that many of you now do - you have no logical reason to either deny us the right to love or to deny us the ability to protect the ones whom we love.

But please don’t think that even though we are celebrating, the lgbt community is naive to think that this ends the struggle for marriage equality.

We know this is just the beginning of a long fight to attain something that should have been ours from the beginning.

But that’s okay.

We are a community who learn from our past mistakes. At times we lose, but we learn to adapt and we eventually win.

So bring it on. We are not afraid.
http://holybulliesandheadlessmonsters.blogspot.com/2010/08/dear-proposition-8-supporters-you-lost.html

[Eris0303]

Posted: 8/5/10 at 12:53pm

While we're posting what other people wrote on facebook I'll go ahead and share something someone posted on a friend's wall. Honestly, I don't even know what to say to it.

"Seven million California voters supported the vote. The no camp had every opportunity to garner the majority and they failed. In a democracy anything over 50% is enough. You could use the equal protection clause of the US Constitution to argue for greater rights for people with ginger hair...it does not make it right, and it does not mean that a federal judge should intervene when a state has legislated on an issue that is reserved for states to determine. It is a sad day for democracy, and I would feel very much disenfranchised if I were a citizen of California."

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 8/5/10 at 12:58pm

First of all, you can tell your friend's friend we're actually a republic.

Also, the ginger hair comment is stupid. Feel free to quote me there.

And then say that only the bigoted citizens of California should feel disenfranchised.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 8/5/10 at 12:59pm

Eris, right there you have the position the Fourth Reich will take when making their appeal.

You could point out that nobody's legislating for greater rights for anyone. The whole point is EQUAL RIGHTS, not special rights.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 8/5/10 at 1:06pm

If they want to invoke ginger haired people, tell them to come up with a reason for the gingers to not have the same rights as the blonds and brunettes.

THEN they would have a parallel.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 8/5/10 at 1:07pm

And when states start voting against the rights of ginger haired people, I will speak out against that injustice, too.

[Eris0303]

Posted: 8/5/10 at 1:18pm

Okay, this is what I came up with:

"The thing is the voters voted against equal rights which should have never been left to the voters in the first place. These are our brothers, sisters, friends, etc. They are not nameless or faceless. It's not about "special rights" but equal rights. All they want are the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts. That is not too much to ask at all. No new rights are being created here. As the ruling stated 'A private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples is not a basis for lesgislation.'"

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 8/5/10 at 1:20pm

It is MUCH nicer than I would have been!

[Eris0303]

Posted: 8/5/10 at 1:23pm

I did hold back mostly out of respect for my friend who is for equality. The person has the same last name as him and I didn't want to cause a bru ha ha if it was his father/brother/etc.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/5/10 at 1:39pm

I had the same basic argument Eris and what I came up with is: But the constitution doesn't recognize that a vote by the general public trumps all. Laws can be made in many ways; By a majority vote in the congress (like the recent health care law) or, in some states, by a ballot initiative passed by a majority of voters (like prop . But both of them have to stand up to scrutiny by the courts, who are charged with examining a law and deciding if it's just. The courts can't say "We think this is wrong, but it seems to be popular, so go on ahead with it." That's not our system.

And incidentally, if you want to change the system, you have to change the constitution. There are explicit processes laid out as to how, right there in that same constitution.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 8/5/10 at 1:41pm

I guess by their logic, I can start a petition to seek an initiative prohibiting Christians from marrying. If I get enough votes, that is all that matters...

[bethnor]

Posted: 8/5/10 at 1:57pm

the ruling answers the whole "but we voted on it!"

we don't put fundamental rights to a vote. period.

i wonder how many complaining have actually read the ruling. the defense was embarrassing. their opening statement read as if it were written by helen lovejoy. "WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!"

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/5/10 at 2:10pm

Eris--that was a great answer. But don't be disappointed if you don't win the argument, especially online. Just be conte4nt in expressing your thoughts and feelings as well as you can. Then walk away from the argument and let the others "win."

This debate will be going on for the rest of our lives. And it's possible that the referendum process itself may be questioned.

But you can also open up a conversation with those friends about the fears that the Founding Fathers had about how the "tyranny of the majority" could undermine the republic. And engage them in a conversation about the difference between "democracy" and "mob rule."

But don't get upset if they cling to their old thoughts and get nasty. That's what people do when they're frightened that they've lost.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 8/5/10 at 2:24pm

Bigotry (and that's what is really at the bottom of this issue, make no goddamn mistake) doesn't respond to logic or reasoned argument, especially when the flames of hate are being fanned by the Fourth Reich.

Speaking of which, have Meghan and Cindi McCain and Laura Bush expressed their support for this momentous event?

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 8/5/10 at 2:28pm

A few thoughts from Alec Mapa on the subject:
Alec's message to America

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 8/5/10 at 2:30pm

Megan McCain tweeted the following yesterday: "Amazing news about prop 8!!! I have faith we are one step closer to gay marriage being passed in this country!!"

I have no idea what Mama McCain or Mrs. Shrub do or tweet.

[romantico]

Posted: 8/5/10 at 2:36pm

I just had to share this. I could not have said it better myself. I strongly suggest sending this to ANYONE who may disagree with gay marriage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQBrAtwVq0w