European Tribune

Display:
Prop 8 really put a damper on things last night.  We came close.  Certainly a 2-point loss is an incredible improvement.  Can't be more than four years from getting it right.  We'll overturn it very soon, but it still really sucks.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Wed Nov 5th, 2008 at 10:32:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, it ain't that simple. Most comment I'm seeing suggests that to overrule this requires super majorities (66% ?) both in the legislatures and of the subsequent electorate, ie a bar that won't be reached.

Seems it's there and for a generation at least. Unless the actual proposition can be declared null due to a conflict in legal terminologies which I confess I didn't follow. But if that fails I suspect California has become an official H8 ST8 until such time as someone suggests and implements a separation between church and state. I think the US could use such an idea.

Some have also suggested that as the documentation exists to prove that this was official political action by both the Mormons in Utah and the Catholic church in California, it could have implications for their tax-free status. That said, I haven't noticed up to now any issues for right wing churches indulging in political activity and doubt it will change any time soon.

I'd like to think there would be a gay exodus to the East coast but I doubt it.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Nov 5th, 2008 at 12:52:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually, it seems it's not over yet.  Keep in mind: We still have quite a few votes to get through out on the West Coast, so I wouldn't give up hope yet.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Wed Nov 5th, 2008 at 01:19:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's a nice thought, but if it's this close then they'll keep coming back every 2 years. They only need 50% + 1. This was high tide on liberal sentiment so sooner or later the right wing backlash will get them over the top and they know it.

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Nov 5th, 2008 at 01:26:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Perhaps, but I'm hoping they still have to come back in two years.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Wed Nov 5th, 2008 at 01:31:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's expensive keep defending these thingsand it's draining. How'd you like to have to keep defending your marriage every two years ?  The LDS have very deep pockets (the catholics would too if they didn't have to keep paying out for their child buggering bishops) and can keep doing this till the cows come home.

As John Stewart pointed out there's something ironic about the LDS campaigning for marriage to be between one man and one woman seeing as that's not how they do it themselves.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Nov 5th, 2008 at 01:41:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's expensive keep defending these thingsand it's draining. How'd you like to have to keep defending your marriage every two years ?

I'd enthusiastically defend mine and theirs every two years.  And I'd keep donating to it just to make the LDS members piss their magic underwear.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Wed Nov 5th, 2008 at 01:47:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I replied to this elsewhere accidently

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Nov 5th, 2008 at 02:25:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
By the way, you were wrong on the legalities of Prop 8.  They can fight it again in 2010.  And, given how the kids voted (and the fact that they voted in huge numbers), I'm betting we'll overturn it for good then.  Think of this as being as good as it gets for the bigots.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Wed Nov 5th, 2008 at 02:47:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, I know they can fight it, but I'm not convinced it would be a simple 50% + 1 vote to repeal.

I understand it, there is a legal difference between an amendment and a revision. Instituting an addition to the constitution is an amendment and requires a 50% + 1 vote, which is why prop8 goes in.

But to remove it becomes a revision, which requires a super majority, the actual size of which I'm not sure but might be 66%. That's an electoral barrier of a considerablly different order.

Of course, I'm not a constitutional scholar, so I could be completely wrong about this, but that's what I'm getting from the diaries on dKos discussing it. It's good that Kos is fired up about it, but he never discussed the probable electoral issue.

Equally, I go back to the point I made elsewhere, it may be fun for the majority group to have these battles, but for the people whose rights are being fought over, it's draining. They don't want these battles over their rights, they're sick and tired of being sick and tired. They are citizens; they don't want special privleges, they don't want special laws. They just want their rights, the same as everybody else. Nothing less, nothing more.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Nov 5th, 2008 at 03:01:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Probably depends on how the amendment is worded.  Revising the amendment would require a supermajority.  Passing an amendment that would cancel it out would require a simple majority.  As he's a lawyer who deals in this stuff daily, I suspect he may know the ins and outs of it.

Equally, I go back to the point I made elsewhere, it may be fun for the majority group to have these battles, but for the people whose rights are being fought over, it's draining. They don't want these battles over their rights, they're sick and tired of being sick and tired. They are citizens; they don't want special privleges, they don't want special laws. They just want their rights, the same as everybody else. Nothing less, nothing more.

With the exception of Kos, who'd happily wage multi-million-dollar wars over zoning provisions if given the opportunity just for the sake of fighting, you surely can't think this is fun for those of us who support same-sex marriage.  That's ridiculous.  Many straight people poured a lot of money and time, some of which they undoubtedly couldn't much afford, to kill Prop 8.  They weren't, and aren't, there to defend themselves but because they believe in defending others.  Any fool will seek to defend his own rights.  It takes more than the search for "fun" to put that kind of effort into defending others' rights.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Wed Nov 5th, 2008 at 03:24:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I didn't mean to denigrate the efforts of non-gay people who gave money & fought for this. It's just that we're talking about two competely different feelings here.

There's the feeling you get when you lose a fight and feel bad about it and feeling bad for the people you might mistakenly imagine you have let down.

And then there's the feeling you get when you lose a fight and realise that you, personally, have had your rights stripped from you. Knowing that, as you go about your day, 50% of the people you see are likely to have voted to remove your civil rights. Because they have sat in judgement on you. Based not on who you are because they don't care. They don't know you, don't know anything about you, but they don't care. Because they only care about one thing about you; you happened to fall in love with somebody of your own sex and they despise you for it.

And you have to live with that. Not just that people disapprove, all gay people know that, but that there are so many that they are the majority in your life. And they hate you so much that they don't just disapprove, they were given the chance to make your life that little bit more miserable and gladly took it. And you learn to fear what else they might do.

Gay people get mocked and called names. Gay people get beaten up. Gay people get killed. But until now, nobody ever took their rights away.

You may think it's the same. But it ain't.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Nov 5th, 2008 at 03:45:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I didn't say it was the same.  That's silly.  It simply sounded as though you were insinuating that No On Prop 8 was just some game to heterosexual liberals rather than something that really mattered to us regardless of the fact that it had no direct impact on us.

Being tired of being tired is understandable.  But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be back in two years trying to win the fight.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Wed Nov 5th, 2008 at 03:56:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No sorry. Bad day for me. I got an undeserved kicking even after starting a great conversation on another thread, I've had a headache all freaking day and, even tho' I started the conversation here I've felt like I've been on point on this issue all evening.

That's probably unfair, but given what's happening here tomorrow, the prop8 thing has felt very personal to me this week so I guess I feel exposed.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Nov 5th, 2008 at 06:00:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You probably have better numbers, but I seem remember reading at some point today that something like 2/3 of non-white voters voted yes on prop8. The Obama coalition consensus did not extend to gay marriage.

So I guess if the GLBT advocates can build a base of support in the non-white community, they can beat the magic underwear off the LDS (particularly given current demographic trends in CA).

Of course, that would probably take more than 2 years. )-:

"Ideas or the lack of them can cause disease." - Kurt Vonnegut

by dvx (dvx.clt ät gmail dotcom) on Wed Nov 5th, 2008 at 02:19:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, but as I said this morning it's somewhat galling to see AA & Hispanic people celebrating finally feeling like they've become full citizens in their own country by taking the time to remove citizen's rights from another minority group.

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Nov 5th, 2008 at 02:27:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Prop 8 was approved by blacks by a much higher margin than any other group, including Hispanics.

Obama could have spoken out, loudly. He chose not to.

And it needs to be said: in the face of the Mormons, etc. the anti-8 forces were not well organized or coordinated. Even in the week before the 4th, there was too much dissension and disagreement over tactics, etc. See Petelis' blog for one view of this.

(I know it is difficult to imagine gays and the American left in general being disorganized and schism-prone, but there it is.)

by melvin on Wed Nov 5th, 2008 at 02:51:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Obama could have spoken out, loudly. He chose not to

Oh, but he did. Obama is against gay marriage (as is Biden) and said so, in California, two weeks ago. The Yes on Prop8 people had the ads out within hours.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Nov 5th, 2008 at 03:05:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
He also opposed the proposition, the idea of taking away rights, but very very quietly, in a letter to gay rights groups.

Biden at least appeared on tv and said he would vote against if he lived there, and encouraged others to do the same.

If the Governator can figure it out, why the hell couldn't Obama?

by melvin on Wed Nov 5th, 2008 at 03:11:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Helen, it's a new world. Hold onto hope.
The progressive undercurrent in the US has been documented to death for two decades, but it"s proponents have been buried under media spin till those who believe in values of reason and compassion came to think they were alone and alien, whistling against the gale force wind of cynical reality. Each time the sleazemerchants repeat "It's still a center-right country", their desperation becomes clearer. They are no longer able to believe their own bullshit.
Today the cynical story-line of the stupid, easily manipulated, fearful, security-seeking voter has also taken a huge hit.
Leaders set the tone and tell the story for those they lead. GWB, Uncle Milty, Greenspawn all told us a story of fear, alienation, of greed as human nature. It will take a while for the dust to settle, and for the powerful story line that is the potential of the obama presidency to begin to validate a return to compassion, to reason, to community.

A Community Organizer.

We sure need one. Cause divided--we die.
I trust little. But I am tempted to trust the survival instincts of humanity.
 

Grabbing what you can, as John Ruskin said, isn't any less wicked when you grab it with the power of your brains than with the power of your fists.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Wed Nov 5th, 2008 at 01:23:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Leaders set the tone and tell the story for those they lead

Obama is against gay marriage (as is Biden) and said so, in California, two weeks ago. The Yes on Prop8 people had the ads out within hours.

Some leadership we don't need.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Nov 5th, 2008 at 01:32:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's not how it's going to happen nationwide, for better or worse.  It's going to happen by appointing liberal justices to the SCOTUS who'll rule in favor of gay marriage, which will allow Democrats to hide behind "enforcing the Court's decision."  We may actually have the votes for it already, and, if not this second, I'm nearly certain we will next year, assuming Kennedy announces his retirement.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Wed Nov 5th, 2008 at 01:38:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The SCOTUS ?? You're kidding aren't you ? the only likely retirees in Obama's 8-year presidency will be the liberal's. The SCOTUS will lean dangerously right wing for a couple of decades more.

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Nov 5th, 2008 at 01:46:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Nuh-uh.  4 liberals, 1 somewhat thoughtful conservative, 4 wackos.  The center-right one is probably leaving under Obama, along with a good chunk of the liberals.  It's only one truly meaningful seat to move, but, if Kennedy retires under Obama, it could tilt the Court quite a bit to the left.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Wed Nov 5th, 2008 at 01:51:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well I must admit I wouldn't like, as a minority, to have to keep defending my civil rights, my very citizenship, every two years from a bunch of hate-filled bigots. The implications of losing are actually just a bit too great. You can fight the good fight cos, actually, you don't have anything to lose, you have considerable privilege within society, het, white etc, and so can sit comfortably and take the slings and arrows of aggressions with a certain amount of equanimity.

Those who are on the margins, who don't have such privilege, those who feel they have to negotiate their rights on a daily basis feel no such peace of mind when under attack. They have everything to lose and little to gain from such battles. And no peace of mind while the battles continue to rage.

There is a difference between a right and a concession. Rights are yours by dint of citizenship and are not for others to take away on a whim of distaste and of electoral tyranny. That instead defines a condition of concession where an "out" group are accorded limited "authorisations" on the conditional basis of continued patronage by the majority group, a patronage that may be withdrawn at any time.

Let me one day tell you about being a male bellydancer and the myriad ways I was constantly reminded I was only there on concession and not by right.

Let me describe (Friday) the sorts of debates certain wimminists would allow the transgendered where the guiding principle is on whether we even have a right to exist and have access to medical intervention.


keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Nov 5th, 2008 at 02:16:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sorry. For those feeling confused by this comment, it's actually a reply to this

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Nov 5th, 2008 at 02:24:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh what tangled threads we weave? :-)

"Ideas or the lack of them can cause disease." - Kurt Vonnegut
by dvx (dvx.clt ät gmail dotcom) on Wed Nov 5th, 2008 at 02:26:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
For the glass half FULL crowd:

Oct 21 2008

Where do the presidential candidates stand on issues of importance to the gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans community? Here is a brief comparison of John McCain and Barack Obama on LGBT issues.

Employment Non-Discrimination

Currently there is no federal protection for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender workers. In most states, people can still be fired for being gay.

    * Barack Obama supports ending employment discrimination against the LGBT community.
    * John McCain does NOT support ending employment discrimination, in fact, he voted against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) in 2007.

Gays in the Military

Currently openly gay and lesbian people are not allowed to serve in the military. Enacted in 1993, Don't Ask, Don't Tell prohibits military personnel from asking a service person if he or she is gay or lesbian. However, if a person discloses that he or she is gay, they will be discharged.

    * Barack Obama opposes "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and supports the rights of gay and lesbian soldiers to serve openly.
    * John McCain believes that gays and lesbians should not be in the military. He supports "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Gay Marriage

Currently only California, Massachusetts and Connecticut allow gay marriage. Several other states allow civil unions and domestic partnerships.

    * Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, but he is against gay marriage.
    * John McCain does not support gay marriage and campaigned for a state amendment that would have banned civil unions and domestic partnerships.

Defense of Marriage (DOMA) Law

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) does two things. First it says that no state shall be required to recognize the laws of another state in regard to same-sex marriage. Second, it defines the words "marriage" and "spouse" in Federal Law.

    * Barack Obama is against DOMA and supports the repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
    * John McCain voted for and supports the Defense of Marriage Act.

Hate Crimes Law

A Federal Hate Crimes law would help local law enforcement officials in investigating crimes against someone based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

    * Barack Obama supports a hate crimes bill that will protect the LGBT community from bias-motivated violence.
    * John McCain has voted against hate crimes legislation three times.

HIV/AIDS

The Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act (CARE) is the largest sources of federal funds for primary health care and support services for HIV/AIDS.

    * Barack Obama supports the Ryan White CARE Act and supports comprehensive sex education aimed at preventing disease.
    * John McCain voted for a Jesse Helms strategy to remove funding aimed at protecting the LGBT community from HIV/AIDS. He supports abstinence-only education.

Gay and Lesbian Adoption

    * Barack Obama supports adoption by LGBT people.
    * John McCain opposes adoption by LGBT people.

http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/a/McCainObama.htm



Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice. Blog - Nice Experience
by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Wed Nov 5th, 2008 at 02:06:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Can someone point me to an explanation of the distinction between  "civil unions" and "marriage"? Is there something practical  beyond nomenclature there?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Nov 5th, 2008 at 02:22:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
wiki to the rescue.

I think the genral argument that "if it's the same as marriage, why not call it that ? But if it's it's not the same as marriage, then it's enshrining a second class civil right status for a minority group into law.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Nov 5th, 2008 at 02:31:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
They're the same thing, as far as I know, but it may vary by state and country to some degree.  The Right hates civil unions because it hates gays.  The Left doesn't hate civil unions, but it's not wild about them because, by calling them something other than marriage, it still suggests gay couples are somehow less than heterosexual couples.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Wed Nov 5th, 2008 at 02:53:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
were introduced in France in the late 90s, and they've become increasingly popular with heterosexual couples as they're actually more convenient than marriage...

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Wed Nov 5th, 2008 at 03:32:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
More convenient, as in no ceremony required and easier to get out of?

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Wed Nov 5th, 2008 at 03:37:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
pretty much. And you get all the rights of marriage (transfer of rights to spouse , visiting rights, etc... and the like)

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Wed Nov 5th, 2008 at 04:53:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Except adoption, obviously. Well, there is no "right" to adoption ; but being in a same-sex partnership apparently disqualifies one ; pretty weird considering that single women regularly get to adopt.

Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Wed Nov 5th, 2008 at 06:17:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Heterosexual couples in the UK cannot have civil ceremonies, only marriage.  Vice versa for same sex couples.

Ad astra per aspera
by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Wed Nov 5th, 2008 at 04:02:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, but that's on the national level. On the state level (which is what people are talking about in  the U.S.) they would not come with the tax advantages that marriage has (does anybody know whether even gay marriages are recognized as such by the IRS?)
by gk (g k quattro due due sette "at" gmail.com) on Thu Nov 6th, 2008 at 02:26:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
 As Studs Terkel said:

"We're born eventually to die, of course. But what happens between the time we're born and we die? We're born to live. One is a realist if one hopes."

 "Well, through all these years there have been the people I'm talking about, whom we call activists ... who give us hope and through them we have hope."



Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice. Blog - Nice Experience
by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Wed Nov 5th, 2008 at 01:38:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Recommended Diaries
Debates
Campaigns
Occasional Series