Well Maine voted, and it is all but official... being proven right is small consolation, but I still maintain that it is a chump's game to allow the majority to vote on the civil rights of any minority... going through the courts is a much better strategy.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: Become a Podcaster | Find a Show
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2012 the authors
That's really sad. It's hard to wrap my mind around the idea that people would "inspired" enough about this issue to become activists in order to prevent gay marriage. It is seriously confusing. It's so difficult to generate activism in people and this is what does it?
This is what happens when you let bigots decide who gets rights and who doesn't. In the end a lot of loving and caring people are losing out. What is sad is that this is Maine. I'm not even sure how they managed to stay so backwards in the US and it appears to be getting worse, not better.
Human rights should never ever be up for debate.
That's the thing bagkitty, the courts would rule against them, and they most likely know it. Just stick in another ballot issue and let the masses take care of it. Why this is such an issue for straights is beyond me.
The only "good" news is how close the vote was 53-47. That simply requires a 3% swing next time.
I wrote to a friend on Facebook who is originally from Maine and has just become a Canadian citizen, what Stargazer posted in her second paragraph. He concurred. Unfortunately, the USian model of democracy does not.
Of course, if the boundary had have been settled properly these people would all be NBers.
well, but the bigger picture is not just a 3 per cent swing -- but that 31 states have now outlawed ssm by referenda/plebiscites
Yes, that is the big picture, but here in NB many of us are cheering for our next door neighbour to come aboard.
I'm a little surprised that wasn't used as an ad, showing video of a nice neighbourhood in NB proving that gay marriage is not the end of the world. Then again, Americans generally don't like being told to be like somewhere else, so that might have backfired.
Virginia attorney general to colleges: End gay protections
California: Sonoma County CA separates elderly gay couple and sells all of their worldly possessions
*bump*
California: Sonoma County CA separates elderly gay couple and sells all of their worldly possessions
UNFUCKINGBELIEVABLE.
I love american democracy it is so great. You should use your military to spread it throughout the world and save all those misguided people who are not christian. I'll bet those county officials go to church every Sunday to condemn the sins of others.
I still maintain that it is a chump's game to allow the majority to vote on the civil rights of any minority... going through the courts is a much better strategy.
I disagree. Sustainable victories are built through mass action, not by relying on judges or other elites. I've seen too many cases of hollow court victories ignored by governments because there is no grassroots campaign behind the legal win. Progressive forces need to work harder to build public support for minority rights.
Joey... it is not a completely either/or situation. I would, though, suggest you would have a very hard time documenting a single instance where a real step forward towards legislative equality for the LGBT communities is the result of grassroots initiative (referenda) as opposed to court ordered or executive action. I agree completely that change "from on high" will not survive without extensive grassroot support, but I think there is a much better case to be made that the "court tactic" is the one that has provided results here in Canada, and in just about every other jurisdiction that comes to mind (South Africa, Spain, Argentina etc.).
moved to end of thread
As a straight man, I do not want other men thinking about my butt and masterbating. I do not want other men pulling down my pants or grabbing my penis. And I most definitely do NOT want a finger, or penis, inserted in my rectum!
The troll is gone.
Damn it Maysie, now we will never know how he would respond to a woman who wanted to introduce a strap-on into the proceedings. How am I supposed to conduct my research into the fetish interests of trolls if you keep tossing them off the bridge?
I actually thought I read Str8man's prose in a recent online dating site's ad.
Purely for research purposes you understand.
Could one of the Mods please delete STR8MAN 's post. Thanks!
deleted
NCLR Launches Visibility Campaign to Expose Tragic Case Where Sonoma County Separated Elderly Gay Couple, Sold Off All Belongings
http://nclrights.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/nclr-launches-visibility-campa...
I still maintain that it is a chump's game to allow the majority to vote on the civil rights of any minority... going through the courts is a much better strategy.
I disagree. Sustainable victories are built through mass action, not by relying on judges or other elites. I've seen too many cases of hollow court victories ignored by governments because there is no grassroots campaign behind the legal win. Progressive forces need to work harder to build public support for minority rights.
I think that's exactly right.
Ultimately, all right and wrong is determined by the majority. If the majority is large enough, even courts can't overcome majority will (e.g., court power or rulings can be completely eviscerated by changing the constitution...which is inherently a majoritarian document).
Long-term, majority rule cannot be circumvented.
With vigilence, the relatively near-term trajectory for equal rights for gays and lesbians looks very good.
Humans have been around for several hundred thousand years...and it's truly breathtaking to consider the progress that's been made in just the last century. Less than 100 years ago, women couldn't vote in the US (and about 150 years ago, slavery was legal in many US states).
A lot of progress will be made in the next 100-150 years and, in the scheme of human history, that's a nanosecond.
I would, though, suggest you would have a very hard time documenting a single instance where a real step forward towards legislative equality for the LGBT communities is the result of grassroots initiative (referenda) as opposed to court ordered or executive action.
The good ol' libertarian-leaning state of Vermont (one doesn't even need a permit to carry a handgun in Vermont) legislatively created the right to same sex marraige in that state last year (the legislature overrode the "executive action" of the governor's veto).
ETA: Oh, and New Hampshire also passed a law permitting SSM in that state (the law took effect earlier this year).
ETAA: Sweden, through parlimentary action, also created the right of SSM in Sweden in 2009.
There are seven countries (so far) which legally recognize SSM:
The Netherlands passed legislation to permit SSM in 2001.
Belgium passed legislation to permitt SSM in 2003.
Spain passed SSM legislation in 2005.
Canada completed the task begun by courts by passing national legislation 2005.
South Africa passed legislation in 2006 to permit SSM.
Norway, also through legislation action, permitting SSM in 2008.
Sweden (see post above).
Hmmm, and when did legislators become anything other than than an elite? Perhaps I misspoke when I referred to "executive actiion", at least in part because of my understanding on how various legislative bodies function... All the instances I am seeing referenced are ones I would categorize as "change from above", with the possible exception of New Hampshire.
Hmmm, and when did legislators become anything other than than an elite? Perhaps I misspoke when I referred to "executive actiion", at least in part because of my understanding on how various legislative bodies function... All the instances I am seeing referenced are ones I would categorize as "change from above", with the possible exception of New Hampshire.
The two principal means by which almost all laws come into effect (at least in democracies) are: (1) legislative action (which is the primary means) or (2) court rulings.
The legitimacy of court rulings that create new rights, and which are substantially contrary to democratic will, are often questioned. If, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court were to hold, as a matter of constitutional law, that a fetus is a "human" and thus entitled to all rights and protections of other humans, the only way for that rulings to be overturned would be a constitutional amendment (even a law subsequently passed by Congress and signed by the President could not overturn that decision). The legitimacy of such a ruling would be hotly attacked.
While the legislative process often looks like the proverbial sausage-making factory, that process is answerable to a vote by the people (if voters don't like what the legislators have done, then the voters they can kick the legislators out of office and change the law). Hence, it's rare for legislative action to be subsequently attacked as being democratically illegitimate. The legitimacy of the legislative process is well accepted.
If rights created legislatively are more likely to be viewed as being legitimate, then I think the durability of the decisions creating those rights is likely to be greater than when rights are created by a process which may be viewed by a substantial portion of the public as being illegitimate.
That's why I'm so excited about the legislative decisions regarding SSM in Vermont and New Hampshire.
And now there are eight. The Althingi voted unanimously to alter the language of its marriage laws to allow same sex couples to marry. We can now start the countdown to when one of the god-ridden will announce that volcanic eruption in Iceland was a warning...
Of course, if the boundary had have been settled properly these people would all be NBers.
...strangely, they never put that up to a referendum...
Meanwhile, in California...
Meanwhile, in Oklahoma:
Thirty-five years to amend a municipal non-discrimination policy.
Meanwhile, in Hawaii:
Governor of Hawaii decides to veto House bill to allow for civil unions... obviously the back of the bus is too good for the LGBT community in her mind... I wonder how she feels about people grabbing the back bumper and being dragged along the pavement?
"I have been open and consistent in my opposition to same-gender marriage, and find that House Bill 444 is essentially marriage by another name," the governor said.
Meanwhile, in Texas:
Perhaps still stinging from the Lawrence v. Texas loss in 2003, the Texas GOP has decided to "update" their platform.
We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy. We support legislation that would make it a felony to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple and for any civil official to perform a marriage ceremony for such. We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases.
And not to be outdone, Montana 's GOP wants to play too:
In their newly unveiled 2010 Platform, the Montana GOP has included a plank (under "Crime") which states:
We support the clear will of the people of Montana expressed by legislation to keep homosexual acts illegal.
(Little reality note - it is not really a matter of keeping homosexual acts illegal, since the Montana Supreme Court overturned the State's anti-sodomy laws in 1997... so I guess they need an editor to change the wording in the platform to replace "keep" with "make")
I had actually forgotten about this story and how the vote turned out. That is really bad news.
On the notion that human rights should be up for vote, yes, agreed, though I also find it odd that in the U.S. they expect that justices will rule according to their politics, not just according to jurisprudence. I know in reality it happens here too, but I find the whole process down there of vetting judges according to their politics and accepting that it will be part of their decision-making process is not really in keeping with the spirit of the law, IMO.
Sometimes personal beliefs and politics need to be set aside in the interest of the common good. Here's a good example from a guy who (in this case at least) got that notion and did the right thing: http://www.yawningbread.org/apdx_2005/imp-176.htm
The court system in the US is no remedy either to backward religiously inspired public opinion. Judges in many jurisdictions are elected by the same demographics who attack marginalized communities with voting to maintain the oppression. Deliberations regarding basic justice and human rights are often conducted with an eye over ones shoulder.
Meanwhile, in California:
Federal judge Vaughn Walker has overturned California's ban on same-sex marriage (prop 8)
And the news out of Mississippi is even worse. I followed a link from Joe.My.God about polling of the Republican base (PDF of the results here), particularly interesting for the way the plurality of respondents who believe interracial marriage should be illegal (Q14 in the poll) gets broken down into support for potential Republican aspirants to be the party's presidential nominee.
I will also observe that I am totally gob-smacked that pollsters would even think to ask this question.
I will also observe that I am totally gob-smacked that pollsters would even think to ask this question.
This is the most brutal anti-human society on earth today. They invade and murder people at long distance, people they have never met, to satisfy their greed, and justify it by portraying others as less than human.
Furthermore, to keep their cannon fodder in line, they brutalize people by allowing these kinds of questions to be asked - thus presenting them as legitimate and respectable topics of discussion - and then, of course, like any filthy hypocrite, blame the unwashed masses for holding the very opinions which the ruling elite is pleased to perpetuate.
Why would you be "gob-smacked" that pollsters in such a brutal society would think to ask this question? Asking questions like these is one of the levers by which they maintain their power, domestically and abroad.
I see Reconstruction was a smashing success.
@Unionist:
I am gob-smacked because of the potential of a discussion of the results of this poll question to drive a wedge between the dominant arch-conservatives and their conservative African-American allies (a group I see as primarily, but not exclusively, theologically driven) who have spent a great deal of time trying to convince their constituencies that SSM (in the U.S.) is "not a civil rights issue". Perhaps I should have been clearer above and pointed out that I am not gob-smacked by the results, I reserve that reaction only to the fact that the question and results are being paraded around publicly. Of course it is highly unlikey that the MSM will pick up on this story - so maybe those who commissioned the poll can have their cake and eat it too.
I never understood why the US has to have defense (ha!) spending at more than the rest of the world combined, and more than 700+ military bases worldwide. This will be their downfall, I predict - they simply can not sustain this spending forever.
...they brutalize people by allowing these kinds of questions to be asked...
I guess I wouldn't be in favor of the government censoring any polling questions.
In fact, in this particular case, having this polling information provides some valuable insight into the views of, as the polling report called them, "hardcore Republican voters" in Mississippi. I'd rather have that information out in the open rather than swept under the rug.
Just like we need white coated scientists going around with calipers measuring people's heads? If it doesn't have even the thinnest veneer of legitimacy, why would we consider it 'valuable insight.'
Meanwhile, in California, yet more court room fun and games in regards to Prop 8. Although I must be honest, I am linking not so much for the story as for the comments that appear below it (okay, one small warning about them, they definitely contain language and imagery that would have one cautioned here on rabble... but they are SO DAMN GOOD).
Let's not forget the fun and games in Wisconsin. 'Cuz it's so important to not "allow same-sex couples to take family and medical leave to care for a seriously ill partner, make end-of-life decisions and have hospital visitation rights".
New York's state Assembly Wednesday night approved a same-sex marriage bill, sending it to the Senate, where it faces a closer vote.
The Marriage Equality Act passed the Assembly 80-63.
It would grant same-sex couples equal rights to marry "as well as hundreds of rights, benefits and protections that are currently limited to married couples of the opposite sex," according to Gov. Andrew Cuomo's office.
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/US/06/15/new.york.gay.marriage/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
The Marriage Equality Act passed the Assembly 80-63.
It would grant same-sex couples equal rights to marry "as well as hundreds of rights, benefits and protections that are currently limited to married couples of the opposite sex," according to Gov. Andrew Cuomo's office.
I think this is great news out of NY. Very encouraging. The bill only needs a very few Republicans to support it and the chances of Senate passages are decent. If it passes the senate, the governor will sign the bill into law.
Legislative victories, like I hope this one will be, are far better than court-imposed solutions because, unlike "legislating from the bench," the legitimacy of democratically-passed legislation is really beyond question and any attacks on the legitimacy of the process will ring hollow to the vast majority of voters.
Here in Minnesota, there is going to be a voter referendum on the issue of same-sex marriage. Again, if it passes, and I think there is a reasonable chance that it will, the legitimacy of the new law will be unassailable.
The trend in favor of same-sex marriage (and the expansion of similar rights) is definitely in the right direction.
1. Not same sex marriage, same-legal-sex marriage.
2. It does seem like, being L and T at the same time, the L has once again bait-and-switched the T... so I can't get fired for kissing a girl in New York State, just being one.
3. Legislative victories are great... but as we saw with bill C-389, sometimes the leaders who are 'on your side' in the legislature care more about getting a concession on heating oil taxes than civil rights. (Yeah, I don't think I can let go of that one given how confidence motions have been treated in this country the past six years.)
This graphic goes along with an excellent article from equalityMATTERS talking about the laws still on the books and capriciously used to intimdate LGBT people.
Unfortunately, the practice of improperly arresting gays and lesbians on "crime against nature" or sodomy charges only to have them later dismissed is not uncommon in states that still maintain these laws. In Virginia, for example, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's office defends the practice, stating it was "how the system works."
A mandatory minimum of 5 years in Idaho - holy shit.
When's the last time any of these laws were actually enforced? I seem to recall a case in Texas several years ago (Lawrence vs. Texas, I believe) where this was struck down as unconstitutional.
There is a fair bit of information in the article.
That's a really good article, bagkitty. It was enlightening to me that, despite Lawrence v. Texas, the laws continue to be used to harrass people. Even if a couple is not convicted, it's intolerable to have people arrested, booked, and jailed overnight (and forced to incur legal fees) for "breaking" a law that cannot be enforced. Even if the laws were completely dormant (i.e., not only not enforced but also not used to harrass people), they should be removed from the books because they unjustly cast a shadow on a particular group of innocent people.
When's the last time any of these laws were actually enforced? I seem to recall a case in Texas several years ago (Lawrence vs. Texas, I believe) where this was struck down as unconstitutional.
That's not really the point, though. What matters is that almost half of those Mississippi Republican voters polled still want interracial marriage to be illegal.
(as an Alaskan, I found it weirdly predictable that Sarah Palin had a 74% favorable rating among those who wanted to see interracial marriage recriminalized-ten points higher than the rating she received among the minority who don't oppose interracial marriage).
Following on Sven's thoughts I think these laws are more useful to the authorities as a means of harrassment, and keeping people in fear so that some of them will toe the line.
If they started seriously applying them and jailing people there would be a court challenge and they would be removed. But no convictions means no grounds for appeal and challenge.
And after all, once someone is arrested, outed and shamed in public the damage is done.
Similarly, if the authorities started a real war on drugs - busting middle class and wealthy dope smokers and not just the poor, Those laws would be gone daddy gone. Of course that was never what any of these laws were all about. If it were then cigarettes and booze would be illegal too.
In all jurisdictions sodomy is a crime in Canada. Our law is not a hold over from another era it is in fact a new law passed with all parties in the House supporting it. One brave MP said no to criminalizing gay teen sex.
Anal intercourse
159. (1) Every person who engages in an act of anal intercourse is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Exception
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to any act engaged in, in private, between
(a) husband and wife, or
(b) any two persons, each of whom is eighteen years of age or more,
both of whom consent to the act.
When's the last time any of these laws were actually enforced? I seem to recall a case in Texas several years ago (Lawrence vs. Texas, I believe) where this was struck down as unconstitutional.
Dude... read the article to answer your question.
... Sarah Palin had a 74% favorable rating among those who wanted to see interracial marriage recriminalized ...
Interesting, given that Palin's own marriage is interracial. (Todd Palin is part Yu'pik.)
Well, that actually makes sense in Mississippi, which, like a lot of other Deep South states, has a lot of ultra right-wing "white folks" who have partial Native American/FN ancestry.
Well, that actually makes sense in Mississippi, which, like a lot of other Deep South states, has a lot of ultra right-wing "white folks" who have partial Native American/FN ancestry.
And in at least one instance, a guy who was white, and an outright klansman, but passed himself off as Cherokee in order to launch a highly successful writing career.
I knew somebody would remember him.
I didn't think this was the demographics of the American South forum, much less the Sarah Palin and other assorted GOP asshats forum [even though they are going to get mentioned a lot].
Oh wait.. it isn't!
Thanks for the interesting diversion, can we return to our original programming now, please and thank you.
A U.S. federal appeals court on Tuesday declared California's same-sex marriage ban to be unconstitutional, putting the bitterly contested, voter-approved law on track for likely consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that a lower court judge correctly interpreted the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court precedents when he declared in 2010 that Proposition 8 was a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/02/07/california-samesex.htmltsk tsk Caissa, this is the BAD news thread, that news was already posted in the GOOD news thread (and yes, my CD and book collections are neatly alphabetized by artist/author, and chronologically thereafter)
The title of that thread through me off. I suppose the courts siding with human rights could be considered "novel".
Ah the fault is partially mine, I should have called it something along the lines of "nice things to read in the morning"