NationStates Jolt Archive

wasn't it voted on to be banned at the start, but the California Supreme Court overturned that?
And so then the anti-gay side upped the ante by making the next one a constitutional amendment.

And so then the anti-gay side upped the ante by making the next one a constitutional amendment.

which they MAY have messed up in the process, if it's a revision.

Where was all this moral outrage when other, normally reasonably progressive, states banned gay marriage? Why did the homosexuals of Wisconsin, Michigan, Vermont or New Jersey not rate this sort of concern?

You haven't been on NSG very long, have you?

And so then the anti-gay side upped the ante by making the next one a constitutional amendment.
Well, technically a change to the Constitution, which is where the next legal challenge begins.

In California, to make a change to the constitution you haveto have a 2/3s of the legislature, and a majority vote by the people. The former didn't happen, and thus the pro-gay marraige side is using that to try to get an injunction on the enforcement of Prop 8. I only hope it works

He says EVERYONE should be celibate if they can, though. (Well, it's actually more DIRECTLY a call to cut your own nuts off, technically).

Wasn't that Paul?

Wasn't that Paul?

Matthew 19:12 "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it]."

The usual meaning ascribed to 'eunuch' is - obviously - an emasculated man.

It is somewhat interesting that it can also mean someone who chooses not to have children. (Sex and sexuality are irrelevant in that meaning). Even more interesting, is the fact that 'eunuch' may be a euphemism for homosexual - i.e. a person unsuited to producing children in the conventional manner...

You haven't been on NSG very long, have you?

To be fair, almost everything that ever happens outrages at least some sects on NSG... which is why this place is so entertaining. ^^;

Where was all this moral outrage when other, normally reasonably progressive, states banned gay marriage? Why did the homosexuals of Wisconsin, Michigan, Vermont or New Jersey not rate this sort of concern?

Wisconsin, Michigan, Vermont and New Jersey's combined populations (25 million) are less than the population of California (36.5 million). That could have something to do with it, that's all I'm sayin.

And so then the anti-gay side upped the ante by making the next one a constitutional amendment.

so this seems like a classic battle of 'will of the people' vs legal/constitutional terminology.

Matthew 19:12 "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it]."

The usual meaning ascribed to 'eunuch' is - obviously - an emasculated man.

It is somewhat interesting that it can also mean someone who chooses not to have children. (Sex and sexuality are irrelevant in that meaning). Even more interesting, is the fact that 'eunuch' may be a euphemism for homosexual - i.e. a person unsuited to producing children in the conventional manner...
ah, but accept what? "it" is rather ambigous. is he talking about celibacym the Kingdom of Heaven, or homosexuality?

it can be argued back and forth and since the earlier verses talks about Divorce, could [it] be in reference to marriage?

of course, that's an argument for another thread. :p

so this seems like a classic battle of 'will of the people' vs legal/constitutional terminology.
Not the first time. IMO, the contracts clause completely fucks any attempt to illegalize gay marriage on a state level following legalization in any state that permits out of state residents to readily marry, as does the 1st amendment in and of itself, and the 14th amendment in and of itself bars alternate attempts to justify gay marriage bans on sodomy/lifestyle grounds.

Unfortunately, I don't sit on the Supreme Court - or any federal bench - so my august opinion is treated with fairly little weight. For the record, many past such battles (see Brown v. Board of Education) have generally wound up on the side of barring the government from engaging in popular (but wrongful) activity, but it's hardly unusual for the Court to make some bad decisions before it makes a good one and sticks with it.

Where was all this moral outrage when other, normally reasonably progressive, states banned gay marriage?

Same-sex marriage did not already exist in those states.

Not the first time. IMO, the contracts clause completely fucks any attempt to illegalize gay marriage on a state level following legalization in any state that permits out of state residents to readily marry, as does the 1st amendment in and of itself, and the 14th amendment in and of itself bars alternate attempts to justify gay marriage bans on sodomy/lifestyle grounds.

Unfortunately, I don't sit on the Supreme Court - or any federal bench - so my august opinion is treated with fairly little weight. For the record, many past such battles (see Brown v. Board of Education) have generally wound up on the side of barring the government from engaging in popular (but wrongful) activity, but it's hardly unusual for the Court to make some bad decisions before it makes a good one and sticks with it.

well... bad decision is a matter of POV. but you can't expect everyone to be happy with any and all decisions.

Unfortunately, I don't sit on the Supreme Court - or any federal bench - so my august opinion is treated with fairly little weight. For the record, many past such battles (see Brown v. Board of Education) have generally wound up on the side of barring the government from engaging in popular (but wrongful) activity, but it's hardly unusual for the Court to make some bad decisions before it makes a good one and sticks with it.

Indeed, one can hardly mention Brown and bad decisions before good without conjuring up the memory of Plessy (and the same can be said for Lawrence and Bowers)

But this is a poor argument.

One procedure for amending the California Constitution is initiative and majority vote. That's the law, it was the law before Prop. 8, and if you have a problem with that aspect of the law, you have to change the constitution, and you can't do that in court. The role of the people has always been to craft and amend the constitution (directly or through the legislature); the role of the courts is to interpret it. There's no alteration to those roles with Prop. 8.

Actually, it isn't that bad of an argument. The California Constitution (and subsequent caselaw) makes a distinction between an "amendment" and a "revision."

The argument then is this: Pursuant to Article 18 of the California Constitution, a proposed change that seeks to elaborate or improve upon existing constitutional principles can be enacted through the initiative process as an "amendment." But a measure that seeks to change the "underlying principles" of the CC and/or would make "far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan" is a revision and must follow a more deliberative procedure, requiring approval by two-thirs of both houses of the Legislature to submit the measure either to the voters or to a constitutional convention. Thus, the question is whether Prop. 8 is merely an amendment or is a revision. The argument that Prop. 8 is a revision comes from the following: (1) it works a dramatic, substantive change to the CC's underlying principles of individual equality; (2) unlike any other constitutional initiative in California history, it eliminates a fundamental right -- the right to marry; (3) by prohibiting California courts from exercising their core, traditional, constitutional role of protecting established rights and equality, Prop 8 also would effect a "far reaching change in the nature of our basic government plan."

I'm not saying this argument is right, but it does appear to have some merit and is supported by some prior caselaw. There are several prior cases of the California Supreme Court deliniating the substantive difference between revisions and amendments. For example, in Raven v. Deukmejian, 52 Cal.3d 336 (1990), the Court struck down an initiative that would have made certain rights of criminals under the California Constitution coextensive with rights under the federal Constitution. Because an effect of that proposition would have meant courts in California could no longer have the authority to interpret the state Constitution in a manner more protective of defendant's rights than extended by the federal Constitution, the change was held to "substantially alter the substance and integrity of the state Constitution as a document of independent force and effect" and was therefore an invalid revision.

Here is a link to the pdf brief (http://www.nclrights.org/site/DocServer/CampaignPetition.pdf?docID=4321) arguing that Prop. 8 revises the CC and is therefore not been validly passed.

Yeah, I hope they stay Prop. 8 for a while. The more same-sex marriages before it comes into effect, the better.

Unfortunately, it appears proponents of Prop. 8 plan to argue that it applies retroactively and invalidates any same-sex marriage regardless of when or where it occurred. The California Attorney General has opined that this is not true, but the matter will have to be litigated.

I find that convincing - but I doubt they would've attempted to push it through as a "revision" under those requirements. Seriously - 2/3 legislative majority? I don't think so.

The distinction is interesting. I'm surprised I hadn't heard anybody explain this regarding Prop 8 before. I'm sure no time is being wasted in the court challenges.

The argument that Prop. 8 is a revision comes from the following: (1) it works a dramatic, substantive change to the CC's underlying principles of individual equality;

But this, I think, is a weak argument to make. It ignores two aspects of Prop. 8.

First, the measure poses no threat whatsoever to any other element of equal protection. It amends only marriage. While equal protection may be a fundamental, underlying principle, this measure does not affect equal protection as such; it affects equal protection with respect to one particular aspect of law. Any other restrictions on equal protection would have to go through the entire amendment process to get enacted. (And, again, while that amendment process may be far too easy to carry out, that has nothing to do with the merits of Prop. 8 itself.)

Second, the measure does not even outright reject the legitimacy of applying equal protection principles to marriage. Giving the proponents the benefit of the doubt, they would probably claim that "traditional" marriage laws are not discriminatory at all--that they are founded not in a dislike of people of a given sexual orientation but rather in a legitimate government purpose in protecting a traditional family structure that best protects social well-being. The California Supreme Court disagrees, and rightly so, but right or wrong, to argue that "traditional" marriage is not a violation of equal protection is simply not the same as to argue that marriage should be exempted from equal protection; it poses much less of a "dramatic, substantive change."

(2) unlike any other constitutional initiative in California history, it eliminates a fundamental right -- the right to marry;

But the proponents can claim credibly that "the right to marry" is not unlimited and never has been: children cannot marry, siblings cannot marry, people in polyamorous relationships cannot marry all their partners, and so forth.

"Reasonable people can disagree," they might argue, "as to whether this right should be extended to same-sex couples, but since the right is already denied to certain groups to deny it to another poses no fundamental alteration to the existing constitutional system."

(3) by prohibiting California courts from exercising their core, traditional, constitutional role of protecting established rights and equality, Prop 8 also would effect a "far reaching change in the nature of our basic government plan."

I think this one, like the equal protection claim, fails to account for the narrowness of Prop. 8. It does not generally abridge court authority to rule on cases of equal protection and civil rights. It does so only on one particular aspect of one particular right--whether marriage is to only be between a man and a woman. That's hardly a "far reaching change."

For example, in Raven v. Deukmejian, 52 Cal.3d 336 (1990), the Court struck down an initiative that would have made certain rights of criminals under the California Constitution coextensive with rights under the federal Constitution.

Yes, I know. I am far from an expert in California law--or any kind of law for that matter--but my understanding is that the narrowness element is crucial here, too. Other propositions that restricted court authority with respect to particular defendants' rights had been upheld; the issue with Prop. 115, overturned in Raven v. Deukmejian, was that it denied the courts' independent authority with respect to a "wide spectrum of important rights."

So, if Prop. 8 suggested something like "equal protection can only be interpreted by the California courts as the federal courts have interpreted it", that would be out. But since it only demands a narrowness of interpretation with respect to one specific issue, it makes no "far reaching, fundamental changes."

Andrew Sullivan linked to this blog post (http://volokh.com/posts/1225923130.shtml) on the subject that swayed me (and educated me) on this particular point.

All of that said, I don't have enough integrity to be anything but delighted if the courts overturn that disgusting proposition. Here's hoping. :)

Unfortunately, it appears proponents of Prop. 8 plan to argue that it applies retroactively and invalidates any same-sex marriage regardless of when or where it occurred. The California Attorney General has opined that this is not true, but the matter will have to be litigated.

Right, but my understanding is that that could go either way.

Certainly, no one should marry who does not know exactly what he or she is getting into, but I bet Prop. 8's passage will ensure that that's the case.

First, California is large and has a long history of leading on gay rights. (See San Francisco). The sheer size of California meant lots of marriages would be involved - and also more likely to provoke a serious contracts clause challenge in federal courts of another state's gay marriage bans.

Second, and more importantly, this marks a reversal of progress. All the other states in which gay marriage has been banned did not have legalized gay marriage before - it was simply a pre-emptive strike to prevent gay marriage from becoming legalized.

So that makes the civil rights of the people in those states less important than Californians?

You haven't been on NSG very long, have you?

Only since fall of 2004 or spring of 2005, I forget.

Wisconsin, Michigan, Vermont and New Jersey's combined populations (25 million) are less than the population of California (36.5 million). That could have something to do with it, that's all I'm sayin.

Because there are less people their rights matter less?

Same-sex marriage did not already exist in those states.

So?

So?

So it wasn't a step backward.

FL also passed a same-sex marriage ban, 62-38, one that was more far-reaching than CA's: it prohibits civil unions and domestic partnerships too. But it doesn't bother me as much (as much) because people have been passing same-sex marriage prohibitions left and right for quite a while, and because neither the Florida government nor the Florida courts seemed close to a legalization of any kind of same-sex partnership. In California, however, they did what they have never done before with respect to marriage: they reversed progress. Of the three footholds same-sex marriage has in the US, one was knocked over. That's very different from what's happened before.

That... and the fact that it's California. It's not the liberalism that's crucial, but the fact that if same-sex marriage had been kept it would have been a turning point: it's the most populous state in the union with a large influence on national culture, and having tens of thousands of married same-sex couples there (one estimate put the likely number at 50,000 or so within the next three years) would have contributed greatly to an overall national shift on the issue.

Had California kept same-sex marriage, it would have been the beginning of the end. We already saw New York's governor move to recognize same-sex marriages in response to the CA decision. Such changes would have been continued. Instead, we are not all that much further than we were a few years ago: we have two New England states instead of one.

although i support gay marriage i think it is important to note that this issue is inherently a states rights issue and should be voted upon by each state, and if that state votes to outlaw it, so be it, that is democracy and even though it shows the ignorance and pigheadedness of the american voter it must be held in the highest regard, it should be honored because it was democratically passed there should be no supreme court issue because this is not a federal issue it is a state issue. Although i would move for a new proposition asap which would repeal this prop.

although i support gay marriage i think it is important to note that this issue is inherently a states rights issue and should be voted upon by each state, and if that state votes to outlaw it, so be it, that is democracy and even though it shows the ignorance and pigheadedness of the american voter it must be held in the highest regard, it should be honored because it was democratically passed there should be no supreme court issue because this is not a federal issue it is a state issue. Although i would move for a new proposition asap which would repeal this prop.

I support gay marriage rights, and I don't think it's a state's rights issue. I don't believe that the states should be able to decide to act against the Constitution... and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one that thinks that.

I think democratic decisions are a sometimes necessary evil, but I don't believe they deserve to be final arbiters of law. 'The majority has spoken' is not a good enough reason to make a man a slave, to make a woman a sex-object... to remove rights from a couple because they are both carrying the same things in their lunchboxes.

this issue is inherently a states rights issue and should be voted upon by each state,

Yes, constitutionally, marriage is a state issue.

But that does not exempt state law from being held to its own constitution, nor does it exempt even marriage laws from being held to the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing equal protection, which explicitly applies to the states.

and if that state votes to outlaw it, so be it, that is democracy and even though it shows the ignorance and pigheadedness of the american voter it must be held in the highest regard,

Liberal democracy as it has developed does not elevate majority rule to be the absolute ruling principle. We also have (democratically-approved) constitutions that protect individual rights against the decisions of the majority. And we should, because we all know that the simple vote of the majority is no guarantor of right or justice. Some political principles, like equality under law, are too fundamental to be left to simple majority rule.

It is the duty of the courts to enforce those provisions of the federal and state constitutions. That's part of the rule of law.

there should be no supreme court issue because this is not a federal issue it is a state issue.

First, the "Supreme Court" relevant here is not the Supreme Court of the United States, but the California Supreme Court.

Second, again, it may well be a federal issue insofar as discriminatory marriage practices violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

So it wasn't a step backward.

I think that instating a ban where there wasn't one is a step backwards, even if it wasn't expressly permitted before. When the law is silent on the issue it's possible for brave individuals to attempt it and force a judicial showdown. Constitutional bans (and I can't overstate the silliness of having such religious claptrap in a civil document) prevent even those actions.

Yes, constitutionally, marriage is a state issue.

But that does not exempt state law from being held to its own constitution, nor does it exempt even marriage laws from being held to the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing equal protection, which explicitly applies to the states.

nor does it exempt them from recognizing other states' marriages under article iv, section 1, doma be damned.

although i support gay marriage i think it is important to note that this issue is inherently a states rights issue and should be voted upon by each state, and if that state votes to outlaw it, so be it, that is democracy and even though it shows the ignorance and pigheadedness of the american voter it must be held in the highest regard, it should be honored because it was democratically passed there should be no supreme court issue because this is not a federal issue it is a state issue. Although i would move for a new proposition asap which would repeal this prop.
Discrimination is not a state's rights issue. By which I mean, just because they are not the federal government doesn't give them the right to discriminate. When we reach the point, like we have, that it is the state's right to discriminate against X subset of people, then it is the federal government's job to step in and tell everyone how it is going to be done so as to remove the discrimination.

This is not a democracy, it is a democratic republic which is meant to dissuade and oppose tyranny by the majority.

PS. I hold the DoMA is inherently unconstitutional to begin with, but it can't be removed because - despite republican whinging to the contrary - the judicial system can't pick laws and say "Unconstitutional!" without it being challenged as such.

Discrimination is not a state's rights issue. By which I mean, just because they are not the federal government doesn't give them the right to discriminate. When we reach the point, like we have, that it is the state's right to discriminate against X subset of people, then it is the federal government's job to step in and tell everyone how it is going to be done so as to remove the discrimination.

This is not a democracy, it is a democratic republic which is meant to dissuade and oppose tyranny by the majority.

I'm a raging antifederalist and I agree completely with this statement. In fact, I see forcing the states to protect civil rights to be one of the few legitimate functions of the Federal government.

I'd look to how people overturned the miscegenation laws for a start --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

Where was all this moral outrage when other, normally reasonably progressive, states banned gay marriage? Why did the homosexuals of Wisconsin, Michigan, Vermont or New Jersey not rate this sort of concern?My outrage, especially at my home state of Michigan, has always been there. I just didn't get as many people listening to me before.

I'd look to how people overturned the miscegenation laws for a start

In the courts, which is what people have been trying to do for years with same-sex marriage.

The results of this tactic have been mixed. The backlash against it has made it much harder to enact same-sex marriage legislatively, due to the constitutional amendments that have passed in dozens of states. It's met with a number of court failures, and then just a few days ago with the ballot failure in California.

It seems to be the consensus that a challenge to state same-sex marriage laws in the federal courts (more directly akin to Loving) would fail, and solidify precedent against same-sex marriage, so they aren't trying that at this point.

Court decisions were helpful in starting up the same-sex marriage movement; they've won full marriage equality in Massachusetts and Connecticut, and legally equivalent unions in New Jersey (minus the federal rights, which no same-sex couple is getting at this point.) But it's far from clear that they're the right path to continue it, especially with the number of constitutional amendments blocking that path.

New York has a good chance of enacting same-sex marriage through the legislature within the next two or three years (especially with their current policy of recognizing out-of-state marriages), and while the attempt failed in Maryland recently, it's not out of the question for the same thing to happen here within the next five or six years.

Because there are less people their rights matter less?


Guys kills a man at work.

Another guy kills ten men at work.

Which one do you expect to receive more 'moral outrage' about, which one do you expect to get more attention?

although i support gay marriage i think it is important to note that this issue is inherently a states rights issue and should be voted upon by each state, and if that state votes to outlaw it, so be it, that is democracy and even though it shows the ignorance and pigheadedness of the american voter it must be held in the highest regard, it should be honored because it was democratically passed there should be no supreme court issue because this is not a federal issue it is a state issue.

Just like interracial marriage and ownership of slaves are a states rights issue?

Also, holy run on sentence Batman!

I'd look to how people overturned the miscegenation laws for a start --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

Fortunately for civilization, the Roberts Court includes far more astute Constitutional scholars (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas) than the Warren Court did. Certainly far more astute than you or me.

And regardless of the Warren Court's reasoning (let alone the hundred-plus pages of agenda-driven lunacy authored by the evil four in California), the 14th Amendment was part of the Civil War amendments whose intent was to eliminate the incidents and vestiges of slavery. Anti-miscegenation laws were one such vestige and thus subject to 14th Amendment attack. The 14th Amendment was NOT intended to be a blanket authorization to overturn any and every social institution that some disgruntled minority or other finds disadvantageous.

God forbid it ever advance so far, but if the issue of granting "marriage" rights to sexual deviants ever makes it to the US Supreme Court, hopefully the 14th Amendment will be properly construed, and Prop 8 and similar measures will be affirmed.

Fortunately for civilization, the Roberts Court includes far more astute Constitutional scholars (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas) than the Warren Court did.

You do realize that Loving v. Virginia was a unanimous decision? It was not the work of some crazed radical liberals on the Court.

And regardless of the Warren Court's reasoning (let alone the hundred-plus pages of agenda-driven lunacy authored by the evil four in California), the 14th Amendment was part of the Civil War amendments whose intent was to eliminate the incidents and vestiges of slavery.

This is not how to interpret the Constitution. Political principles (like equal protection) are valid even beyond the particular context in which they are introduced; it's that whole "consistency" thing.

The 14th Amendment was NOT intended to be a blanket authorization to overturn any and every social institution that some disgruntled minority or other finds disadvantageous.

No, but it is what it is: a statement that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Unfortunately for those inclined toward bigotry, people in same-sex relationships happen to be persons.

But this, I think, is a weak argument to make. It ignores two aspects of Prop. 8.

First, the measure poses no threat whatsoever to any other element of equal protection. It amends only marriage. While equal protection may be a fundamental, underlying principle, this measure does not affect equal protection as such; it affects equal protection with respect to one particular aspect of law. Any other restrictions on equal protection would have to go through the entire amendment process to get enacted. (And, again, while that amendment process may be far too easy to carry out, that has nothing to do with the merits of Prop. 8 itself.)

Second, the measure does not even outright reject the legitimacy of applying equal protection principles to marriage. Giving the proponents the benefit of the doubt, they would probably claim that "traditional" marriage laws are not discriminatory at all--that they are founded not in a dislike of people of a given sexual orientation but rather in a legitimate government purpose in protecting a traditional family structure that best protects social well-being. The California Supreme Court disagrees, and rightly so, but right or wrong, to argue that "traditional" marriage is not a violation of equal protection is simply not the same as to argue that marriage should be exempted from equal protection; it poses much less of a "dramatic, substantive change."



But the proponents can claim credibly that "the right to marry" is not unlimited and never has been: children cannot marry, siblings cannot marry, people in polyamorous relationships cannot marry all their partners, and so forth.

"Reasonable people can disagree," they might argue, "as to whether this right should be extended to same-sex couples, but since the right is already denied to certain groups to deny it to another poses no fundamental alteration to the existing constitutional system."



I think this one, like the equal protection claim, fails to account for the narrowness of Prop. 8. It does not generally abridge court authority to rule on cases of equal protection and civil rights. It does so only on one particular aspect of one particular right--whether marriage is to only be between a man and a woman. That's hardly a "far reaching change."



Yes, I know. I am far from an expert in California law--or any kind of law for that matter--but my understanding is that the narrowness element is crucial here, too. Other propositions that restricted court authority with respect to particular defendants' rights had been upheld; the issue with Prop. 115, overturned in Raven v. Deukmejian, was that it denied the courts' independent authority with respect to a "wide spectrum of important rights."

So, if Prop. 8 suggested something like "equal protection can only be interpreted by the California courts as the federal courts have interpreted it", that would be out. But since it only demands a narrowness of interpretation with respect to one specific issue, it makes no "far reaching, fundamental changes."

Andrew Sullivan linked to this blog post (http://volokh.com/posts/1225923130.shtml) on the subject that swayed me (and educated me) on this particular point.

All of that said, I don't have enough integrity to be anything but delighted if the courts overturn that disgusting proposition. Here's hoping. :)

Right, but my understanding is that that could go either way.

Certainly, no one should marry who does not know exactly what he or she is getting into, but I bet Prop. 8's passage will ensure that that's the case.
I find the blog post interesting, but unconvincing. Here's the point.

As the commenters said, the question is whether the California court "discovered" or "created" the right. The CSC had ruled that the existing constitution already contained implicitly the right of gays to marriage. That is to say, that equal protection measures applied in full to matters distinguishing same-sex or opposite-sex relations. I would definitely class that as "discovered."

It's pretty substantial, and to say that Proposition 8 is simply an amendment, and not a revision, of the California constitution is to say that equal protection does not cover the homo/hetero divide.

The CSC had ruled that the existing constitution already contained implicitly the right of gays to marriage. That is to say, that equal protection measures applied in full to matters distinguishing same-sex or opposite-sex relations.

Yes. But creating a single exception to the court's interpretation of equal protection is not to implement any far-reaching change in the government plan of California.

Abolition of equal protection would be. Denying the court broad authority to interpret equal protection might be. But simply restricting its application (as the court applied it) to one specific aspect of law is not.

God forbid it ever advance so far, but if the issue of granting "marriage" rights to sexual deviants ever makes it to the US Supreme Court, hopefully the 14th Amendment will be properly construed, and Prop 8 and similar measures will be affirmed.

How unfortunate* that "sexual deviants" are entitled to the same rights as you. Unless there's some part of the US constitution I haven't heard of that denies one rights based on who one likes to fuck.


*Unfortunate for you, you understand. I'm sure most people would be pleased if the rights of "sexual deviants" were finally recognised.

How unfortunate for you that "sexual deviants" are entitled to the same rights as you. Unless there's some part of the US constitution I haven't heard of that denies one rights based on who one likes to fuck.

To you sure, but you're reading it in English. When translated into Fundiespeak, though, the Constitution clearly denotes what groups should have rights and what groups shouldn't. The fact that these groups tend to correlate to the groups a particular fundie hates is pure coincidence.

Fortunately for civilization, the Roberts Court includes far more astute Constitutional scholars (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas) than the Warren Court did. Certainly far more astute than you or me.

And regardless of the Warren Court's reasoning (let alone the hundred-plus pages of agenda-driven lunacy authored by the evil four in California), the 14th Amendment was part of the Civil War amendments whose intent was to eliminate the incidents and vestiges of slavery. Anti-miscegenation laws were one such vestige and thus subject to 14th Amendment attack. The 14th Amendment was NOT intended to be a blanket authorization to overturn any and every social institution that some disgruntled minority or other finds disadvantageous.

God forbid it ever advance so far, but if the issue of granting "marriage" rights to sexual deviants ever makes it to the US Supreme Court, hopefully the 14th Amendment will be properly construed, and Prop 8 and similar measures will be affirmed.
Deal with it, bigot. Progress cannot be stopped. It will not be stopped. We will never stop fighting until everyone has the equality they deserve!

To you sure, but you're reading it in English. When translated into Fundiespeak, though, the Constitution clearly denotes what groups should have rights and what groups shouldn't. The fact that these groups tend to correlate to the groups a particular fundie hates is pure coincidence.

Bah, Babel fish doesn't do "English to US Fundie"

Fortunately for civilization, the Roberts Court includes far more astute Constitutional scholars (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas) than the Warren Court did. Certainly far more astute than you or me.
The Roberts court would not, I think, disagree with the direction of the ruling in that case.
And regardless of the Warren Court's reasoning (let alone the hundred-plus pages of agenda-driven lunacy authored by the evil four in California), the 14th Amendment was part of the Civil War amendments whose intent was to eliminate the incidents and vestiges of slavery. Anti-miscegenation laws were one such vestige and thus subject to 14th Amendment attack. The 14th Amendment was NOT intended to be a blanket authorization to overturn any and every social institution that some disgruntled minority or other finds disadvantageous.
And yet, the 14th Amendment is worded very broadly - not in a limited fashion.

Even Scalia takes "original meaning" over "original intent," in the abstract.

Yes. But creating a single exception to the court's interpretation of equal protection is not to implement any far-reaching change in the government plan of California.
It is. Because it implies that there is no such general principle in the constitution that would contradict that.
Abolition of equal protection would be. Denying the court broad authority to interpret equal protection might be. But simply restricting its application (as the court applied it) to one specific aspect of law is not.
It creates an explicit precedent that says the general rule is not, in fact, implicit in the CA constitution.

A similar situation would be passing an amendment that bars former Mexican nationals from being employed by the state. It's a small specific change, but implies that discrimination among citizens by national origin isn't already ruled out in the other parts of the constitution.

It is. Because it implies that there is no such general principle in the constitution that would contradict that.

No, it doesn't. Most "general principles" are full of exceptions, starting from freedom of speech and moving onward.

It creates an explicit precedent that says the general rule is not, in fact, implicit in the CA constitution.

What "general rule"? That marriage must be granted equally to same-sex couples? Yes, it does, but that's hardly "general" in the relevant sense.

Do you mean "equal protection" in general? But there are any number of bases that one might object to the CA court's decision without involving equal protection in general: it might be argued, for instance, that marriage discrimination should have passed the Court's strict scrutiny standard, or that the term "marriage" should not be involved in considerations of equal protection (as opposed to broader considerations of legal rights.)

A similar situation would be passing an amendment that bars former Mexican nationals from being employed by the state. It's a small specific change, but implies that discrimination among citizens by national origin isn't already ruled out in the other parts of the constitution.

If anything, it implies the opposite: if discrimination weren't ruled out, why bother with an amendment? It provides for a specific exception to a general constitutional principle. Doing so does not challenge the principle itself.

No, it doesn't. Most "general principles" are full of exceptions, starting from freedom of speech and moving onward.
Exceptions that result from conflict with other general principles.
What "general rule"? That marriage must be granted equally to same-sex couples? Yes, it does, but that's hardly "general" in the relevant sense.

Do you mean "equal protection" in general? But there are any number of bases that one might object to the CA court's decision without involving equal protection in general: it might be argued, for instance, that marriage discrimination should have passed the Court's strict scrutiny standard, or that the term "marriage" should not be involved in considerations of equal protection (as opposed to broader considerations of legal rights.)

If anything, it implies the opposite: if discrimination weren't ruled out, why bother with an amendment? It provides for a specific exception to a general constitutional principle. Doing so does not challenge the principle itself.
It most certainly does - just as anti-sodomy laws challenged the principle of two consenting adults doing whatever they like in their private life. The only exceptions are those which conflict with other rights.

Exceptions that result from conflict with other general principles.

...which, in this case, would be the very specific constitutional principle of marriage only being valid when it is between a man and a woman.

This is an amendment, not a legal decision.

It most certainly does - just as anti-sodomy laws challenged the principle of two consenting adults doing whatever they like in their private life.

Anti-sodomy laws were never turned into constitutional amendments.

...which, in this case, would be the very specific constitutional principle of marriage only being valid when it is between a man and a woman.
I.e., a wholly new principle. Out of whole cloth, from nothing already existing in the Constitution and [i]conflicting with the existing Constitution.
This is an amendment, not a legal decision.
I would suggest it is a revision, rather than amendment.
Anti-sodomy laws were never turned into constitutional amendments.
I believe they would also have to be revisions, if it were a CA constitutional issue.

However, it's a federal constitutional issue (14th amendment according to the latest rulings) and therefore, even if CA did a constitutional revision to bar gay sex, it would get thrown out in court on those grounds.

I.e., a wholly new principle. Out of whole cloth, from nothing already existing in the Constitution and [i]conflicting with the existing Constitution.

But one that is very narrow, and thus not a "revision."

California courts have in the past upheld amendments that did things like restore the death penalty, against the Court's ruling with respect to California's "cruel and unusual" clause. I fail to see how eliminating same-sex marriage is any different.

Fortunately for civilization, the Roberts Court includes far more astute Constitutional scholars (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas) than the Warren Court did. Certainly far more astute than you or me.

And regardless of the Warren Court's reasoning (let alone the hundred-plus pages of agenda-driven lunacy authored by the evil four in California), the 14th Amendment was part of the Civil War amendments whose intent was to eliminate the incidents and vestiges of slavery. Anti-miscegenation laws were one such vestige and thus subject to 14th Amendment attack. The 14th Amendment was NOT intended to be a blanket authorization to overturn any and every social institution that some disgruntled minority or other finds disadvantageous.

God forbid it ever advance so far, but if the issue of granting "marriage" rights to sexual deviants ever makes it to the US Supreme Court, hopefully the 14th Amendment will be properly construed, and Prop 8 and similar measures will be affirmed.

ROTFLASTC

Ah, your ignorant vitriolic prattlings remain as entertaining as ever. A few comments come to mind:

1. You don't seem to realize that the jurisprudence of the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process clause as more than simply anti-slavery protections dates back to the first cases interpreting the 14th Amendment and carry through scores of cases up to and including the Roberts Court. Scalia and Thomas may, at times when it is convenient, object to substantive due process rights, but even they don't deny that the Equal Protection clause has more meaning than you would give it. You might note, for example, that in Bush v. Gore (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=531&page=98), 531 U.S. 98 (2000), the majority (including Scalia and Thomas) held that the Florida Supreme Court's method for recounting ballots was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

I could school you further on the caselaw, including that of the conservative Justices of the Roberts Court, but I'll have better luck explaining the cases to my cats. :p

2. Curious that the "agenda-driven lunacy" of the California Supreme Court was carried out by primarily conservative Republican Justices. Regardless, they weren't interpreting the 14th Amendment, but rather the California Constitution -- namely Article 1. See In re Marriage Cases (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF), 43 Cal.4th 757, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384 (2008).

But one that is very narrow, and thus not a "revision."

California courts have in the past upheld amendments that did things like restore the death penalty, against the Court's ruling with respect to California's "cruel and unusual" clause. I fail to see how eliminating same-sex marriage is any different.
Restoring the death penalty affects a few dozen people. Banning gay marriage affects a few million people. It doesn't seem very narrow to me.

Restoring the death penalty affects a few dozen people. Banning gay marriage affects a few million people.

As I understand it, it's not the extent of the effect of the change in the law, but the legal extent of the change itself.

Initiatives that have nothing to do with the Constitution are allowed to affect millions of people without being overturned; the issue here is not "How much does this affect people?" but "How much does this affect the Constitution (and the government plan it lays out)?"

Yes. But creating a single exception to the court's interpretation of equal protection is not to implement any far-reaching change in the government plan of California.

Abolition of equal protection would be.
It DOES abolish equal protection, entirely and absolutely: if all it takes to enact a law against any minority whatsoever is a vote of 50% + 1, then there is no such thing as equal protection, there is only majority rule.

As I understand it, it's not the extent of the effect of the change in the law, but the legal extent of the change itself.

Initiatives that have nothing to do with the Constitution are allowed to affect millions of people without being overturned; the issue here is not "How much does this affect people?" but "How much does this affect the Constitution (and the government plan it lays out)?"
Which would be to say: "Creates an entirely new principle out of whole cloth, which also conflicts substantially with an existing principle."

I call that major. Creating a new principle that addresses something the existing set of codified principles simply have little bearing on is one thing; creating an exception to an existing principle is another thing; combining the two, in my opinion, constitutes major.

As I understand it, it's not the extent of the effect of the change in the law, but the legal extent of the change itself.

Initiatives that have nothing to do with the Constitution are allowed to affect millions of people without being overturned; the issue here is not "How much does this affect people?" but "How much does this affect the Constitution (and the government plan it lays out)?"

I have to admit I haven't read the underlying cases cited in the brief for immediate state or injunctive relief.

I do take any analysis by Volokh Conspiracy with a greater grain of salt than I do the analysis of the NCLR, ACLU, etc.

Unless the latter are seriously misrepresenting the caselaw, the California Supreme Court has previously held that an "amendment implies such an addition or change within the lines of the original instrument as will effect an improvement or better carry out the purpose for which it was framed." How does Prop. 8 fit this definition.

In contrast, a revision makes substantial changes either quantitatively or qualitatively. "Even a relatively simple enactment may accomplish such far reaching changes in the nature of our basic government plan as to amount to a revision." The whole purpose of Article XVII's limitations on revisions is an recognition that amendments consistent with the California Constitution should be relatively simple to make, but revisions that change the underlying principles of the CC should not be made by mere popular whim or caprice.

If one takes In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757 (2008), seriously, then Proposition 8 fundamentally contradicts equal protection of the law, denies fundamental rights on the basis of suspect criteria, and removes a critical structural check on the exercise of majority power.

Again, I am not sure the California courts will be convinced by this argument, but it is more meritorious than your casual dismissal seems to indicate.

I do take any analysis by Volokh Conspiracy with a greater grain of salt than I do the analysis of the NCLR, ACLU, etc.

I don't know anything about the source, I'm just looking at the argument.

Unless the latter are seriously misrepresenting the caselaw, the California Supreme Court has previously held that an "amendment implies such an addition or change within the lines of the original instrument as will effect an improvement or better carry out the purpose for which it was framed." How does Prop. 8 fit this definition.

I suppose the proponents would argue that this amendment prevents equal protection from outstripping its rightful bounds. Certainly this amendment definition is not so narrow as to suggest that amendments can only be used to affirm the courts' interpretation of particular constitutional provisions: that would ruin the point of amending the constitution, and would be contrary to prior Court rulings upholding amendments enacted in response to Court interpretations of rights in the California Constitution.

Maybe this definition would block an amendment that flagrantly went against equal protection, but it would be hard to argue, from a legal standpoint, that this issue is so clear-cut: for one, the original court decision was 4-3. (This, indeed, is one difference from, say, an amendment depriving Latinos of voting rights.)

The whole purpose of Article XVII's limitations on revisions is an recognition that amendments consistent with the California Constitution should be relatively simple to make, but revisions that change the underlying principles of the CC should not be made by mere popular whim or caprice.

But while this might mean that getting rid of equal protection entirely, or abolishing the "strict scrutiny" standard, or something to that effect might constitute a "revision", I find it hard to see why addressing one particular case with an amendment would--any more than restricting the application of "cruel and unusual" to the use of the death penalty was.

Maybe this definition would block an amendment that flagrantly went against equal protection
If a majority can take away equality from a minority at any time, by a simple 50% + 1 vote, then equal protection does not, in fact, exist at all. How about a law, for example, that people of Hispanic ancestry are not allowed to own property? If that requires nothing more than a majority vote, then there is no longer any "constitutional" barrier against such laws; it is simply a political question of whether 50% support could be gathered, the same as with any other law. Accepting that it was procedurally proper to enact Prop 8 in such a way means, in fact, that the equal protection provision is not just altered, but abolished.

I suppose the proponents would argue that this amendment prevents equal protection from outstripping its rightful bounds. Certainly this amendment definition is not so narrow as to suggest that amendments can only be used to affirm the courts' interpretation of particular constitutional provisions: that would ruin the point of amending the constitution, and would be contrary to prior Court rulings upholding amendments enacted in response to Court interpretations of rights in the California Constitution.

Most places don't make the distinction between amending and revising their constitutions.

From what I can tell (mostly from this discussion), the point of amending the CC is not overturning court decisions but is, instead, to make minor changes. From what I can tell, this might be used to clarify something that was confusing.

The point of revising the constitution, on the other hand, is to make large changes - and my guess is that most measures to overturn court interpretation of the CC would fall under this category, rather than the amendment one.

But, like I said, I'm not really well-read on the question.

Maybe this definition would block an amendment that flagrantly went against equal protection,

In my opinion, this amendment did flagrantly go against equal protection. The only justification for it is outright bigotry.

But while this might mean that getting rid of equal protection entirely, or abolishing the "strict scrutiny" standard, or something to that effect might constitute a "revision", I find it hard to see why addressing one particular case with an amendment would--any more than restricting the application of "cruel and unusual" to the use of the death penalty was.

Personally, I'd argue that the standards for "cruel and unusual" are more up for debate than "equal protection." The former really is rather vague and is poorly defined. A term like "equal protection" shouldn't need much explanation (and the fact that it has, time and time again, is rather depressing).

If a majority can take away equality from a minority at any time, by a simple 50% + 1 vote, then equal protection does not, in fact, exist at all. How about a law, for example, that people of Hispanic ancestry are not allowed to own property? If that requires nothing more than a majority vote, then there is no longer any "constitutional" barrier against such laws; it is simply a political question of whether 50% support could be gathered, the same as with any other law. Accepting that it was procedurally proper to enact Prop 8 in such a way means, in fact, that the equal protection provision is not just altered, but abolished.

It's not so much taking away equality, as taking away a right.

The Supreme Court decided that my right to own a firearm and use it for personal defense is an individual right under the Federal Constitution.

So I don't believe that any group, even if it's higher than 50% + 1, can take away that right.

It's not an equal protection thing. The Founding Fathers said that their problem with enumerating rights in the Constitution was that we had these rights even if the government decided later to fuck us over and take them away.

You have the right to gay marriage - as far as I'm concerned, whether or not the people in California agree or not.

Part of the problem I have with Obama is that he's on record as saying that this inability of legislation to overcome the Constitution (by majority voting on legislation) is a fundamental flaw that he intends to address. He sees the Constitution as a document of "negative freedoms", that is, the government is restricted as to how it can fuck us over.

Never count on benevolent government. A Constitution that limits the power of central government is a fundamental protection against a majority of assholes who want to deprive you of a fundamental civil right.

In your case, gay marriage. In my case, the right to keep and bear arms.

It's not so much taking away equality, as taking away a right.

These two things are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are often much the same thing.

This amendment removed a recognized right from a specific group of people. It also violated equal protection (as not all human beings are equally protected under the law).

To use your 2nd amendment reference, this would be like amending the constitution to say that gay people can't own guns, but everyone else can. Yes, it would remove a right from some - but only from a specific group of people. Thus, it would be an equal rights issue as well as an infringement of individual rights.

These two things are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are often much the same thing.

This amendment removed a recognized right from a specific group of people. It also violated equal protection (as not all human beings are equally protected under the law).

To use your 2nd amendment reference, this would be like amending the constitution to say that gay people can't own guns, but everyone else can. Yes, it would remove a right from some - but only from a specific group of people. Thus, it would be an equal rights issue as well as an infringement of individual rights.

I guess I'm saying that the equal protection thing is less important to me than the idea that we have rights even if they aren't enumerated, or if some collection of jackasses votes to "take away" rights.

Don't let the majority fuck you.

I guess I'm saying that the equal protection thing is less important to me than the idea that we have rights even if they aren't enumerated, or if some collection of jackasses votes to "take away" rights.

Don't let the majority fuck you.

Wait...so you're against Prop 8?

Maybe this definition would block an amendment that flagrantly went against equal protection, but it would be hard to argue, from a legal standpoint, that this issue is so clear-cut: for one, the original court decision was 4-3. (This, indeed, is one difference from, say, an amendment depriving Latinos of voting rights.)

What about an amendment saying that blacks couldn't marry? Would that be a "clear-cut" violation of equal protection?

How is that different from Prop. 8?

I guess I'm saying that the equal protection thing is less important to me than the idea that we have rights even if they aren't enumerated, or if some collection of jackasses votes to "take away" rights.

Don't let the majority fuck you.

Removal of equal rights would also be an instance of the majority fucking you.

In my mind, the idea of equal protection is just as important as the idea that we have unenumerated rights.

Wait...so you're against Prop 8?

Anyone who actually BELIEVES in the Second Amendment (on strict, constructionist, "The comma doesn't change the meaning" grounds in which the subordinate clause invoking the Militia is just that-a subordinate clause, an explanation of the second half and that "The right to Bear Arms shall not be Infringed" is the important, rights-bit.) should be against laws like Prop 8, it's the only intellectually honest position.

Gays are citizens, they are entitled (under the fourteenth amendment) to the same constitutional protections every other citizen enjoys, further, they are also members of "The People" and are entitled to the protections of the tenth, and by extension, the first through ninth, amendments.

Those who would restrict rights from SOME citizens, deny rights to ALL citizens.

Take a look at the NPR interview with a Black gay activist and find out why Prop 8 passed. The opposition campaign blew it.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96817462

Anyone who actually BELIEVES in the Second Amendment (on strict, constructionist, "The comma doesn't change the meaning" grounds in which the subordinate clause invoking the Militia is just that-a subordinate clause, an explanation of the second half and that "The right to Bear Arms shall not be Infringed" is the important, rights-bit.) should be against laws like Prop 8, it's the only intellectually honest position.

Gays are citizens, they are entitled (under the fourteenth amendment) to the same constitutional protections every other citizen enjoys, further, they are also members of "The People" and are entitled to the protections of the tenth, and by extension, the first through ninth, amendments.

Those who would restrict rights from SOME citizens, deny rights to ALL citizens.

Agreed, I'm just surprised that that one particular poster is opposed to Prop 8. He's usually fairly conservative in his views.

Take a look at the NPR interview with a Black gay activist and find out why Prop 8 passed. The opposition campaign blew it.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96817462

Wow, what an asshole.

"I'm only concerned with myself. Everyone else can go shove it. ONLY BLACKS MATTER!!!!!!"

It's interesting to note that if people who weren't personally black hadn't taken an interest in the civil rights movement, that guy probably wouldn't even be able to vote. But apparently we're supposed to believe that being black makes one incapable of empathy?

Yeah, no, I'm not buying it.

Wow, what an asshole.

"I'm only concerned with myself. Everyone else can go shove it. ONLY BLACKS MATTER!!!!!!"

It's interesting to note that if people who weren't personally black hadn't taken an interest in the civil rights movement, that guy probably wouldn't even be able to vote. But apparently we're supposed to believe that being black makes one incapable of empathy?

Yeah, no, I'm not buying it.

It makes one incapable of seeing the connection between Black civil rights struggles and the overwhelmingly white petition for marriage. That's only because such a connection is almost impossibly tenuous.

When you hold your rally in West Hollywood without ever thinking about trying to appeal to minority voters with your idea, and you then hold up an opponent's effigy by a noose, well, that's not going to win Black voters. It didn't. And now there's a bit of a backlash from some in the gay community toward Black voters. I think it's a bit disingenuous.

"We took you for granted and you didn't vote the way we wanted you to!"

It makes one incapable of seeing the connection between Black civil rights struggles and the overwhelmingly white petition for marriage. That's only because such a connection is almost impossibly tenuous.

What does? A lack of empathy?

The man you linked to basically said, "Why should we care about anyone else's problems? We have our own."

It didn't say anything about not being targeted for ads - it specifically said, "We don't care."

Those who would restrict rights from SOME citizens, deny rights to ALL citizens.
Wow.
Thank you.

Wow.
Thank you.

You're welcome. If you want to know some places to find people on the right who actually believe in RIGHTS, google "Republican Liberty Caucus". We're a minority in the minority party, and a lot of us wound up voting third-party this year, but it occurs to me (and a few others) that people who believe in Liberty are more naturally allied than people who believe "There oughta be a law..." are.

You're welcome. If you want to know some places to find people on the right who actually believe in RIGHTS, google "Republican Liberty Caucus". We're a minority in the minority party, and a lot of us wound up voting third-party this year, but it occurs to me (and a few others) that people who believe in Liberty are more naturally allied than people who believe "There oughta be a law..." are.

*is disappointed*

I googled them. They sounded like a group I could possibly get behind, although I don't agree with them on everything. Then I started looking at the candidates they endorse....

bleh. This always happens.

What does? A lack of empathy?

The man you linked to basically said, "Why should we care about anyone else's problems? We have our own."

It didn't say anything about not being targeted for ads - it specifically said, "We don't care."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-cannick8-2008nov08,0,3669070.story

The fact that you call the author, Jasmyne A. Cannick, a man leads me to believe that you didn't read her article. The NPR link linked to the full L.A. Times article, some of which I'll post here (next time, try reading further than a line you choose to take out of context):

Then there was the poorly conceived campaign strategy. Opponents of Proposition 8 relied on an outdated civil rights model, engaging the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People to help win black support on the issue of gay marriage. This happened despite the warnings of black lesbians and gays that it wouldn't work. While the NAACP definitely should have been included in the strategy, it shouldn't have been the only group. Putting nearly a quarter of a million dollars into an outdated civil rights group that has very little influence on the black vote -- at least when it comes to gay issues -- will never work.

Likewise, holding the occasional town-hall meeting in Leimert Park -- the one part of the black community where they now feel safe thanks to gentrification -- to tell black people how to vote on something gay isn't effective outreach either.

There's nothing a white gay person can tell me when it comes to how I as a black lesbian should talk to my community about this issue. If and when I choose to, I know how to say what needs to be said. Many black gays just haven't been convinced that this movement for marriage is about anything more than the white gays who fund it (and who, we often find, are just as racist and clueless when it comes to blacks as they claim blacks are homophobic).

Some people seem to think that homophobia trumps racism, and that winning the battle for gay marriage will symbolically bring about equality for everyone. That may seem true to white gays, but as a black lesbian, let me tell you: There are still too many inequalities that exist as it relates to my race for that to ever be the case. Ever heard of "driving while black"? Ever looked at the difference between the dropout rates for blacks and for whites? Or test scores? Or wages? Or rates of incarceration?

She didn't say she didn't care because she was against gay marriage, she said it was because the NO ON 8 side didn't bother to convince her or any significant minority community that this was anything but a secondary issue to them. The NO side didn't make a compelling case, and they lost.

*is disappointed*

I googled them. They sounded like a group I could possibly get behind, although I don't agree with them on everything. Then I started looking at the candidates they endorse....

bleh. This always happens.

Better membership gets better candidates. right now, there's still a problem of too many statist-religionists turning up with the RLC and like-minded groups, and not enough sensible folk, just as there are too many crazy paranoids in the Libertarian party these days (c'mon, 911 being a government PLOT??).

Any time someone comes up with a good idea, if they don't watch it, they get nutcases taking it over for the opposite ends.

Agreed, I'm just surprised that that one particular poster is opposed to Prop 8. He's usually fairly conservative in his views.

He's bisexual, or at least claimed to be.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-cannick8-2008nov08,0,3669070.story

The fact that you call the author, Jasmyne A. Cannick, a man leads me to believe that you didn't read her article.

No, I read the link you originally posted. But I'll read this one if you like. (didn't click on the link before because I thought you were specifically linking to the quote).

But the rest basically comes down to the same thing.

"Blacks have our own problems, why should we worry about gays?"

And the fact that she keeps referring to the "white gays" as if they are somehow separate from the "black gays" is downright silly.

Yes, black people still face a great deal of discrimination. So do a lot of groups. That doesn't excuse voting to restrict the rights of other groups.

She didn't say she didn't care because she was against gay marriage, she said it was because the NO ON 8 side didn't bother to convince her or any significant minority community that this was anything but a secondary issue to them. The NO side didn't make a compelling case, and they lost.

I didn't say she was against gay marriage.

I said, as she did, that she thinks the black community doesn't care because they have their own problems and thus can't be bothered with discrimination against other groups - even when some among their own community are also part of that group.


Better membership gets better candidates. right now, there's still a problem of too many statist-religionists turning up with the RLC and like-minded groups, and not enough sensible folk, just as there are too many crazy paranoids in the Libertarian party these days (c'mon, 911 being a government PLOT??).

Any time someone comes up with a good idea, if they don't watch it, they get nutcases taking it over for the opposite ends.

I agree that this tends to happen, but it also makes them useless to me as a guide in voting.

And the fact that they had Ron Paul as someone who apparently had power within the organization early on makes me wonder from the start.

When you hold your rally in West Hollywood without ever thinking about trying to appeal to minority voters with your idea, and you then hold up an opponent's effigy by a noose, well, that's not going to win Black voters. It didn't.

We need to separate several distinct elements here.

Did the same-sex marriage movement do a poor job when it came to outreach to Blacks? Without question. I don't really think anyone doubts this.

Is there racism involved in this failure, in the nature of the reaction to the failure, in the overall "whiteness" of the same-sex marriage movement and the concerns that feature most prominently in it? I'd say yes, definitely, but that's a little more disputable.

Does that actually excuse or legitimize the choice of most Black voters (or any voters) to vote for the ridiculous and bigoted measure that was Prop. 8? Of course not.

This is not a matter of political bargaining and compromise. It's not about "If you scratch our back, we'll scratch yours." It's about political justice: equality under law.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-cannick8-2008nov08,0,3669070.story

The fact that you call the author, Jasmyne A. Cannick, a man leads me to believe that you didn't read her article. The NPR link linked to the full L.A. Times article, some of which I'll post here (next time, try reading further than a line you choose to take out of context):



She didn't say she didn't care because she was against gay marriage, she said it was because the NO ON 8 side didn't bother to convince her or any significant minority community that this was anything but a secondary issue to them. The NO side didn't make a compelling case, and they lost.

Ms. Cannick appears to be selfish bitch with very little perspective. Her argument basically is that voters ask only "what is in it for me?"

As Dem pointed out, if non-blacks had taken that attitude regarding the rights of blacks, there would have been no civil rights movement.

Moreover, if as a black lesbian, Ms. Cannick can't find "white gay" arguments for equality persuasive, WTF does she suggest would be a convincing argument and who the fuck would it persuade?

Finally, I find it funny that she claims "white gays" are "clueless and racist "when they "claim blacks are homophobic", but if you look at her website (http://www.jasmynecannick.com/blog/) she says: "Are Blacks homophobic? Yes, that’s no secret." Hypocrisy, much?

I'm sure many will find it comforting to have a black lesbian letting both blacks and straights off-the-hook for the evil that is Prop. 8. Sorry, but her race and orientation "credentials" don't make her any less wrong.

No, I read the link you originally posted. But I'll read this one if you like. (didn't click on the link before because I thought you were specifically linking to the quote).

But the rest basically comes down to the same thing.

"Blacks have our own problems, why should we worry about gays?"

And the fact that she keeps referring to the "white gays" as if they are somehow separate from the "black gays" is downright silly.

Yes, black people still face a great deal of discrimination. So do a lot of groups. That doesn't excuse voting to restrict the rights of other groups.

If you're facing discrimination on fronts that include your ability to move freely without police harassment, your ability to get a job, and any number of things that some minorities in this country still face -- is a comparative luxury for the mostly-white opponents of Prop 8 going to matter to you as much as it matters to them? Especially when you're out there already, just trying to get your minority to vote at all?

I didn't say she was against gay marriage.

I said, as she did, that she thinks the black community doesn't care because they have their own problems and thus can't be bothered with discrimination against other groups - even when some among their own community are also part of that group.

A very, very small part of that group. Some concerns trump others. Plus, you've still got to deal with the inherent religious shunning of homosexuals, given the number of minority voters who identify as churchgoers.

We need to separate several distinct elements here.

Did the same-sex marriage movement do a poor job when it came to outreach to Blacks? Without question. I don't really think anyone doubts this.

That's why the NO side failed. Right there.

Is there racism involved in this failure, in the nature of the reaction to the failure, in the overall "whiteness" of the same-sex marriage movement and the concerns that feature most prominently in it? I'd say yes, definitely, but that's a little more disputable.

Some people prioritize.

Does that actually excuse or legitimize the choice of most Black voters (or any voters) to vote for the ridiculous and bigoted measure that was Prop. 8? Of course not.

This is not a matter of political bargaining and compromise. It's not about "If you scratch our back, we'll scratch yours." It's about political justice: equality under law.

Again, a majority simply do not see it this way. To the devout, it can't be a right if the Bible says it's wrong. After all, churches were an integral part of the Civil Rights movement, and still are. Biblical language was used throughout the movement from Dr. King on, and is still used. If that's the case, is it so odd to see that the same book and its principles, which openly condemn homosexuality, might have held sway over enough minority voters, particularly Blacks and Hispanics, to support this bigoted piece of shit and pass it?

Ms. Cannick appears to be selfish bitch with very little perspective. Her argument basically is that voters ask only "what is in it for me?"

As Dem pointed out, if non-blacks had taken that attitude regarding the rights of blacks, there would have been no civil rights movement.

Moreover, if as a black lesbian, Ms. Cannick can't find "white gay" arguments for equality persuasive, WTF does she suggest would be a convincing argument and who the fuck would it persuade?

Finally, I find it funny that she claims "white gays" are "clueless and racist "when they "claim blacks are homophobic", but if you look at her website (http://www.jasmynecannick.com/blog/) she says: "Are Blacks homophobic? Yes, that’s no secret." Hypocrisy, much?

I'm sure many will find it comforting to have a black lesbian letting both blacks and straights off-the-hook for the evil that is Prop. 8. Sorry, but her race and orientation "credentials" don't make her any less wrong.

Fair enough -- and well done on posting Cannick's own site. I should have done that myself.

However, the Civil Rights movement had God on its side, and, as I said before, the Bible was a prominent source of justification for equality under the law in that struggle. That same book denounces homosexuals. I don't know if it's asking too much for those who had the Bible in their corner when Dr. King was setting them on the road to equality to then ignore some parts of the same book.

I am NOT EXCUSING Black voters in California on this basis, but rather, I'm looking for an explanation that works.

Again, a majority simply do not see it this way. To the devout, it can't be a right if the Bible says it's wrong. After all, churches were an integral part of the Civil Rights movement, and still are. Biblical language was used throughout the movement from Dr. King on, and is still used. If that's the case, is it so odd to see that the same book and its principles, which openly condemn homosexuality, might have held sway over enough minority voters, particularly Blacks and Hispanics, to support this bigoted piece of shit and pass it?

Let's see. The state trial judge in Loving v. Virginia told the interracial couple:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

The Bible was used to support segregation and slavery -- as well as the fight against those institutions. It is really pretty insulting to black people to insist they lack the capacity to see past narrow self-interest and embrace equal protection under the law.

Let's see. The state trial judge in Loving v. Virginia told the interracial couple:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

The Bible was used to support segregation and slavery -- as well as the fight against those institutions. It is really pretty insulting to black people to insist they lack the capacity to see past narrow self-interest and embrace equal protection under the law.

Hang on, that was a judge's interpretation, not the words of the book itself.

Civil rights had far more direct language in the Bible than Civil Rights opponents could have ever found.

Regardless, I don't think it's insulting to their intelligence so much as it is an indictment of those doing the preaching, who have for so long demonized homosexuality.

You are right, of course, and I don't really know why I'm trying to make a defense here, except perhaps because calling the electorate idiots doesn't strike me as a plausible method to get their support. It might be that I'm trying to generate ideas about how best to counter the ingrained religious horseshit surrounding homosexuality...and failing miserably. :(

For what it's worth: I have no intention of continuing to defend here the legal merits of Prop. 8 as a constitutional amendment.

I haven't changed my mind, but I see little point in (and feel increasingly uncomfortable) defending a position that (a) isn't, in my case, founded on any real extensive knowledge of the subject and (b) runs directly contrary to my own very strong personal wish with respect to what happens to the measure.

Some people prioritize.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Again, a majority simply do not see it this way. To the devout, it can't be a right if the Bible says it's wrong.

And to the dedicated religious racist, of which there were plenty, God separated the races onto different continents so that they wouldn't mix, making integration and interracial marriage clearly not "rights." So?

If that's the case, is it so odd to see that the same book and its principles, which openly condemn homosexuality, might have held sway over enough minority voters, particularly Blacks and Hispanics, to support this bigoted piece of shit and pass it?

Who said it was "odd"? It's not odd at all. It's still inexcusable.

It might be that I'm trying to generate ideas about how best to counter the ingrained religious horseshit surrounding homosexuality...and failing miserably. :(

I have no idea what to do about it, either.

I guess the important thing to remember is that even the religious tend not to be absolutely so: the fact that the Bible says something is not the only factor in their decision-making. Give them independent solid reasons to support equal rights for LGBTs--the rational arguments, the human factors, all the sorts of reasons that incline people to support equality--and you might make a good deal of progress.

Also, more attention and resources from the "mainstream" LGBT rights movement to the particular concerns of black LGBTs might help: change that comes in some sense from within the community is always more effective, and so far there's been a lot of neglect in that area.

Agree with Ms. Cannick or not, she certainly has some reason to be angry.

Wait...so you're against Prop 8?

Yes, I'm against it. Two reasons:

1. It's kind of stupid to think that "gay" is some kind of "sinful choice" - it's Mother Nature in all her variability. Saying gay people can't marry is like passing laws against the wind blowing.

2. I've always been a believer in restricting the power of government, because the government loves to fuck you in the name of the "greater good" or in the name of God.

If you're facing discrimination on fronts that include your ability to move freely without police harassment, your ability to get a job, and any number of things that some minorities in this country still face -- is a comparative luxury for the mostly-white opponents of Prop 8 going to matter to you as much as it matters to them?

Clearly it mattered quite a bit - in the reverse. The black community quite clearly overwhelmingly cared about it enough to try and remove the rights of homosexuals.

Meanwhile, making this a black-white dichotomy smacks of racism from the black community. There are homosexuals of every ethnicity. It isn't restricted to whites.

A very, very small part of that group. Some concerns trump others. Plus, you've still got to deal with the inherent religious shunning of homosexuals, given the number of minority voters who identify as churchgoers.

Ah, now you're getting to the actual issue - the bigotry against homosexuals that is strong in the black community.

Again, a majority simply do not see it this way. To the devout, it can't be a right if the Bible says it's wrong. After all, churches were an integral part of the Civil Rights movement, and still are. Biblical language was used throughout the movement from Dr. King on, and is still used. If that's the case, is it so odd to see that the same book and its principles, which openly condemn homosexuality, might have held sway over enough minority voters, particularly Blacks and Hispanics, to support this bigoted piece of shit and pass it?

Not odd. But it doesn't excuse them for their own bigotry or make it anyone else's fault.

However, the Civil Rights movement had God on its side, and, as I said before, the Bible was a prominent source of justification for equality under the law in that struggle. That same book denounces homosexuals. I don't know if it's asking too much for those who had the Bible in their corner when Dr. King was setting them on the road to equality to then ignore some parts of the same book.

They already had to ignore parts of that same book. It doesn't, for instance, renounce slavery. Instead, God gives specific instructions on how to treat slaves.

How many people in the black community would now argue that slavery is acceptable?

Hang on, that was a judge's interpretation, not the words of the book itself.

No, but the words of the book itself made it clear that an us vs. them mentality and a separate mentality was proper. Israelites were instructed quite strongly not to intermingle with those of any other group. Intermarriage was either forbidden or strongly discouraged. In fact, they were often led to carry out wholesale slaughter on other groups.

Yes, I'm against it. Two reasons:

1. It's kind of stupid to think that "gay" is some kind of "sinful choice" - it's Mother Nature in all her variability. Saying gay people can't marry is like passing laws against the wind blowing.

2. I've always been a believer in restricting the power of government, because the government loves to fuck you in the name of the "greater good" or in the name of God.

Interesting. Does this belief in limited government conflict at all with your apparent (from what I can glean from previous posts) belief that justification can be made for our military's violation of another nation's sovereignty on faulty intelligence, as we did in the invasion of Iraq, or the government's lie-to-the-people regarding that intelligence as an attempt to dispel qualms about said invasion?

Biblical language was used throughout the movement from Dr. King on, and is still used. If that's the case, is it so odd to see that the same book and its principles, which openly condemn homosexuality, might have held sway over enough minority voters, particularly Blacks and Hispanics, to support this bigoted piece of shit and pass it?
Ironically, Dr. King was all in favor of gay rights.

Ironically, Dr. King was all in favor of gay rights.

There's no proof of that. His family is divided. The best we have is the ambiguous relationship he had with Bayard Rustin.

There was definitely some Black Panther literature supporting gay rights, but that's coming from a slightly different political direction.

Interesting. Does this belief in limited government conflict at all with your apparent (from what I can glean from previous posts) belief that justification can be made for our military's violation of another nation's sovereignty on faulty intelligence, as we did in the invasion of Iraq, or the government's lie-to-the-people regarding that intelligence as an attempt to dispel qualms about said invasion?

A government can fuck another government all it wants. That's called international politics. If you think that there are no governments aside from the US that engage in this, you must have failed history.

As for intelligence, the commander-in-chief is free to believe or disbelieve what the military and intelligence apparatus tell him.

Take for example Iraq - or in our new President, the belief that Iran is some really friendly place that will stop its pursuit of nuking Israel if only we have a polite and unthreatening chat with them.

Or Obama's belief that missile defense doesn't work - even when an operational system (the PAC-3) was wildly successful in actual combat.

the belief that Iran is some really friendly place that will stop its pursuit of nuking Israel if only we have a polite and unthreatening chat with them
Uh, I do not think there is anybody in the world who holds that belief.

There's no proof of that. His family is divided. The best we have is the ambiguous relationship he had with Bayard Rustin.

There was definitely some Black Panther literature supporting gay rights, but that's coming from a slightly different political direction.

His wife and struggle-mate Coretta is unequivocal in saying King would support gay rights, including gay marriage (and in supporting such rights herself). Many civil rights era veterans, like Rep. John Lewis, agree.

IIRC, the "family" is divided only in that Rev. Bernice King says otherwise -- but King was assassinated when she was only 5 years old.

I'm not sure why you call King's relationship with Bayard Rustin "ambiguous." Despite calls for King to distance himself from Rustin (in part because Rustin was a homosexual), they remained friends and close allies.

Regardless as Coretta Scott King has noted, equal rights for everyone was a fundamental message of Dr. King. Although Dr. King may have not spoken or written publicly in favor of gay rights, it is crystal clear that he never spoke or wrote against them either. Those that say he opposed homosexuality bear a burden of proof that they cannot meet. After all, we are talking about the man who wrote: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.”

Are we to believe he really meant "except for gays"?

His wife and struggle-mate Coretta is unequivocal in saying King would support gay rights, including gay marriage (and in supporting such rights herself). Many civil rights era veterans, like Rep. John Lewis, agree.

I know. But that is not proof.

It's not that I'm inclined to sympathize with the people who insist that King would have rejected any attempt to extend the logic of "equal rights" to gays and lesbians--quite the contrary. I just don't think the facts on this case are clear enough (especially considering the inherent speculative nature of the topic) to make definitive statements about it, as opposed to "There is some good reason to believe that Dr. King would have been sympathetically inclined toward gay rights."

I know. But that is not proof.

It's not that I'm inclined to sympathize with the people who insist that King would have rejected any attempt to extend the logic of "equal rights" to gays and lesbians--quite the contrary. I just don't think the facts on this case are clear enough (especially considering the inherent speculative nature of the topic) to make definitive statements about it, as opposed to "There is some good reason to believe that Dr. King would have been sympathetically inclined toward gay rights."

I don't know... something like: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly." While it's not absolute, it is a pretty good indicator. It doesn't seem too speculative, given the universal sentiments of the "Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly" reference.

While it's not absolute, it is a pretty good indicator. It doesn't seem too speculative, given the universal sentiments of the "Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly" reference.

Apparently universal and absolute statements have secret (and not-so-secret) exceptions all the time.

See the Declaration of Independence.

I know. But that is not proof.

It's not that I'm inclined to sympathize with the people who insist that King would have rejected any attempt to extend the logic of "equal rights" to gays and lesbians--quite the contrary. I just don't think the facts on this case are clear enough (especially considering the inherent speculative nature of the topic) to make definitive statements about it, as opposed to "There is some good reason to believe that Dr. King would have been sympathetically inclined toward gay rights."

I understand, but I am not clear on why the testimony of Coretta Scott King that Dr. King supported equality for all, including homosexuals, isn't sufficient "proof" that he so believed.

Especially given his relationship with Rustin, the logical extension of his public statements, and the testimony of his fellow civil rights veterans -- including former United Nations Ambassador Andrew Young, who was a top aide to King, and the Rev. Joseph Lowery, who co-founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference with King.

I understand, but I am not clear on why the testimony of Coretta Scott King that Dr. King supported equality for all, including homosexuals, isn't sufficient "proof" that he so believed.

What kind of evidence do we have from her?

I am operating on the understanding that mostly she made statements to the effect of "I believe he would have supported equal rights", and "His ideals naturally lead to paying attention to the demands for equality of gay and lesbian people"... not "He clearly and directly expressed support for gay rights."

I could be wrong, though. I'm open to being shown to be.

Especially given his relationship with Rustin,

A relationship that does not inherently suggest any political stance for lesbian and gay equality, merely a spirit of love and tolerance.

the logical extension of his public statements,

The "logical extension" of the Declaration of Independence was that slavery should be abolished and Native American rights respected, yet the people who signed it (for the most part) intended no such thing.

The "logical extension" of the Fourteenth Amendment is that same-sex marriage should be legal, yet the people who wrote it certainly did not think in those terms, and the courts have yet to interpret it that way.

What follows from the logical application of ideals of equality and justice is always constrained by the limitations of human beings.

and the testimony of his fellow civil rights veterans.

Same applies for them as applies for Mrs. King.

Edit: Again, I'm not saying that we don't have good reasons to believe that Dr. King would have been sympathetic to gay rights--the simple prominence of gay rights advocacy among major black leaders and politicians, including numerous ones coming out of the Civil Rights Movement, is enough for me there (and is a noteworthy fact in the context of our discussion of black homophobia). I'm just saying that we should hesitate before making statements, without qualification, about what he believed when we simply don't have direct evidence.

What kind of evidence do we have from her?

I am operating on the understanding that mostly she made statements to the effect of "I believe he would have supported equal rights", and "His ideals naturally lead to paying attention to the demands for equality of gay and lesbian people"... not "He clearly and directly expressed support for gay rights."

I could be wrong, though. I'm open to being shown to be.

A relationship that does not inherently suggest any political stance for lesbian and gay equality, merely a spirit of love and tolerance.

Same applies for them as applies for Mrs. King.

So, despite the absence of any evidence from anyone that Dr. King disliked homosexuals or supported discrimination against homosexuals, despite his strong advocacy for rights and equality for all, despite his strident support of love and tolerance towards even segregationists, and despite the fact that those who knew him best say he supported gay rights, you won't be satisfied unless he "clearly and directly expressed support for gay rights" beyond speaking to his associates?

you won't be satisfied unless he "clearly and directly expressed support for gay rights" beyond speaking to his associates?

No, I'd be satisfied if he did so to his associates, too.

Again, can you show that to be the case?

No, I'd be satisfied if he did so to his associates, too.

Again, can you show that to be the case?

That is my understanding. If I get the time, I'll try to find some links.

No, I'd be satisfied if he did so to his associates, too.

Again, can you show that to be the case?
His associates say so. Are you wanting a seance?

Uh, I do not think there is anybody in the world who holds that belief.

Obama.

Obama.
You are grossly mistaken.

You are grossly mistaken.

You forgot that he said this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/us/politics/01cnd-obama.html?_r=1&ei=5088&en=6e53bced62b78a88&ex=1351656000&oref=slogin&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

Apparently, he thinks they will respond quite well to talks and favors, and have only been “acting irresponsibly”.

He talks about both carrots and sticks (you are forgetting that he has also said that the option of nuclear-bombing "cannot be taken off the table"), as any sane leader ought to.

You forgot that he said this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/us/politics/01cnd-obama.html?_r=1&ei=5088&en=6e53bced62b78a88&ex=1351656000&oref=slogin&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

Apparently, he thinks they will respond quite well to talks and favors, and have only been “acting irresponsibly”.

Unfortunately for you, the article you cite doesn't support your assertions at all.

I'd say "nice try," but it doesn't even merit that.

Unfortunately for you, the article you cite doesn't support your assertions at all.

I'd say "nice try," but it doesn't even merit that.

Yes it does. He apparently thinks that talking to Iran will work.

It obviously hasn't done the world any good so far to talk to Iran.

They're busy making nuclear weapons.

Yes it does. He apparently thinks that talking to Iran will work.

It obviously hasn't done the world any good so far to talk to Iran.

They're busy making nuclear weapons.

This is more than a bit of a threadjack, but I'll make two quick comments:

1. It obviously hasn't done the world any good so far for the U.S. to refuse to talk to Iran. :wink:

2. He has been very clear that, although he would add talking to Iran to our strategy, it would not be our sole strategy in dealing with them. Acting like he said otherwise is being deliberately disingenuous.

This is more than a bit of a threadjack, but I'll make two quick comments:

1. It obviously hasn't done the world any good so far for the U.S. to refuse to talk to Iran. :wink:

2. He has been very clear that, although he would add talking to Iran to our strategy, it would not be our sole strategy in dealing with them. Acting like he said otherwise is being deliberately disingenuous.

What? You're accusing Kimchi of being disingenuous? You better have proof there Mister!!

:D

Considering their goals, and considering the fact that the Europeans have already talked and offered gifts, it's pretty clear that talking to Iran is useless.

Unless we're offering to slaughter the Jews in Israel and hand it over to the Palestinians.

Considering their goals, and considering the fact that the Europeans have already talked and offered gifts, it's pretty clear that talking to Iran is useless.

Unless we're offering to slaughter the Jews in Israel and hand it over to the Palestinians.

And you think that a war with Iran when we're currently in an costly unpopular war in Iraq is the way to go? That makes sense.

And you think that a war with Iran when we're currently in an costly unpopular war in Iraq is the way to go? That makes sense.

Not saying that a war is the way to go.

I'm sure the world can come up with far more drastic sanctions.

And I believe the US should promise then that if Iran uses a nuclear weapon on anyone, that the US will annihilate the entire country.

I don't believe that you can stop them from building nukes. But you can certainly deter them.

Not saying that a war is the way to go.

I'm sure the world can come up with far more drastic sanctions.

You're being disingenuous. The article you linked to said that Obama's policy was/is to have high level talks with Iran without preconditions and to hold some carrots out if Iran behaves. There wasn't anything precluding harsh sanctions or even military action.

You forgot that he said this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/us/politics/01cnd-obama.html?_r=1&ei=5088&en=6e53bced62b78a88&ex=1351656000&oref=slogin&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

Apparently, he thinks they will respond quite well to talks and favors, and have only been “acting irresponsibly”.

Perhaps Tmutarakhan DID forget Obama said that... but, you don't appear to be able to comprehend what it was Obama actually said, so I wonder which is the lesser evil?

Or, of course, you're lying, and know damn well that Obama didn't say what you're saying.

What Obama really said was that we will lift economic sanctions, just as soon as Iran starts performing gay marriages.

What Obama really said was that we will lift economic sanctions, just as soon as Iran starts performing gay marriages.
I would really like them also to stop murdering them and to stop turning a blind eye from its citizens who do. However, I also don't think that think that economic sanctions are a very good idea, because individual citizens are not guilty per se for what their governments do or do not do.