Moron of the Day Award 2 – November 21st

November 21, 2008

 

The Moron of the Day (2) award goes to:

User: armchairmba
Email: _@alumni.princeton.edu (I’ve omitted part of his email to protect him from the ridicule of his peers)

 

… for leaving me the following comment on a furious post I wrote about the CA Supreme Court justices being threatened with a recall if they overturn Proposition 8:

Well if any of the supremes donated money to the support proposition 8, they have already been targeted by the blacklist going around. The conservatives are furious as well. The will of the people voted across America. Not one of these prop 8 bills passed in any part of the country this election cycle. And thank goodness Barack seems to support our side: http://butasforme.com/2008/11/21/obama-will-repeal-dont-ask-dont-tell/

 

Where to start?  (God this is fun!)

1. Princeton?  LOL.  Damn Ivys are overrated.  Give me a good ol’ UC education any day.

2. Apparently, Princeton does not require basic instruction on how the American political system works.  Here’s a link (to a site for elementary school teachers) on how Supreme Courts work, and why the “word of the people” is not always the final word. 

3. Justices giving money to Prop 8?  What in the hell are you talking about?  What blacklist?  Watch much X-Files?  You don’t need a blacklist to find out who donated money, the list is public.  All you need is an Internet connection to find it.  And, if justices ruling on Prop 8 donated money, to either the Yes or No campaigns, of course they should be recalled, but who said anything about that?  Jeez.

But wait, it gets better, a lot better. 

4. Here’s the best part:

And thank goodness Barack seems to support our side: http://butasforme.com/2008/11/21/obama-will-repeal-dont-ask-dont-tell/

The link he provided me with, to prove his point, took me to a document (I didn’t even know about!!!!) outlining the multitude of ways Barack Obama intends to fight discrimination against the LGBT community in the United States.  Including:

  • Repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, allowing gays to serve openly in the military,
  • Supporting full rights, including federal for same sex couples, and,
  • OPPOSING A CONSTITUTIONAL BAN ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE (which is what Proposition 8 is, you moron).
Advertisements

Prop 8 Supporters Threaten Recall of CA Supreme Court Justices

November 21, 2008

 

Un-fucking-believable… I am simultaneously outraged and frightened.  Prop 8 supporters are threatening the Justices of the California Supreme Court, and it is the responsibility of those judges not to let fear of recall influence their votes?  How are they supposed to do that?  If it’s not gay marriage, what is the next issue they will be threatened with?  And how are they to vote judiciously and in accordance with the constitution of the State of California if they are under threat?

Is there any length to which these “people” will not go to to ensure gay couples cannot marry?  At what point will “good” “Christians” draw the line?  They shoot doctors who perform abortions, will they start shooting clergy who perform same-sex commitment ceremonies next?  I am furious!

Recall specter hangs over high court as it considers Prop 8 challenges

Backers of the measure banning gay marriage have said they will target justices who vote to overturn it.

… opponents of gay marriage have warned that they will work to oust any justice who votes against Proposition 8, a threat particularly palpable in a year when voters in other states have booted six state high court justices after campaigns by special interest groups.

“It is a time of lots of crocodiles in the bathtub,” said Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen, who has followed the court for decades. “Their oath requires them to ignore these kinds of political threats. But the threat of having to face a contested election is a significant one.”

Uelmen was using a metaphor coined by the late California Supreme Court Justice Otto Kaus, a Democrat who served on the court with Chief Justice Rose Bird before voters removed her and two justices over their opposition to the death penalty.

Kaus later said that as hard as he tried to decide cases impartially, he was never sure whether the threat of a recall election was influencing his votes.


An Almighty Tantrum!

November 20, 2008

 

For weeks I have read comment upon comment accusing Prop 8 opponents of throwing tantrums because we did not get our way.  To which I screamed “WE DO NOT!  WE DO NOT!” (whilst throwing a tantrum about being accused of throwing a tantrum).  So, I give.  I am throwing a tantrum.

Reeva Dubois on why he’s glad Prop 8 passed:

I have no doubt – NONE – that the fallout of Prop 8 will ultimately lead to the federal legalization of same-sex marriage. It might not be next year or ten years from now, but it’s on its way. The gays around this country are organizing, protesting, reaching out to those who continue to misunderstand our lives and stories, and since I have faith in America and everything she represents, I know we will win. That’s why I’m glad Prop 8 passed – it has given the gay rights movement a solid foundation from which to throw an Almighty Tantrum, and we will NEVER shut up about it!

This full essay is beautifully written, thanks Reeva!


SacBee on the CA Supreme Court Decision to take on Prop 8

November 19, 2008

Supreme Court takes up gay marriage issue

Published: Wednesday, Nov. 19, 2008

The California Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to consider complaints by opponents of Proposition 8 that it improperly revised the constitution to ban gay marriage. The court declined to stay its enforcement in the meantime.

Court spokeswoman Lynn Holton said the court asked the parties involved to write briefs arguing three issues:

(1) Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution?

(2) Does Proposition 8 violate the separation-of-powers doctrine under the California Constitution?

(3) If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?

Holton said the court established an expedited briefing schedule. She said oral argument could be held as early as March 2009.

While most proponents of the initiative had welcomed a Supreme Court review, one advocate of traditional marriage denounced the court’s decision to consider Proposition 8’s constitutionality.

“It’s unfortunate that the judges are giving time to the mushy, subjective arguments of homosexual activists who reject the clear reading of the constitution and the clear reading of Proposition 8,” Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families, said in a statement. “If the court disobeys the constitution by voiding Prop. 8, it will ignite a voter revolt. It will also threaten the validity of all future constitutional amendments.”

Thomasson said the court is “playing with fire” by threatening to reverse a vote of the people.

“The California Constitution clearly says that the voters have the right to alter the highest law of the land,” he said. “It’s the beauty of the American system of government. The four Supreme Court justices who unconstitutionally invented homosexual ‘marriages’ — Ron George, Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar and Carlos Moreno — seem to be ignoring the fact that the people get the last word, not the judges.”

The campaign committee that pushed the measure said it is “profoundly gratified” that court granted its requests and refused to allow outside groups like Thomasson’s to participate directly in the cases.

“This is a great day for the rule of law and the voters of California,” said ProtectMarriage.com General Counsel Andy Pugno in a statement. “This order means that voters will get their day in court and ensures that voters will have a vigorous defense of Proposition 8 before the California Supreme Court. We are profoundly gratified with the Court’s order and are confident that Proposition 8 will be upheld.”

The state’s highest court essentially agreed to the approach supported by state Attorney General Jerry Brown, who on Monday urged the justices to review legal challenges to Proposition 8 “to provide certainty and finality in this matter.” His office also argued that the court should allow the measure to remain in effect during the review period because doing otherwise would cause confusion.

Elizabeth Gill, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California, said opponents of Proposition 8 would have preferred that the court allow gay marriages until the issue is decided.

“We’re disappointed that the court didn’t issue a stay, but we’re very encouraged that the court is taking the case,” she said.


CA Supreme Court will hear cases regarding Proposition 8

November 19, 2008

 

This is wonderful news!!

 

California Supreme Court Grants Review in Prop 8 Legal Challenges

 Court to Determine Constitutionality of Prop 8

Today the California Supreme Court granted review in the legal challenges to Proposition 8, which passed by a narrow margin of 52 percent on November 4. In an order issued today, the Court agreed to hear the case and set an expedited briefing schedule. The Court also denied an immediate stay.     

On November 5, 2008, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit challenging the validity of Proposition 8 in the California Supreme Court on behalf of six couples and Equality California. The City of San Francisco, joined by the City of Los Angeles, the County of Los Angeles, and Santa Clara County, filed a similar challenge, as did a private attorney in Los Angeles.

The lawsuits allege that, on its face, Proposition 8 is an improper revision rather than an amendment of the California Constitution because, in its very title, which was “Eliminates the right to marry for same-sex couples,” the initiative eliminated an existing right only for a targeted minority. If permitted to stand, Proposition 8 would be the first time an initiative has successfully been used to change the California Constitution to take way an existing right only for a particular group. [emphasis mine] Such a change would defeat the very purpose of a constitution and fundamentally alter the role of the courts in protecting minority rights.   According to the California Constitution, such a serious revision of our state Constitution cannot be enacted through a simple majority vote, but must first be approved by two-thirds of the Legislature.   

Since the three lawsuits submitted on November 5, three other lawsuits challenging Proposition 8 have been filed. In a petition filed on November 14, 2008, leading African American, Latino, and Asian American groups argued that Proposition 8 threatens the equal protection rights of all Californians.

On November 17, 2008, the California Council of Churches and other religious leaders and faith organizations representing millions of members statewide, also filed a petition asserting that Proposition 8 poses a severe threat to the guarantee of equal protection for all, and was not enacted through the constitutionally required process for such a dramatic change to the California Constitution. On the same day, prominent California women’s rights organizations filed a petition asking the Court to invalidate Proposition 8 because of its potentially disastrous implications for women and other groups that face discrimination.

In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court held that barring same-sex couples from marriage violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and violates the fundamental right to marry. Proposition 8 would completely eliminate the right to marry only for same-sex couples. No other initiative has ever successfully changed the California Constitution to take away a right only from a targeted minority group.    

Over the past 100 years, the California Supreme Court has heard nine cases challenging either legislative enactments or initiatives as invalid revisions of the California Constitution. In three of those cases, the Court invalidated those measures.

Via EQCA.  For more about the cases click here.


Gay & Straight Water Fountains

November 19, 2008

 

Well.  For me this says it all, but it got a “letter to the editor” in our local paper.  And the guy wasn’t complaining about the racial component to this cartoon, an argument I have some empathy for.  He’s just offended.  What do you think?

 

 

mp1107

Insulting cartoon

EDITOR: I find the Thursday cartoon by Mike Peters offensive and insulting to anyone who ascribes to marriage being between one man and one woman. Peters implies we are prejudiced for what we believe. Why would you be so insensitive as to allow such a blatant caricature to be published? I voted for Proposition 8 because I believe it represents what is traditional, and that it should be held as such.

I am not a Mormon, and my church had nothing to do with my vote. I am fed up with the in-your-face gay movement. I have three nephews who are gay, and they do not force their gender preferences on others, nor do they denigrate my preference. I respect them. What I cannot respect is activists who will not accept a democratic vote. The image of gay-rights activists marching, desecrating churches and creating havoc is antithetical to their cause.

Get rid of the gay pride parades showing naked, tattooed and hair-spiked gays, and maybe you will have more respect from those of us who want to be tolerant and understand you better. And in the process, try to be more tolerant of our beliefs. You are not the only people on this earth.

BURT BARNES

Healdsburg

Via The Press Democrat, Tuesday, Nov 18, 2008.


LGBTQ Civil Rights Events – December 2008

November 18, 2008

 

Event Details

 

A Day Without a Gay – “Call in Gay” – December 10th

Where: Nationwide
When: Wednesday, December 10th, all day
More information: tina@equalityactionnow.org

On December 10th (there has been some dispute about the date, it IS Wednesday, December 10th) supporters of the LGBTQ community are going on strike for one day to protest the passing of Proposition 8 and the removal of civil rights from the California Constitution of the LGBTQ community.

24 hours without our money, one day with no shopping (I know, I know… this will be HARD).  But the good part is that you can “Call in Gay.” Just say “I feel a little queer today, and I won’t be in.”

 

I’m pulling most of my information about events from other sites with no personal commentary. But I’d like to interject is a personal plea/request. Stay out of the bars too. I know they’re owned by our gay friends, and our friends serve our drinks and rely on our tips to pay their bills. It’s a tough call and I’m sorry.  I don’t want to hurt them.  But this action HAS TO HURT. The nation’s economy has to feel this, or we did it for nothing.

I’m taking it one step further, I’m requesting not to be paid for that day. I don’t want any tax money I would have paid to go to the government. I’m a nut job, I know.