December 03
2008
Neil Patrick Harris in 'Prop 8 the Musical'.
Also starring John C Reilly, Sarah Chalke,Jack Black, the living goddess that is Alison Janney, and other famously famous people.
Andy Dufresne
| Cast&Crew
| 12:40 CET
|
224 comments total
| tags: harris, patrick, neil, 8, prop
You need to
log in to be able to post comments.
About
membership.
« Older
(SPOILER)
Casting call for Dollhouse episode...
|
(SPOILER)
Doug Petrie wrote tonight's Wonder...
Newer »
© 2002 - 2009 - WHEDONesque.com
(
e-mail)
Individual posts are copyright their respective authors
This is a non-profit, unofficial website, not affiliated with Mutant Enemy, Inc., 20th Century Fox, Warner Brothers or UPN.
flugufrelsarinn | December 03, 12:49 CET
On a side note,NPH is fast becoming one of my favorite performers ever!
Cyclopticxander | December 03, 12:57 CET
gossi | December 03, 13:13 CET
NPH at the piano. Hello, Pretty! Does he just keep getting more pretty? *is jealous and crushing at the same time* I had to pause and rewind. And that shirt... *sigh*
Mirage | December 03, 13:14 CET
MizBehavin1 | December 03, 13:19 CET
I hope there will be another vote, and people won't be so stupid.
Nico-Angel | December 03, 13:28 CET
RollingInKittens | December 03, 13:29 CET
But kind of sad to think that in this so-called enlightened day and age, such a blatantly discriminatory law is allowed to be passed in the first place. Actually, I have a feeling that it was NPH as Barney in HIMYM who asked- 'Why shouldn't gay people have the right to be just as miserably married as everyone else?! '
missb | December 03, 13:41 CET
Thanks for the link. Now I can see what activities are taking place and select the ones to participate in.
MacGuffin | December 03, 13:53 CET
NM, reloaded and all is well. Excellent.
[ edited by C. A. Bridges on 2008-12-03 14:10 ]
C. A. Bridges | December 03, 14:04 CET
Self same Adam Shankman directed our Young Simon in 'Hairspray'.
Zac Efron is taking on Kevin Bacon's role in the new 'Footloose' remake.
Kevin worked with SMG in 'The Air I Breathe'.
Sarah was choreographed by Adam Shankman in 'OMWF'.
And round we go...
missb | December 03, 14:18 CET
Harridan | December 03, 14:19 CET
theclynn | December 03, 14:49 CET
And Neil really is a great performer!
maxsummers | December 03, 15:04 CET
baxter | December 03, 15:14 CET
Giles_314 | December 03, 15:25 CET
Kirochka | December 03, 15:49 CET
montresor | December 03, 15:52 CET
We will get prop. 8 overturned. I think too many people (including me) had their energies too focused elsewhere during the campaign. We'll be ready for the next round.
jcs | December 03, 15:52 CET
Because obviously anyone who disagrees with the right to gay marriage is an idiot. It couldn't just be that there are intelligent people who disagree with it on moral grounds.
Derf | December 03, 16:13 CET
BUT: I hate to be Debbie Downer, but it's a little late for this now, n'est-ce pas? This is what bugs me about all this: they can grant gay marriage, then ban it, then allow it again, then ban it again, etc. It's something that'll be on the ballot every election. How do we stop this?
Linnea1928 | December 03, 16:30 CET
embers | December 03, 16:31 CET
Sunfire | December 03, 16:35 CET
Succatash | December 03, 16:38 CET
And what sort of 'moral' might that be? Moral is such a fluid thing ...
Harridan
Harridan | December 03, 16:49 CET
dzr | December 03, 16:52 CET
And Derf, you are completely right, there is no intelligent, moral defense of Prop 8. Because if someone is morally opposed to gay marriage, the solution is simple. Don't have one. And if a particular religion is morally opposed to gay marriage, their religious figures don't have to perform them, or recognize them within the religion. But there is no justification for denying the right of CIVIL marriage, which after all is a contractual agreement between two people, to others just because you personally don't approve of them.
It is worth remembering that at the time our current President-elect was born, his parents' marriage would not have been legal in many states. And sadly, a majority in those states had no problem with that.
barboo | December 03, 16:52 CET
Except not. See, for example, the recent ruling against eHarmony.
Rachelkachel | December 03, 16:57 CET
MySerenity | December 03, 16:57 CET
Some people treat religious doctrines as absolutes, ignoring the fact they evolve over time, just like any other human endeavor. This video points that out so succinctly. Do we still allow husbands to stone their wives? No. Do we still allow families to sell their daughters into slavery? No. Why? We evolved. We changed. We became more respectful of human rights, and more tolerant towards others.
Organized religion does good, but it also has a lot of bad baggage associated with it. Don't forget who silenced Galileo Galilei, and who burned Giordano Bruno at the stake, for simply exposing the truth. Those are two famous examples in a long list of abusive history, all in the name of "organized belief."
This is an intolerant mindset which must be challenged, over and over again, until it yields to rational thought. As Buffy once said, "They used to bow down to gods. Things change."
quantumac | December 03, 16:57 CET
Our country was ostensibly built on the principle that people should be able to freely practice their religious beliefs and not be oppressed by the religious beliefs of others. Codifying discrimination, particularly in the name of religion, is the least American act of which I can think.
OzLady | December 03, 17:05 CET
Has there ever been a mock proposition to ban shrimp cocktail? As a threat to traditional values?
Pointy | December 03, 17:14 CET
Ameer | December 03, 17:18 CET
zeitgeist | December 03, 17:20 CET
[ edited by Shapenew on 2008-12-03 17:26 ]
Shapenew | December 03, 17:23 CET
Dana5140 | December 03, 17:24 CET
I think we should try to get that on the next ballot. I, for one, am sick of all these shrimp-eaters flaunting their alternative shellfish lifestyle in plain view of children.
If only there were a world without shrimp!
yamsham | December 03, 17:25 CET
OzLady, the full cast is credited on the Funny or Die site, underneath the video.
deadnotsleeping | December 03, 17:25 CET
JustNick | December 03, 17:26 CET
quantumac | December 03, 17:30 CET
zeitgeist | December 03, 17:31 CET
(seriously though, no seafood at all ? Not even fish ? Verily, thou art bonkers. Also, forsooth)
... why not deny the right to marry to all left-handed people, or all adults under 5'.
Because that would be really unfair on short people.
Saje | December 03, 17:40 CET
And the cast list is at that link, and here:
Cast (in order of appearance) California Gays and The People That Love Them Jordan Ballard, Margaret Cho, Barrett Foa, J.B. Ghuman, John Hill, Andy Richter, Maya Rudolph, Rashad Naylor, Nicole Parker
Proposition 8'ers and The People That Follow Them Prop 8 Leader- John C. Reilly Prop 8 Leader's #1 Wife- Allison Janney Prop 8 Leader's #2 Wife- Kathy Najimy Riffing Prop 8'er-Jenifer Lewis A Preacher- Craig Robinson Scary Catholic School Girls From Hell-Rashida Jones, Lake Bell, Sarah Chalke The Frightened Villagers Katharine "Kooks" Leonard, Seth Morris, Denise "Esi!" Piane, Lucian Piane, Richard Read, Seth Redford, Quinton Strack, Tate Taylor
Jesus Christ Jack Black
A Very Smart Fellow Neil Patrick Harris
Piano Player Marc "Marc" Shaiman
edited to add: Of course I have to defend shrimps since I am a fairly short person my own self.
[ edited by embers on 2008-12-03 18:06 ]
embers | December 03, 17:59 CET
*gags* Oh Lord, I'll never look at shrimp again without thinking that.
menomegirl | December 03, 18:07 CET
EDIT: And embers just posted too...
[ edited by maxsummers on 2008-12-03 18:11 ]
maxsummers | December 03, 18:09 CET
Has there ever been a mock proposition to ban shrimp cocktail? As a threat to traditional values?
There's a website. I have heard of some petitions to put propositions to ban divorce on state ballots, but I doubt those will go anywhere if they're not dead already.
ETA: Also there's these guys, whom I adore.
[ edited by Sunfire on 2008-12-03 18:13 ]
Sunfire | December 03, 18:11 CET
mongorules | December 03, 18:14 CET
electricspacegirl | December 03, 18:23 CET
Saje - To paraphrase Monty Python; I am serious, and so's my wife.
menomegirl - its true! Look at crabs/lobsters as well.
zeitgeist | December 03, 18:24 CET
Pointy | December 03, 18:24 CET
They go through all the trouble and expense to beat down the forces of equality and fairness, and rather than get morose and, well, beaten down, the forces of equality and fairness go off and have fun making a musical.
The One True b!X | December 03, 18:30 CET
Only if that guy changed his name to Andy Richter.
The One True b!X | December 03, 18:37 CET
Sunfire | December 03, 18:38 CET
No On Shrimp
Oh. Actually it turns out there are dozens. I've no idea if one is more official than others.
[ edited by dzr on 2008-12-03 18:53 ]
dzr | December 03, 18:52 CET
(And dzr, that FB group you linked to in fact is the one that God Hates Shrimp itself link to, so that would make it the official one.)
[ edited by The One True b!X on 2008-12-03 18:55 ]
The One True b!X | December 03, 18:55 CET
Sunfire | December 03, 19:00 CET
ETA: Just watched. Awesome. (But nobody should have to see Andy Richter in orange shorty shorts. Like, ever.)
[ edited by NYPinTA on 2008-12-03 19:11 ]
NYPinTA | December 03, 19:06 CET
I've got to agree with zeitgeist. Just compare this to that.
I can see why someone had enough sense to ban eating something like that in holy writ.
I'm just sayin', is all.
Rebekah | December 03, 19:17 CET
palehorse | December 03, 19:21 CET
restricted in other ways; 1) minors, depending on their age,
have restricted or no marriage rights, 2) insane people may not
marry generally speaking, 3) you are limited to one partner.
This was going well until some well meaning people insisted
on calling it Marriage instead of Civil Unions or Domestic
Partnerships and insisting on including some items that were
less generally acceptable, mostly involving children.
JDL | December 03, 19:24 CET
Maybe we should stop gays buying cigarettes or alcohol too then ? Not to mention, y'know, voting.
Saje | December 03, 19:28 CET
m'cookies actual | December 03, 19:44 CET
Can you be more specific? What are you referring to?
Succatash | December 03, 19:45 CET
A major hurdle is this isn't a settled principle. And trying to put it in place as if it were a settled principle and this is just an attempt to "recognize" it leads to backfires, like Prop. 8.
And some of the actions taken since then, like trying to shut down businesses of people who made small donations to the "yes" campaign, strike me as 1930's-style direct action.
DaddyCatALSO | December 03, 19:46 CET
zeitgeist | December 03, 19:47 CET
It's not simply a matter of nomenclature. The concepts are different in very important legal and economic ways. They are not only separate legal regimes, but ones that are very, very unequal.
How is "marriage" different from a "civil union"?
Recognition in other states: Even though each state has its own laws around marriage, if someone is married in one state and moves to another, their marriage is legally recognized. For example, Oregon marriage law applies to people 17 and over. In Washington state, the couple must be 18 to wed. However, Washington will recognize the marriage of two 17 year olds from Oregon who move there. This is not the case with Civil Unions. If someone has a Civil Union in Vermont, that union is not recognized in any other state. As a matter of fact, two states, Connecticut and Georgia, have ruled that they do not have to recognize civil unions performed in Vermont, because their states have no such legal category. As gay marriages become legal in other states, this status may change.
Dissolving a Civil Union v. Divorce:
Vermont has no residency requirement for Civil Unions. That means two people from any other state or country can come there and have a civil union ceremony. If the couple breaks up and wishes to dissolve the union, one of them must be a resident of Vermont for one year before the Civil Union can be dissolved in family court. Married couples can divorce in any state they reside, no matter where they were married.
Immigration:
A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege.
Taxes:
Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.
Benefits:
The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.
But can’t a lawyer set all this up for gay and lesbian couples?
No. A lawyer can set up some things like durable power of attorney, wills and medical power of attorney. There are several problems with this, however.
1. It costs thousands of dollars in legal fees. A simple marriage license, which usually costs under $100 would cover all the same rights and benefits.
2. Any of these can be challenged in court. As a matter of fact, more wills are challenged than not. In the case of wills, legal spouses always have more legal power than any other family member.
3. Marriage laws are universal. If someone’s husband or wife is injured in an accident, all you need to do is show up and say you’re his or her spouse. You will not be questioned. If you show up at the hospital with your legal paperwork, the employees may not know what to do with you. If you simply say, "He's my husband," you will immediately be taken to your spouse's side.
I would also love to hear about how gays and children in the same family are "unacceptable."
BrewBunny | December 03, 19:50 CET
Rachelkachel: "Except not. See, for example, the recent ruling against eHarmony."
Except they really don't, the irrelevant eHarmony notwithstanding. barboo's statement that "religious figures don't have to perform them" is 100% accurate. The original June court ruling that allowed gay marriages in the state of California specifically stated, "no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”
And as others have pointed out, eHarmony is a business, not a religion.
I would remind JDL that if they want to refer to "some items that were less generally acceptable, mostly involving children" they might want to get specific for the purposes of meaningful discussion - there was a lot of scare-nonsense spouted by the Pro-Prop 8 forces of the "Oh, god, will no one think about the children!" variety - but it was generally inaccurate and misleading. I'd be interested to know what you're referring to.
There's so much more I could say, but I probably won't, lest my passions run away with me here - I was very involved in the "No On Prop 8" campaign here in California. I will say this - not only are the same panel of judges that ruled in favor of gay marriage reviewing the three out of six Prop 8-related cases they've accepted for review (you can keep up on the status of case dispositions and sign up for alerts here), but Equality California is sponsoring state legislation to overturn Prop 8.
I believe we'll eventually overcome this last-ditch bigoted effort to roll back civil rights for gays and lesbians, but sometimes it feels like we'll have to wait for some of the older, prejudiced voters to die off.
And I'm all for "pink power" - the boycotting of businesses that gave money to "Yes on Prop 8" as a business. It's anyone's right to decide not to give their business to a company that has supported laws and policies that they disagree with. It's also very effective.
I loved this musical and all the performers in it. I think I've waited all my life to see 1) Jack Black play Jesus and 2) Neil Patrick Harris somersault and cavort onstage.
QuoterGal | December 03, 20:26 CET
Actually it is, and the comment that prompted this remark outs what this is really, in some ways, about: Had the civil institution not taken the same name as the religious institution, we might not be in quite the mess we are now.
If the state didn't offer "marriage", but offered the intended state benefit under a different name -- to EVERYONE, meaning the state doesn't do "marriage" at all, even for straights -- certain religious hardliners would ne unable rhetorically to get cranky about defending "marriage".
So, it is about nomenclature. And the answer is to rename state benefits to "civil unions", remove "marriage" from state law altogether.
The One True b!X | December 03, 20:29 CET
I agree with this wholeheartedly, especially because in the months leading up to the election, "Yes on Prop 8" groups made a point of sending threatening letters to "No on Prop 8" supporters.
How ironic that now all the pro-8 groups are crying foul about finding themselves targeted for their own political donations.
BrewBunny | December 03, 20:37 CET
And as for "certain religious hardliners," I think you'll have to agree that such people will get cranky about any damn thing they please, facts and logic be damned.
BrewBunny | December 03, 20:41 CET
I also feel very, very strongly that the government has a duty to provide the same rights, not similar rights, to all of it's citizens. A civil marriage is a contract between two people, and as such, should be available to any two people of legal age who aren't already married. (The insanity restriction is a fuzzy gray area that I'm just going to ignore.)
It's not about religion. Religious folk can decide not to marry members of their own gender, if they so choose. Churches can choose not to hold or recognize the civil marriages of gay people. That is within their rights.
The government, however, has a responsibility to treat all citizens equally under the law. Full stop.
At my local Anti-Prop 8 Rally a few weeks ago, a gay friend of mine held up a sign asking, "Would you rather I married your daughter?" It was my favorite sign. :D
joni | December 03, 20:41 CET
m'cookies actual | December 03, 20:43 CET
The comment you were responding to ("[t]his was going well until some well meaning people insisted on calling it Marriage instead of Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships") would have been nearly impossible for them to post if the civil institution were not carrying the same name as the religious institution.
That was my only point. ;)
The One True b!X | December 03, 20:46 CET
joni | December 03, 20:48 CET
ETA: Or ooh, ooh, "I'm off to get rogered by the state". It's easily the name with the most lewd joke potential, on that basis alone it has to be a shoe-in, surely ?
Churches can choose not to hold or recognize the civil marriages of gay people. That is within their rights.
Y'know, I was originally going to mention that I didn't think ministers should have to marry a gay couple but then I thought "What if the Roman Catholic Church decided it wasn't going to marry black couples or interracial couples, would that still be OK ?". It's a bit grayer than I originally thought (I think ;).
Mod is watching you ;)!
Sure but fish is brain food - if you don't eat that then I have doubts about your powers of concentration ;-).
[ edited by Saje on 2008-12-03 20:51 ]
Saje | December 03, 20:49 CET
Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles
WheelsOfJoy | December 03, 20:50 CET
The One True b!X | December 03, 20:51 CET
I have no idea what this is, but this is the link for those wanting to follow the suggestion.
ETA that I now I know what it is, because I skipped to the end of the executive summary, which begins: "Protect the public understanding of marriage as the union of one man with one woman as husband and wife."
So, now you know what it is, too.
[ edited by The One True b!X on 2008-12-03 20:54 ]
The One True b!X | December 03, 20:53 CET
joni | December 03, 20:53 CET
"Ten Principles" sounds like it'd be easy to bullet point *cough* hint *cough* ;).
(or is there a movie ?)
[ edited by Saje on 2008-12-03 20:55 ]
Saje | December 03, 20:53 CET
See, bullet points folks, they're the future.
(I probably won't even sit through the movie now)
Saje | December 03, 20:57 CET
I feel as though they took that great speech of Martin Sheen's in West Wing directed at the Dr. Laura stand-in character and condensed it down, and still made awesome by Jack Black in song. I would still love to see that whole President Bartlet monologue put to music, though. Love, Love, Love that video. Possibly more than chocolate.
Tonya J | December 03, 20:57 CET
I still want to know if "Snacky" is a person or a business. And if not a person, why the quotes? *wanders off muttering*
cabri | December 03, 21:02 CET
Were you saying something? Its really about the Omega 3s, for which there are supplements :)
zeitgeist | December 03, 21:04 CET
As far as I know, churches are free to be as discriminatory as they like. (Nobody's forcing the Catholic church to allow female priests, for example.)
jcs | December 03, 21:07 CET
Since you're throwing that out there as recommended reading, can you please tell me how my own "traditional" man-woman marriage and socially-appropriate two children are threatened by the state of California allowing my gay friends to also enter into legally binding marriages that permit them to do things like taking care of each other when they're sick or create tax-revenue-generating economic enterprises together? How is that a bad thing?
On another note, every time I hear people talk about being "threatened" by gays and lesbians seeking marriage rights, I think that we ought to retire the Marines and instead attack Al Quaeda with a platoon drafted from the ranks of Queer Nation.
BrewBunny | December 03, 21:09 CET
Well, they do hate us for our freedom.
The One True b!X | December 03, 21:10 CET
Its really about the Omega 3s, for which there are supplements :)
Aha, interesting. You might've stumbled on a more peaceful solution to the coming zombie apocalypse. Not "Braiiinnnnnsss" but "Suplemennnnnnttsssssssss". And it still ends in a sibilant too, with all the creepy potential maintained. Yay to building zombridges !
Saje | December 03, 21:13 CET
zeitgeist | December 03, 21:14 CET
Personally I think the government has no business in endorsing particular religious beliefs and vice versa, and for that reason only civil marriages should be legally recognized. Religions can still have their own ceremonies, their own definitions, their own restrictions, but those "marriages" would not be recognized by the state. If people want legal recognition they would have to also get a civil ceremony, which I believe is the situation in France.
"... why not deny the right to marry to all left-handed people, or all adults under 5'.
Because that would be really unfair on short people."
Well, yeah Saje. That's the point. (See since I am just 5' I am entitled to look down on anyone shorter).
barboo | December 03, 21:15 CET
Please be gentle. *Tentatively walking out under a white flag of truce.*
Let me just first say, I personally have no problem with any of the above mentioned rights or liberties being given to those in same gender couples. Furthermore, I have met many same gender couples who were much better parents, leaders, and over all citizens than countless number of straight couples. I cannot and will not accept that the entire content of a person’s character can be judged by what gender that person chooses to love.
That being said, I do have legitimate concerns about what happens to the laws that protect my religion’s choice to recognize, in a religious sense, same sex unions. I am not saying I think that those unions should not be protected under law—there are children, spouses, and families that should not be treated any differently just because the parents in those families are either both men or women.
What I worry about is if these laws were passed, then CONCEIVABLY my Church’s right to legally bind their own marriage ceremonies could be withdrawn. Why? Because under law, LDS authorities would have to accept and bind same sex couples in order to retain their license to marry traditional couples. The Prophet and his administrators would never accept those grounds, because they do feel the unions are morally wrong.
You see why it gets kind of sticky? There’s a cornucopia of religious, legal, and moral perceptions, feelings, and opinions involved with the real live logistics of separating Church and State. It’s not as simple to say just let same-sex couples have legal rights. If I condone then the LDS church could lose theirs.
THAT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN you might be thinking.
Well it already has.
An adoption agency in Vermont—it wasn’t even Mormon, it was Catholic—refused to allow adoptions to same sex couples because those at the agency did not religiously condone same-sex unions. The agency was shut down by the state, because it would not recognize legally married same-sex couples on religious grounds.
How would the rights of marriage be eventually treated any differently?
Is it right for me to defend my faith at the expense of others?
I don't know.
It’s not any easy issue, and I don’t think there are simple answers to the questions involved with it.
Rebekah | December 03, 21:15 CET
Rebekah - I understand what you are saying, but if civil unions and religious marriages were kept completely separate then their would be a license granted by the state to perform civil unions and a license presumably given by your church to perform the religious ceremony. An adoption agency, whether an outgrowth of a church or not, is not the same thing as a church and slippery slope is a logical fallacy.
zeitgeist | December 03, 21:17 CET
But when it comes to marriage, there is a uniquely religious version of that institution, and no civil law can force a church to marry beyond its religious beliefs, or to religiously recognize such a marriage.
The One True b!X | December 03, 21:21 CET
Because that would be really unfair on short people."
Well, yeah Saje. That's the point.
Heh, crossed wires barboo ;). You'll notice I conspicuously (I thought) didn't mention it'd be unfair to left-handed people - my (joky) point being it'd be OK to deny them the right to marry. I mean, they've the devil in them, right ? Surely we all see that ? ... * crickets * ...
ETA: Oops, What zeitgeist Said (kinda sorta ;).
[ edited by Saje on 2008-12-03 21:23 ]
Saje | December 03, 21:21 CET
At least one Catholic church has in recent years refused to marry a paraplegic man because as they see it he can't consummate the marriage.
Rebekah, no one can force the Mormon church to marry same-sex couples anymore than they can force it to have a public ceremony after the formal temple sealing, invite non-Mormon guests to the temple ceremony, or force your clergy to seal a non-Mormon to a Mormon. That a LEGAL change would require RELIGIOUS change is very much a misconception. All this would mean is that churches that want to marry gay people now have it mean something in legal, civil terms. And it means any same-sex couple who wants can go to the courthouse and get a civil marriage certificate and have all the same rights as married straight couples. What the churches choose to do in their own congregations remains their own business, as always.
Sunfire | December 03, 21:21 CET
Like I said above, Saje - malfeasance, perfidy, etc.
Rebekah - I'm glad that you felt safe to express your concerns and trust that everyone here will treat you with respect in responding (I trust anyone tempted to say something nasty caught the implied threat).
Sidenote for fans of Dan Savage.
[ edited by zeitgeist on 2008-12-03 21:26 ]
zeitgeist | December 03, 21:23 CET
Do you have any legal authority you can cite for your claim that LDS authorities would have to perform same-sex marriages or perform no marriages at all?
An adoption agency in Vermont—it wasn’t even Mormon, it was Catholic—refused to allow adoptions to same sex couples because those at the agency did not religiously condone same-sex unions. The agency was shut down by the state, because it would not recognize legally married same-sex couples on religious grounds.
What was the name of the agency? Was it actually "shut down" by the state or did the state just stop funding it? Because a state cannot legally fund an institution that implements discriminatory policies that a state cannot implement itself directly.
Sorry if you feel that I'm being picky about facts. But I've just endured an election season full of blatantly false advertising about the horrors of gay marriage and some of the claims you're making here sound eerily familiar.
BrewBunny | December 03, 21:24 CET
And, yup, I agree - I think as far as the state is concerned, all marriages should be a civil union, and then churches/temples/whathaveyou can solemnize at will.
Rebekah, I don't think you can talk about all laws granting same-sex marriage rights as one thing - as I stated above, the California court ruling that permitted same-sex marriages in California specifically stated:
"no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”
I don't know how that can be stated any clearer.
I don't know about the Vermont Catholic adoption agency case of which you speak, and I'll check into it, but I'd bet you it's a question of receiving government funds... one really doesn't get to practice prejudiced adoption policies - and get a check.
(Looks like many of you were there before me...)
[ edited by QuoterGal on 2008-12-03 21:27 ]
QuoterGal | December 03, 21:26 CET
Aaargghhhh, cross-editing/postage meltdown !?! It's like Keystone weblog postings !
Saje | December 03, 21:27 CET
zeitgeist | December 03, 21:29 CET
catherine | December 03, 21:34 CET
Saje | December 03, 21:35 CET
zeitgeist | December 03, 21:37 CET
Besides, even if you do claim that "marriage" is a religious term, which religion does it belong to? Different religions have some infamous differences of opinion between them about what, why, and how marriage is and between how many people. The Christian church wasn't even in the business of blessing marriages until the Council of Trent in medieval Europe. But what about other religions? Mormons? As far as I know, you can't even get married in a Mormon temple unless you convert. Legal gay marriage affects their freedoms only as much as legal non-mormon marriage does... which is to say, not at all.
orphea | December 03, 21:40 CET
That seems sensible to me. One civil rite conferring the same civil rights to all . Separation of church and state and no issue with moral/ religious groups seeking to overturn the rights of any group.
BTW great link!!
California took a giant step backwards with this vote and the sooner it is overturned the better.
The rights of the minority should never again be subject to majority vote.
BTW, anyone wearing a garment made of mixed fibres, put down your shrimp cocktail and see me after class. I'm afraid that you are an abomination and need a good stoning.
debw | December 03, 21:42 CET
BrewBunny | December 03, 21:43 CET
Yeah, but have you TRIED it? ;). Also, does anybody know how to pronounce eschew? It's one of those words that I've seen but never heard.
And, um, good discussion here, too :)
catherine | December 03, 21:45 CET
skimmed, ahem, read through the thread, mostly (I'm letting political stuff just go hang today), I have to get in on the ban seafood conversation. I myself, am loving of the fried shrimp. And as sexual innuendo goes in art, the oyster (though not in the original version) gets its due in that famous (infamous?) scene in Spartacus put back in the restored version (Good Grief, censors of early Hollywood. If only you could have seen the recent HBO series Rome). So don't be dissing on the seafood, yo. This is a gem of a scene:Oysters and Snails
Tonya J | December 03, 21:46 CET
cabri | December 03, 21:46 CET
It was Massachusetts, they chose to close rather than adopt to gay parents, and an adoption agency is not a religion. Some are run by religious groups, but that doesn't make the adoption agency subject to the same protections as an organized religion. If you get a state license to operate an agency that places children with adoptive parents, you have to go through accreditation and follow the laws of that state. Catholic Charities decided they were unwilling to follow state law based on religious reasons, but the Catholic Church is still free to teach what they want about same-sex relationships and to refuse to marry couples as they see fit. They are not allowed to run adoption agencies that do not follow the rules though.
Sunfire | December 03, 21:46 CET
ETA - I was using "from the sea" colloquially. Things that come from fresh or saltwater seas, not for me.
[ edited by zeitgeist on 2008-12-03 21:50 ]
zeitgeist | December 03, 21:49 CET
BrewBunny | December 03, 21:52 CET
Ah, that made me laugh!
And poor zeitgeist, it's your easy-goingness that makes us all think we're allowed to have a go at your dietary preferences ;).
catherine | December 03, 21:56 CET
catherine, I think it's like "eh, shoe" but with more flair. ;)
Panache, even. I say it like 'atchoo' but with 'es' instead and easy on the 'ch'. In fact, it barely sounds like 'atchoo' at all, frankly I don't know why you all brought it up.
BTW, I think we may have a majority, I say we vote to revoke zeitgeist's right to not eat seafood. And would a sub proposal to make him left-handed be too much ?
Things that come from fresh or saltwater seas, not for me.
Apart from salt. Yes, now we see the argument utterly collapse, like a big floppy sea cucumber. *rests case*
...
I meant after it's ejected its guts into the water, you get that right ? Cos of the floppy.
Saje | December 03, 21:56 CET
I think zeitgeist's Merriam-Webster pronunciation is too sneezy; I like this one better.
[ edited by QuoterGal on 2008-12-03 22:02 ]
QuoterGal | December 03, 22:02 CET
I will also concede BrewBunny that you are absolutely right, it was heard as more of a story rather than as cited research. I will also concede that those types of stories do tend to lead to unsubstantiated paranoia on both sides. I apologize.
I was just expressing a concern, unfounded though it may have been. I’m grateful no one bit my head off or tried to send me a pouch of proverbial white powder in protest. The Church headquarters, not five blocks from my house, was not so fortunate.
I will say that I didn’t know half of what was said here today, so I will pass that information onward.
I wouldn’t actually mind the French or European policy of Religious and Legal Marriages. It seems to make a lot more sense. Then no one can claim religious discrimination.
Rebekah | December 03, 22:02 CET
So, you're already ahead of a lot of others in being willing to ask about it, rather than simply proclaim it.
The One True b!X | December 03, 22:06 CET
I'm glad your head remains unbitten, Rebekah. It's a nice and very informed bunch here, generally.
Thanks all for clarifying (or really complicating) the pronunciation problem for me. I'm careful ever since discovering at the age of 18 that there was in fact no such word as "misle" (meaning "to deceive," past tense misled, long vowel i) and that I had been, heh, misreading misled all my life. I still feel sad about losing that word. And mainly I worry about a horrible mispronunciation around fancy people.
catherine | December 03, 22:11 CET
So, you're already ahead of a lot of others in being willing to ask about it, rather than simply proclaim it.
And altering your opinion when new facts come to light goes a long way in my book too. I don't think anyone minds religious people raising their concerns it's when they cite dogma as "evidence" that it becomes ... irksome.
[ edited by Saje on 2008-12-03 22:14 ]
Saje | December 03, 22:11 CET
Matthew Shepard wasn't so fortunate either. Neither was the best man at my parents' wedding who got his head smashed in with a concrete block by someone who didn't approve of his "choice."
BrewBunny | December 03, 22:11 CET
catherine | December 03, 22:12 CET
orphea | December 03, 22:13 CET
Right, but my eating habits aren't a democracy and I was speaking of living things from the sea. Sea salt is fine.
QG - I wasn't thrilled with the M-W pronunciation, either, it was just the site I thought of first. M-W didn't have a .wav for the third pronunciation, though it has to count for something that they do have it listed textually.
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Again with the white powder! Oh, you meant... never mind ;).
[ edited by zeitgeist on 2008-12-03 22:16 ]
zeitgeist | December 03, 22:14 CET
Saje | December 03, 22:15 CET
That's appalling about your parents' friend, Brewbunny, I'm so sorry. Your post popped up just after I'd sent mine, didn't mean to follow it with something so flip :(
catherine | December 03, 22:16 CET
And yeah, to be serious for a minute, real acts of violence bring it all home. Of course, with the best will in the world, you can pass all the laws you like, there're always gonna be people willing to do stuff like that, sad but true.
Saje | December 03, 22:18 CET
So long as you're not too short to reach it ;).
So, you're saying we should get something like they had in Minority Report, yeah? (JOKING)
zeitgeist | December 03, 22:19 CET
Sunfire | December 03, 22:20 CET
Yes, I made that up.
zeitgeist | December 03, 22:22 CET
catherine | December 03, 22:26 CET
So long as you're not too short to reach it ;).
Keeeeekkkkk, Keeeeekkkkk ! To me, my dolphin friends ! No problem, i'll ride on the back of Flipper, a simple half-pike, 3/4 twist will bring us within handedness reach.
So, you're saying we should get something like they had in Minority Report, yeah? (JOKING)
Dude, is that a trick question ? Of course we should get jet-packs, they're the future. S'what you meant, right ?
Saje | December 03, 22:26 CET
UnpluggedCrazy | December 03, 22:26 CET
Sunfire | December 03, 22:27 CET
Fantastic video.
Oh yeah, I meant to say about 15 inanities ago, really cool, funny video. Like a piss-take squared, with singing ;).
ETA: My inanities I meant BTW, you lot are completely ... ane, as usual.
[ edited by Saje on 2008-12-03 22:34 ]
Saje | December 03, 22:31 CET
Either way, Fanatical Mormon or Gay Marriage supporter with a grudge, they didn't represent either group very well.
Brewbunny, I do not even pretend to know what that kind of intollerance is made of. It is unconscionable.
Rebekah | December 03, 22:33 CET
I do believe that the generality of the "YesOnProp8" continual & vague exhortations to "remember the children" and "protect your church's freedoms" is exactly what enabled them to win. One you get into specifics, their talking points melt away...
I'm with the others here, Rebekah, in that 1) I think that talking about it reasonably, as you did, is so much better than not bringing it up at all, and leaves misconceptions unchallenged on both sides and 2) you rock for taking in new info so well...
I don't like oysters, but I do like snails. My partner A has to leave the room when we drop lobsters into the pot, 'cause he swears he can hear them scream. I say, in the boiling lobster pot, no one can hear you scream. ; >
(Oh, and it's great to see Allison Janney again - I don't think I'm capable of separating her from her character C.J. I've tried, as in The Ice Storm - but all I could think was "C.J. is being so naughty.')
QuoterGal | December 03, 22:34 CET
Rebekah | December 03, 22:37 CET
(And I haven't even seen a full season of The West Wing!)
UnpluggedCrazy | December 03, 22:38 CET
But the more I've learned about different cultures and different subcultures, the more I question that there is anything universally recognized as marriage. Is a culture where a married woman lives with her family of origin and is visited occasionally by her husband for sexual congress really experiencing marriage in a way we understand it? What about a ruler with dozens of official wives and concubines? Societies in which a woman marries a household of brothers?
It seems to me that there is really very little in these different configurations that would lead them all to fall under one category. What there are, in every society it seems, are rules - rules for what persons have legitimate sexual access to each other, rules for distribution of resources based on kinship, rules for the recognition of kinship for purposes of resource distribution etc. And it is somewhere in the intersection of those rules that we locate something we call "marriage."
This is a little far afield from our discussion perhaps, but the point is that even within our society, people regard marriage as very different things, even depending on where they are in their own life cycle. I've seen it said many times that marriage should be for the children, but my widowed aunt remarried in her 70s and she sure wasn't planning on having any children then.
barboo | December 03, 22:39 CET
Ha. Me too!
NYPinTA | December 03, 22:40 CET
xerox | December 03, 22:44 CET
barboo | December 03, 22:48 CET
BrewBunny | December 03, 22:55 CET
When you put it that way, initially a defensive lump came up in my throat. But then I swallowed it.
Is the definition for disagreement synonymous with intolerant?
I'm LDS. Does that make me intolerant?
[ edited by Rebekah on 2008-12-04 01:42 ]
Rebekah | December 03, 23:17 CET
[ edited by Tonya J on 2008-12-03 23:42 ]
Tonya J | December 03, 23:20 CET
Many of the locals here in Salt Lake compared it to the mid/late 1970's, when near-riot protests and "terrorist" civil disobedience (bombs and bomb threats) were directed towards the Mormon church for their discrimination towards black people.
Succatash | December 03, 23:22 CET
zeitgeist | December 03, 23:22 CET
I really hope that it's evident that , whilst you have every right to live by your belief system, your church and those of your faith do not have the right to dictate to those who do not share that belief system. If anyone was asking your church to conduct and sanction same sex marriage that may be cause for protest. However civil marriage is none of the church's business.
In my opinion for your church, or any other church, to campaign to deny basic human rights to people not of your faith is just wrong
And the fact that that campaign may well have influenced the vote is disturbing.
Of course what is most disturbing is that an existing right was ever put to the vote in the first place. America is multi faith and multi cultural and civil and legal rights should protect everyone regardless of race, gender, orientation, ability, age, belief or the absence of belief.
Once proposition 8 is overturned ( and it will be) steps need to be taken to ensure that no similar proposition can ever be placed on a ballot paper.
[ edited by debw on 2008-12-03 23:34 ]
debw | December 03, 23:29 CET
But right now a number of very dear friends of mine are in danger of having their legal marriages invalidated because the LDS and Catholic churches could not be content to simply disagree about a matter resolved by the Supreme Court of California and instead felt it necessary to spend tens of millions of dollars taking away my friends' constitutionally protected marriage rights. I don't see how one could characterize that kind of activity as mere "disagreement." Your church, including many members who reside far away from the state in which I live, was one of the most active parties in trying to take something very important away from people I love. It was not political - it was personal. And those who defend the LDS and Catholic churches' participation in California politics need to take responsibility for that.
BrewBunny | December 03, 23:37 CET
As I recall, former 49ers quarterback Steve Young, a very prominent Mormon, had family that was vehemently opposed to Prop 8. His wife’s brother is gay, and she campaigned on the opposite side of the issue.
“America is multi faith and multi cultural and civil and legal rights should protect everyone regardless of race, gender, orientation, ability, age, belief or the absence of belief.”
I agree. And if Mormons really read their own doctrine (See Book of Mormon book of Alma), they would agree with me.
Rebekah | December 03, 23:38 CET
We should keep the particulars of religion out of our common law, the law that governs people of all faiths and belief systems. The law should be based on fairness and equality, not religious dogmas.
If California said tomorrow that everyone had to kneel to the "Flying Spaghetti Monster," or "Budda", or "Jesus," or "Allah", then there would be an uproar. This is the same reason we should oppose Proposition 8 and laws like it.
quantumac | December 03, 23:43 CET
zeitgeist | December 03, 23:49 CET
The One True b!X | December 03, 23:50 CET
debw | December 03, 23:52 CET
On that Vatican/UN link, one part they quote says exactly what I was thinking...
"Pointing out that homosexuality was still punishable by death in some Islamic countries, the editorial said what the Vatican really feared was a “chain reaction in favour of legally recognised homosexual unions in countries, like Italy, where there is currently no legislation”."
Nice. The Vatican's willing to make a move/state an opinion that could affect the wellbeing of a whole lotta non-straight folks and their supporters in countries that're more hostile to them, all because they're paranoid. I understand where their paranoia comes from, they see the world changing so fast (far as social rights go, it's often for the better) and they're a very fearful bunch.
xerox said:
"Its a very creative piece of propaganda..."
Or a response to the not-so-well-thought-out propaganda that resulted in Prop 8 going through in the first place. Depends on your perspective.
I wish I could refrain from typing this next part that goes, I can't wrap my head around the idea of people who are entertained by and understand/appreciate most of the themes of Joss Whedon's work, yet would support something like Prop 8. But hey, it stands (tall).
[ edited by Kris on 2008-12-03 23:53 ]
Kris | December 03, 23:52 CET
Oh, and I forgot to post this earlier. I believe the so-called 'restrictions' on underage and insane marriages are not so much restrictions as protections, to protect incompetents from being misled or forced into marriage. This does not apply at all to gay marriage as the members of the gay community are not generally considered incompetent.
And now I can't stop thinking "misled, past tense of the verb to misle" whenever I type it. ;)
cabri | December 04, 00:10 CET
I don't see how Prop 8 answers even one of these, let alone all three. It's clearly advancing the religious moral perspective of the religious groups that wrote, promoted and paid for this proposition/amendment. Call me legally/politically naďve, but I don't truly don't understand how California laws can so obviously violate our Federal constitution.
And of course the video is propaganda by the dictionary definition (and not the pejorative one sometimes used): "information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause."
QuoterGal | December 04, 00:22 CET
Also, what cabri just said. About protections vs. restrictions, as well as about misling.
catherine | December 04, 00:22 CET
On the other hand, I can't believe that my birth state decided to codify discrimination into their constitution. Its so shameful.
JoAnnP38 | December 04, 01:15 CET
TamaraC | December 04, 01:23 CET
The One True b!X | December 04, 01:37 CET
Rebekah; That's what I'm referring to. even the milder ones, like trying to close down businesses of people who contributed to the "Yes" campaign, reminds me of 1930's style direct action campaigns.
orphea: I agree that marriage has a civil component. That's the aprt that worries me, and one among several reasons* why I basically support the idea of gay marriage (altho I am also opposed to judges inventing fundamental changes to the law without real precedent or a real basis in other legal provisions) because this lends force to the Barry Lynn types who want to take marriage completely out of the legal sphere, which I oppose. (*Another reason is I think getting a bunch of enthusiastic people invovled in the institution of marriage would re-energize it for all of us who believe in it, says the guy separated for almost 8 years.)
barboo catherine: nice to finally know for certain I'm not the only person who thinks there's such a verb as "misle."
Basically, abd so you'll know where I honestly stand on this, I'd've voted "No" had I been living in California largely because such a law had already passed the legislature, even tho I thought Gov. Arrrrnie's reason for vetoing it (that such a law had recently failed to pass by referendum) was a solid one, and also ebcause of the large climate for the idea there. If it had been on the ballot in my state, which it fortunately wasn't, where there is no such legislative history, I think I'd've had to vote "Yes" because it's not a decision I want judges making. This country is supposed to be governed in a representational manner, not by black-robed godlets ruling on whim. Judicial rulings need a basis in a legal provision, and I can't see one for this.
Gay marriage is a change to be fought for and positively enacted; it isn't an already fundamentally settled thing where it's just a matter of making some recalcitrants see it, like the race cases of the 50s and 60s.
[ edited by DaddyCatALSO on 2008-12-04 02:05 ]
DaddyCatALSO | December 04, 02:04 CET
And the amendment was not constitutional. There are already many lawsuits filed against it. It will be thrown out by judges who are correctly doing their jobs that we elected them to do.
TamaraC | December 04, 02:11 CET
Unfortunately, legally speaking, it isn't quite that cut and dry.
The One True b!X | December 04, 02:14 CET
I'm not sure what you're saying about this similarity you're seeing, DaddyCatALSO - are you against "1930's style direct action campaigns" and if so, why in particular?
I disagree with your use of the phrase "trying to close down businesses" to describe boycotting businesses that gave to Prop 8. It isn't about "shutting down" that biz - for many, myself included, it's about not using one's own hard-won money to support it. "Trying to shut it down" could involve a slew of other tactics, none of which have been used in the "NoOnProp8" post-election campaigns. I don't care if they stay in business - they just ain't getting my cash. We make decisions about where to spend our money every day, and for far more trivial reasons.
I think the constitutional questions may be somewhat involved, but I am fine with the judiciary making a call on this - the system of checks-and-balances in this case helps ensure that a simple majority does not decide on a question of civil rights, which is part of why the judiciary is there.
QuoterGal | December 04, 02:27 CET
-Loved the Musical, BTW :)
TDBrown | December 04, 02:30 CET
TamaraC | December 04, 02:45 CET
barboo | December 04, 03:58 CET
This is what my dictionary says about Propaganda:
noun
1 chiefly derogatory information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view : he was charged with distributing enemy propaganda.
• the dissemination of such information as a political strategy : the party's leaders believed that a long period of education and propaganda would be necessary .
2 ( Propaganda) a committee of cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church responsible for foreign missions, founded in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV.
And this is what my thesaurus says:
noun
a so-called documentary that was really socialist propaganda information, promotion, advertising, publicity, spin; disinformation, counter-information; historical agitprop; informal info, hype, plugging; puff piece; the big lie.
xerox | December 04, 04:19 CET
The One True b!X | December 04, 04:22 CET
NYPinTA | December 04, 04:25 CET
The One True b!X | December 04, 04:28 CET
Of the Merriam-Webster definitions below I intended definition #2:
1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause ; also : a public action having such an effect
when speaking about the video, and of course I meant "ideas, information." If anyone misunderstood me and thought I meant otherwise, I am sorry.
QuoterGal | December 04, 04:43 CET
Pretty delightful stuff. Jack Black and NPH are particularly fun, and John C. Reilly really runs with the "head religious guy" role.
WilliamTheB | December 04, 08:58 CET
Simon | December 04, 09:56 CET
For the record, though I do consider myself a conservative, when a referendum to ban gay marriage was presented in my state, I voted against it, because I don't think morality should be legislated into a constitution. (How well did it work with Prohibition, he asks as he sips a Heineken Dark Lager?) Having said that, I'm still unsure about how I feel about gay marriage as an institution -- just because I don't want a constitutional amendment against it doesn't mean I think it's right. It continues to sit on my mental shelf that's labeled "Things I Really Must Think About One of These Days, When I Finally Get the Time to Do Some Serious Non-Work-Related Thinking."
Two final thoughts: I admit to being intrigued by some of the arguments that decry a majority for voting away a universal human right from a minority, but I am interested in hearing responses to the "slippery slope" argument -- which isn't always a logical fallacy. And I admit I find it somewhat ironic that it was probably the African-American evangelicals, who turned out in such large numbers to support Barack Obama, that probably made the difference in passing Prop 8.
BAFfler | December 04, 11:24 CET
And really, who hasn't been mocked for what they think at some stage ? If you have any self-belief at all it's fairly easy to get over. Not being afforded the same opportunities as everyone else on the other hand, that's harder to swallow.
(and I agree too BTW, as with most things like this it's preaching to the converted - so to speak ;) - which is why I don't think it'll achieve much. Still hella funny though ;)
Saje | December 04, 12:31 CET
I live in a very religious country and if there's one thing I've learned, making fun of people's beliefs just alienates them and makes them more stubborn. I'd go down the line of "here's two people in love, they want to get married. What's the problem?". Or show the dire consequences of living in a culture of homophobia. The suicides, the broken families, the gay-bashings. The evangelical Christians I know would be more willing to enter into debate over that than some musical which mocks their deeply held beliefs.
Simon | December 04, 14:08 CET
More importantly, the points made are actually valid i.e. AFAIK Jesus didn't have much to say either for or against homosexuality though he did talk a fair bit about not judging others and spreading love not hate. And the parts of Leviticus against homosexuality (e.g. 18:22) follow a prohibition against offering your children up to Molech by burning them (18:21) and one against adultery with your neighbour's wife (18:20) - presumably those against gay marriage are also against adulterers marrying ? (i'm kinda with them on not setting your kids on fire though ;).
I don't live in a very religious country but coming from where I come from i'm also no stranger to sectarian violence and/or prejudice so I appreciate that people feel strongly about their beliefs and generally dig their heels in when mocked (if I go back home, walk into a Celtic pub draped in the Union Jack/Flag and shout "Fuck the IRA" then i'm gonna get my head kicked in, doesn't mean I should respect the IRA or the "beliefs" of Celtic supporters). I suspect (but could be wrong) that the object of this video isn't to change the minds of those that are likely to be offended, it's presumably to mobilise those that aren't (or maybe they've - mistakenly ? - assumed religious people also have a sense of humour about themselves). Or maybe it's just "to be funny".
Course, if no-one listens because they don't like being mocked then the no2prop8 people can't then piss and moan about how no-one listens to them, you make your choices and you live with them. People who satirise others' positions have to take their licks on the same level just as much as they dish it out, neither "side" gets a free pass.
Saje | December 04, 16:21 CET
Sometimes the choir appreciates being preached to.
barboo | December 04, 16:31 CET
I agree that showing the horrible realities that many straight people seem unaware of is a better approach for educating people, but I don't think this video was meant to educate anyone. And frankly right now, in this country, showing the normality of gay couples and the realness of their bond, or the harsh stuff gay people have to deal with, gets as much backlash as pointed humor like this. There's a lot of talk on the right about "the gay agenda" and "normalizing immoral behavior." This is so polarized and misrepresented in general that I think the only thing that seems to change people's minds is first-hand knowledge of gay people in their own lives.
Sunfire | December 04, 16:43 CET
Shapenew | December 04, 16:57 CET
I agree with this, and gay characters on TV are helping, too. It's the reason the generational difference is so great. I think my daughter was about 7 when she asked me, "How do people know if they're gay?" When I was that age, I probably didn't even know gay people existed.
jcs | December 04, 17:50 CET
TamaraC; No, rights exist, they aren't earned but to use your own word, codified. And codifying is a process and there are more and less effective orders to achieving that.
[ edited by DaddyCatALSO on 2008-12-04 18:47 ]
DaddyCatALSO | December 04, 18:32 CET
TamaraC | December 04, 18:46 CET
Okay, zeitgeist, you've touched on a touchy subject. Have you seen True Blood? There are vampires that demand equal rights as an "undead American" status. Just think how Angel's life could have been if he were able to legally purchase deeds, order things online (without stealing Cordy's credit card), and driving all those cars. He may not have been tempted by the forces at Wolfram & Hart. In fact, if all undead, demonic, and mutated Americans were able to have equal rights, they might choose a life of mediocrity instead of evil. Bad Horse might not be so... bad. Think about that.
Personally I can't believe it took so long to get to that point. Stupid shrimp. Another reason those & the cockroaches of the sea should be boiled alive & then eaten. >)
But seriously, I think Simon brings up an interesting point. This musical may target some negative response. However, I can't think of a time when protests about one's civil rights did not bring up a negative reaction.
I enjoyed the musical, but I think it serves its purpose better to target those already in support legal civil unions for gays & lesbians. To win over the Yes on Prop 8 voters, they need to step back from the stereotype & humanitize themselves. As quotergal said, it might just be some time before the majority of Prop 8 voters die off, but the snark & snazz of the younger generations don't rub well with them. To get their votes, they should focus on showing how similar they are to "traditional" thinkers (conformity & tolerance) instead of celebrating the differences, which we young whipper-snappers are all about- individuality & acceptance. Small steps.
I think it would be helpful to perhaps have a series/documentary in the lives of gay & lesbian couples. Not the "late night" type, but the everyday worker, family, leader type. Special pieces on the daily news? That might build bridges.
korkster | December 04, 19:40 CET
Meanwhile, religious beliefs are hardly above being subjected to public scrutiny (and, if valid, scorn), if those religious beliefs are being used as arguments for (or, really, against) public policy and law. And satire (as in the shrimp nonsense) is a valid form of scrutiny.
(By which I mean that religion doesn't get an exemption from public scrutiny when it's being used in a public way. Nothing else gets that exemption when it's being used in a public way. The religious can't bring religion into an argument over public policy and then cry foul when their opponents also start bringing the religion into the argument.)
[ edited by The One True b!X on 2008-12-04 19:55 ]
The One True b!X | December 04, 19:52 CET
As someone just on the verge of being burnt out from NoOnProp8 activity, I agree with barboo that it's well-done "comic relief for those of us who are distressed by the Prop 8 vote, and an exhortation to continue fighting the good fight" as well as b!X's (paraphrased) "We ain't licked - and we're musical." I also think that it's a much-needed statement from these artists themselves, who I'm sure needed to find a way to blow off steam and do something for the cause. It may offend some, but that's a possibility with any artwork that's not superficial, or fashioned by committee and tested-and-focus-grouped to death, and it's definitely going to happen with any art that has political content.
It is hard to stay pumped up and working on this issue after so much effort failed to get Prop 8 voted down, and so much energy went into the protests, and now we're either waiting for the courts to rule in March '09 - at the earliest - or for state legislation to be passed. But in the interim we can support this legislation, and other do info-spreading activity. I must say that this musical has pushed me into the fray again, after a bit of a breather.
In my view, satire - and parody - have a lot to offer towards examination of and education about an issue, as well as the equally-important purpose of entertainment.
"Satire must not be a kind of superfluous ill will, but ill will from a higher point of view. Ridiculous man, divine God. Or else, hatred against the bogged-down vileness of average man as against the possible heights that humanity might attain. " - Paul Klee
“Satire exists for the purpose of killing the social being [for the sake of] the true individual, the real human being.” - D.H. Lawrence
"By rights, satire is a lonely and introspective occupation, for nobody can describe a fool to the life without much patient self-inspection." - Frank Moore Colby
QuoterGal | December 04, 20:41 CET
The biggest message the video sent in my opinion was, "We are not beaten. We will not stop. We will prevail." All while providing much needed what QG said above.
Tonya J | December 04, 21:22 CET
Meanwhile, some of the other No On 8 videos on that site are also good, like this parody of the Mac vs. PC ads.
deanna b | December 04, 21:24 CET
Great quote, BAFfler and you are correct that slippery slope isn't necessarily a logical fallacy, but the way most folks use it, it is. If you use it in a way to suggest that x makes y more probably, then you may or may not have a point, but if you argue that if x will cause a chain reaction of events inevitably leading to y, which must, absolutely follow, you are probably in the wrong. Rhetorically speaking, that is.
zeitgeist | December 04, 21:39 CET
1)I was indeed saying that simply saying that changing the name
from marriage to something else would make a difference. YMMV.
2)The issues involving children that I can remember were;
adoption for gay couples and survivorship rights for a
non-biological gay parent.
3)I am a believer in incrementalism. Take whats possible now
and come back later when enough time has passed. Civil Unions
now in other words.
Illustration; the equal rights amendment lost in some part due
to the WWII generations unwillingness to subject women to the
draft and in case of war, combat.
So here we are about 30 years later and we've had the draft
go away and women have served just as honorably and capably
as their male counterparts. If the era was to be re-submitted
today this would not be nearly the sticking point it was back
then.
The Catholic adoption case may not have been fought because of
money issues. Can someone more familiar with the case speak
to this point?
But there is another similar case concerning birth control
prescriptions that may end up being adjudicated further.
That should prove interesting.
JDL | December 04, 23:52 CET
deanna b: Really? It doesn't matter if you respect or mock the beliefs of someone, just because you know they won't agree with you? And I love the fact that you admit, albeit in passing, that your main strategy to win the next go-round is to poison the well. I can see the commercials now. "People who don't believe in gay marriage aren't cool. You ARE cool, aren't you?" I wish someone would explain to me how, exactly, that will do any of the following: a) improve the feelings between those members of each side who are committed to their beliefs yet willing to have a civil discussion on the matter; b) raise the tenor of the cultural dialogue; and c) make those people any better than those of their opponents from this cycle who did the same thing.
zeitgeist: Oh, I know. I explain this to people about three times a week.
BAFfler | December 05, 00:30 CET
And civil unions lack about 1000 rights that are afforded to marriages. They aren't the same, never have been the same, and never will be the same unless the word marriage is completely struck from the government's purview. Completely abolishing the government's right to license or define marriage for anyone is just fine in my book. As long as everyone is actually treated equally under the law. You know, as opposed to how they are treated unequally now.
TamaraC | December 05, 01:07 CET
The California constitution, which was [EDIT: adopted] in 1879, does indeed declare marriage to be a fundamental right of all California citizens. But you can't seriously be contending that the people of 1879 would have considered that language to mean anything other than a union between one man and one woman. Yet you are in favor of extending the definition past those borders. Let me be clear -- THAT'S FINE, and if the California citizens had decided that's what they wanted, then you wouldn't hear a peep from me. Honest. But in all fairness, I think you need an amendment for that. You can't just read the definition you want into the document, and then say that the constitution has permitted what you wanted all along. You would be howling if I said that gay people had been perfectly free to marry throughout state history, as long as they married someone of the opposite sex. You would claim I was missing the point entirely. (And I would be, since part of what marriage means to us is "the right to be united with someone of your choice.") But that's what you're doing right now.
They didn't decide that gay marriage should be legal, they decided that is shouldn't be illegal.
And if something isn't illegal, then it's...what? Legal. The law still answers to the old beliefs about double negatives cancelling each other out. This is one of those "You say po-TAY-to, I say po-TAH-to" debates over semantics. They didn't create a new law literally, of course, but they did expand the scope of a constitutional clause--and I'm hard-pressed to figure out the practical difference between the two.
Had they honestly enforced the constitution you have, they wouldn't have decided the way they did in In re Marriage Cases. Look at our own federal documents. The Declaration of Independence (yes, I know it has no legal force, but bear with me) holds that all men are created equal. At the time it was written, very few people would have argued that such a sentiment applied to African-American men, and the plain language would seem to exclude women. When the nation expanded equal rights to those groups, it did so by passing constitutional amendments saying, in effect, "This is how we will interpret these words from now on." That's the proper way to go about it...not the way Massachusetts and California did, by judicial fiat.
I actually agree with you about government getting out of the marriage business altogether, except perhaps as a certifier of contracts...there are so many moral beliefs and feelings attached to marriage, and as I noted earlier, government and morality mix about as well as oil and water. But you're missing what I'm trying to say. California still has civil unions. The law permitting them was passed by two chambers filled with the people's representatives, and signed by the chief executive officer of the state. California had, for a brief time, gay marriage. There was no law passed by either the people or their representatives eliminating the "one man, one woman" language from the Family Code. That language was stricken by the judicial branch, in a 4-3 vote, using a definition of "marriage" that I think was quite plainly not the intent of those citizens who wrote Article I of the Constitution. One of these decisions was properly arrived at. One of them was not. And the people were well within their rights to overturn the one that wasn't.
Let me say this again. When a referendum to ban gay marriage came up in my own state, I voted against it. If another one comes up supporting the legalization of gay marriage, I may well vote for it. I'm not your enemy on this issue. But I do want to see whatever conclusion the people reach to be arrived at by the people, and not by the courts--and there, yes, I think I am right and you are wrong. I hope I have clearly articulated my position, which I believe to be coherent and well-founded. I am interested in hearing yours.
[ edited by BAFfler on 2008-12-05 06:13 ]
BAFfler | December 05, 06:10 CET
...
You can't just read the definition you want into the document, and then say that the constitution has permitted what you wanted all along.
Err, you see the flaw here presumably BaFfler ? If the language as it stands doesn't preclude gay marriage (since I assume gay people are considered citizens of California) then any other reading of it is ALSO reading "the definition you want into the document". Claiming that the people that wrote it clearly didn't mean gays is an interpretation of what it says based on your (the big 'you' ;) own feelings on the matter. Surely the default position (until it becomes untenable, as in your slavery or women's suffrage examples) should be just to follow what the constitution says ?
ETA: And my brain tickled me into checking into the whole idea of judicial interpretation of the constitution. Seems like it happens a fair bit in fact, here's what Wikipedia (so usual pinch of salt required ;) has to say:
Legislation, passed to implement provisions of the Constitution or to adapt those implementations to changing conditions, also broadens and, in subtle ways, changes the meanings given to the words of the Constitution. Up to a point, the rules and regulations of the many agencies of the federal government have a similar effect. If the actions of Congress or federal agencies are challenged as to their constitutionality, however, it is the court system that ultimately decides whether or not they are allowable under the Constitution.
(my emphases)
Why is this situation different ?
[ edited by Saje on 2008-12-05 13:03 ]
Saje | December 05, 08:26 CET
Serious conflict for me since I favor gay marriage but can't abide legislation from the bench.
DaddyCatALSO | December 05, 14:22 CET
zeitgeist | December 05, 14:54 CET
Nope. Enlighten me. :)
If the language as it stands doesn't preclude gay marriage (since I assume gay people are considered citizens of California) then any other reading of it is ALSO reading "the definition you want into the document".
Couldn't disagree more. You're committing exactly the sort of over-literalism I talked about earlier--well, the plain language doesn't define marriage, so what's the big? The problem, of course, is that how people apply words can be altered or shifted over long periods of time...and those in constitutions are not exempt from the process. For the constitution to be properly applied, we have to read the language as it would have been read at the time. Now, there are some things the constitution just doesn't hold an opinion on--it would be foolhardy to search for solutions involving those issues in the text. But marriage is mentioned, so I don't see the problem with reading it the way it was meant to be read.
Claiming that the people that wrote it clearly didn't mean gays is an interpretation of what it says based on your (the big 'you' ;) own feelings on the matter.
No, it isn't. It's a claim based on a common-sense knowledge of history. At the time that constitution was written, the definition of "marriage" was absolutely not in dispute. Well, okay, it was, since polygamy in Utah was just beginning to be stamped out. But you know what I mean. And no, you're not free to change the meaning as you wish. :D Now if you're going to take the postmodern position that all reading is interpretation, therefore what I'm doing is interpretation, feel free...but I'll still claim that my "interpretation" is closer to what was actually meant than yours is.
Surely the default position (until it becomes untenable, as in your slavery or women's suffrage examples) should be just to follow what the constitution says ?
I have been advocating the position that we should follow what the constitution says, in terms of both word and meaning. You are the one who is talking about sticking to just the words, and throwing the meanings overboard whenever it suits you. I still maintain you need an amendment to do that. Otherwise, you have what DaddyCatALSO terms "legislating from the bench" -- the creation of a right where it didn't exist before.
Regarding judicial interpretation...I know it has happened in the past. That doesn't mean it's right. When the Supreme Court takes it upon itself "to explain the meaning of various sections of the Constitution as they apply to particular cases brought before the Court," then they're doing their job--or at least, this description on the face of it doesn't sound incompatible with my claims. Sometimes a decision takes some explanation of what was meant...look at how much time I'm spending on this board talking about one frakkin' word! But I maintain that there is a difference between this on the one hand, and reading new meanings into clauses on the other. THAT'S what I condemn. (See the decisions of Justice Scalia--whether you approve or disapprove of his worldview, he's generally been a very careful textual scholar who digs into historical texts to divine what people of the time thought they were saying, and then applies just that. That's the way I think it ought to be done.)
zeitgeist: Allow me to refer you back to my post to TamaraC above, where I said that I could reply like so: "Homosexuals have always had the right to marry someone in California. They just couldn't choose someone of the same sex to marry." Now, THERE'S a semantic duck, but anything you can do, I can do nearly as well. :) Seriously, though, I see the problem...but it wasn't a problem from their perspective. Marriage was what it was, and plenty of gay people no doubt did tie the knot in a socially-approved manner. It may seem like a small change to make, to allow them to do it with someone of their own gender, but apparently 52% of Californians think otherwise. And that's why we make laws.
I'm sure that the amendment will probably be overturned on appeal. Unlike some people on this board, though, I don't see that as a good thing. Justice is, in large part, about doing what is right, but there is also a significant element of process there; you must do right things in the right way. I maintain that the California Supreme Court didn't do things in the right way, and the people did. You may disagree with their decision (and I know many of you do), but they followed the set procedure for getting an amendment passed, and they did it. That's the power of the people...it ain't pretty sometimes, but it's what this country is all about.
The funny thing is, had the court simply kept out of it, gay marriage probably would have passed the state legislature after Schwarzenegger left office (I'm given to understand it's already passed twice WHILE he's been there, and vetoed both times...and I don't think Republicans are about to retake the state legislature anytime soon), and a Democratic governor would probably have signed it into law. So, you guys couldn't wait a couple years to do things the right way? That was too much for you? I find that telling.
BAFfler | December 05, 17:09 CET
I imagine the response to your "you couldn't wait a few years?" will be to draw parallels to racism and sexism of the past. To wit, "What, you couldn't pick cotton/ride in the back of the bus/stay at home and pop out babies/earn 60 cents on the dollar for a few more years?". I don't think that people are so inclined to turn down any legal avenue when fighting for their own human/civil rights.
zeitgeist | December 05, 17:48 CET
That was too much for you? I find that telling.
Hmm, what do you find it tells you BaFfler ?
It seems that judicial interpretation has been the "right way" since 1803 - by US standards surely that qualifies as just "how the system works", near as dammit ? If you had to go back and vote on every judicial interpretation I think you may be there a while ;).
You are the one who is talking about sticking to just the words, and throwing the meanings overboard whenever it suits you.
No, what i'm saying is, there's nothing in there that says gays can't marry (if e.g. the meaning of 'marry' changes) so what's required isn't an amendment but a clarification of how to interpret the wording for today (i.e. given that what marriage means has changed). Once that's done then afterwards (I really wanted to say 'henceforth' there - I think that might have won it for me ;-) - but IANAL) that's how the passage is interpreted.
Take the (very splendid) fiction: "All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights.". If the nature of 'a person' changes - e.g. say AIs are deemed to be people at some point - you don't need to change the wording of the constitution to specifically include AIs, you just decide that an AI is a person - i.e. the meaning of 'person' broadens - and then accept that the constitution also applies to them (or you decide 'person' can't become that broad and then you have to change it).
Truth be told (possibly due to a difference in respective legal systems - ours is much more about "muddling through" and yet it seems to basically work) i've no particular reverence for "process" or for holding particular documents sacred, justice is about what's right and fair, process is just the machinery that (usually ... often ... sometimes ;) lets you arrive at that point (and as I say, it seems judicial interpretation is [part of] the process in the US anyway).
Anyhoo, we can to and fro about constitutional law all night (though i'll have to make most of it up cos I don't really know a damn thing about it ;), ultimately it makes sense to me to simply accord civil unions the same rights as marriage (and possibly take marriage out of the constitution). Then it really would be an argument over semantics and i'd have much less sympathy for people that kept insisting on forcing people that didn't agree with them to call their partnership by a particular name, basically just for the sake of it.
Saje | December 05, 20:40 CET
zeitgeist | December 05, 20:53 CET
Yeah! Um, that's all I have to say about that.
Also, I bet this is funny:
But I don't get it! What's WZS?
catherine | December 05, 20:58 CET
catherine | December 05, 21:00 CET
Sunfire | December 05, 21:19 CET
Denying gay folks equal rights violates my deepest sense and understanding of what is fair and just, and that is why I will persist in my efforts and what I will work towards - until there are no distinctions whatsoever in civil rights.
I have so missed the context of WZSTM that all I can do is laugh a little nervously and look around at you'all for clews.
ETA: Thank you, NYPinTA and, as it turns out, Sunfire , who I didn't realize was answering my question - I went to a very "Who's On First" place with your reply.
[ edited by QuoterGal on 2008-12-05 21:40 ]
QuoterGal | December 05, 21:32 CET
NYPinTA | December 05, 21:37 CET
I refer my honourable colleague to the proceedings of 3rd December, 21:21 (amended upon further inspection and under the auspices* of Her Britannic Majesty Queen Elizabeth II at 21:23 'pon said evening).
;-)
* well, her title's on my passport anyway ... and she didn't actively stop me ;)
Saje | December 05, 22:55 CET
[ edited by zeitgeist on 2008-12-05 23:01 ]
zeitgeist | December 05, 22:56 CET
...
*shivers*
Saje | December 05, 23:09 CET
korkster | December 05, 23:11 CET
...
*runs away*
Hot dogs and grape jelly? What strange substance have you been imbibing, korkster? I mean, other than hot dogs with grape jelly apparently. Wait, not hot corgies with grape jelly?
Right, back on topic you. And by you, I of course mean myself.
zeitgeist | December 05, 23:14 CET
* see, i'm bilingual, I can also speak American ! ;)
ETA: And by this comment I actually mean "Something pertinent and, what's more, germane !".
[ edited by Saje on 2008-12-05 23:19 ]
Saje | December 05, 23:18 CET
If anything, grape jelly on hot dogs is the poor man's equivalent. And, come on, doesn't grape jelly have a right to be with hot dogs? Just because it isn't what you would traditionally consider, does that make it illegal? Should I be persecuted for my taste?
What blows my socks off is that my co-worker LOVES mayo & peanut butter sandwiches. To each their own. Gotta love exotic tastes. :)
And, for quotergal, I thought What's his name is on 2nd. :)
If you look closely, z, this is still thready. Just a little abstract. :)
korkster | December 05, 23:39 CET
NYPinTA | December 05, 23:47 CET
Actually, Saje, I haven't seen strawberry jelly.
Whereas Strawberry jelly is one of my favourite kinds, particularly with ice-cream and little bits of fruit stuck in it.
Should I be persecuted for my taste?
Sure, it's the only reasonable thing to persecute people for ;).
Saje | December 05, 23:51 CET
Sunfire | December 05, 23:54 CET
As mentioned, people in SoCal were surprised when it did pass. For those public figures who made their decisions public, some said that it was because the government overturned their decision from before that caused them to vote "yes". As if they were proving a point, or getting back at the government.
This voting thing maybe equal to all, but it should also bear equal responsibility to understand what you're voting for.
Hm. Maybe I need a pick-me-upper.
korkster | December 06, 00:05 CET
There is a fruit-filled version and a clear version of any jam-ish substance you can think of.
OK, the food combo I just don't get - and yes, I've tried it - is lamb and mint jelly. For crying out loud.
(Thanks for the link, korkster - I hadn't seen that in a long while...)
QuoterGal | December 06, 00:20 CET
Hmm, what do you find it tells you BaFfler ?
Saje: That, plus your comment that you have "no particular reverence for 'process' or for holding particular documents sacred," tells me that you're an "end justifies the means" person. And I'm not. The process is there for a reason, the documents were written with certain meanings in mind, and when we circumvent those facts, even in the name of a just cause, we are doing something condemnable.
I was going to ignore this one, but since you brought it up...again...let's talk a bit about Marbury v. Madison. The case established the principle of judicial review, which states that the Supreme Court and lesser established courts have the right to examine any legislation which has been accused of being contradictory to any higher laws, and the responsibility to overturn it if they find it to actually be contradictory.
In this case, a portion of the Family Code was accused of being contradictory to the California Constitution. It was found to be so, and was deleted. My contention is that the interpretation of the constitution used in this case, since it changes the meaning of the document as it would have been read at the time of passage, was wrong, and the decision based on it was therefore also wrong. Your contention is that the interpretation was reasonable, and the decision was also reasonable. Do I have that right?
Now, let's talk about judicial review. I have no problem with it. It's taking a law, comparing it with a higher law, and seeing if they can coexist. If they can't, the lower law gets thrown out. If that's what you mean by interpretation, then we can both agree it's a good power for a court to have, and Chief Justice Marshall was right to insist on it. If lower laws can contradict the constitution, then as he said, what's the point of having a constitution at all? But it's not "interpretation," in the sense I've been using the word all this time.
I have maintained before, and will continue to maintain, that the words which comprise the text of a law do not constitute the entirety of the law. There were meanings attached to those words when they were adopted, which everyone understood and which a majority of the people responsible for the law agreed upon. Those meanings should be used in any future reading of the law. Otherwise, over time, a law could, in theory, come to mean something very different.
There is nothing in the words comprising the original California constitution which mentions homosexuality in any way. You are correct on that point, and I have never disputed that. There is language mentioning that marriage is a fundamental right of all California citizens. I have also never disputed that. What I am saying is that the people in 1879 who wrote the document in question thought that when they asserted every citizen had the right to marriage, they meant a union between one man and one woman. And that is the reading that should be used in applying the law, until the law is changed or clarified.
Now, about this matter of clarification. Legislatures can, and do routinely, pass laws that repeal earlier laws. But they can't pass laws that are in conflict with the constitution to which they owe allegiance. For that, you need an amendment, which requires a higher percentage of approval. It is far easier to simply issue a court decision which re-defines the word at issue, of course. But that is the wrong thing to do, because the courts aren't in the business of defining or redefining words. There are entire sections of the American legal code devoted to doing just that. Courts are supposed to judge whether something is right or not, in accordance with the laws as they then exist. They are NOT supposed to update the law with a new definition before they make their decision.
I knew someone would bring up the civil rights movement as some sort of "a-ha!" at me. Truth is, I don't know why you would bother. I think any proper reading of the Fourteenth Amendment makes it pretty plain that state-sanctioned segregation was unconstitutional from the moment of its passage. That it continued to happen is undeniable; that it was unjust is equally so. I can hold both these things to be true, and still condemn the California Supreme Court. In fact, I can do so for the same reason I can condemn those courts that sanctioned segregation: they both ignore the meanings of certain higher laws in making their decisions on lower ones. And setting constitutionality aside for the moment, the comparison between repeated and flagrant state-sanctioned violation of key civil rights that law should have protected for a century on the one hand--and our current situation on the other--is frankly ridiculous. You can say, "Well, it's only a matter of degree," but if two things are that many degrees apart, I think it's really a difference of kind.
I recognize that the position I am taking can sometimes lead to outcomes I consider to be unjust. But I'm willing to bite that bullet (and hopefully not shatter my teeth in the process), because the procedure we follow in making and amending law is part of what gives that law its force. I have little sympathy for those people who claim to love justice, yet are willing to stand by while the process we have for enacting and enforcing law is circumvented--even if it is to bring about just outcomes. Without a common law of some kind, all we have to determine what is just is a feeling. That's not enough.
QuoterGal: I encourage you to continue fighting for what you consider to be right. It sounds like you're trying to bring about change the right way. But with all due respect, I think your position on judicial activism is just wrong (and Chief Justice Roberts is too, if he agrees with you--I've no problem with criticizing people from my side of the aisle if I think they've made a mistake). I hope you read this comment, and I hope you can at least see why I hold both the positions I talked about in this paragraph.
BAFfler | December 06, 00:51 CET
I refer all participants to this legal theory blog page on broad and strict constructionism and judicial activism. What, if anything, do they mean and are they useful to this discussion? Wikipedia (this and much, much more) also has much to say on all of these topics. Perhaps unsurprisingly, your position on constitutional theory seems to be a direct outgrowth of your political and moral leanings. This is probably where everyone agrees to disagree rather than poring over constitutional theory :).
zeitgeist | December 06, 01:23 CET
Yes, but what that definition is depends on what year you're referring to. There is an involved and complicated history of contentious legislative efforts, ballot initiatives, judicial decisions and executive actions that led us to our current legal mess, and disagreement by both sides about the definition and status of marriage at every step and state along the way - so I do not expect us to either solve nor agree on what politicians and their lawyers are fighting and disagreeing about as we speak. A tiny bit of this issue's constitutional history (taken from the intro to CA AB 43 - passed by many of our elected leaders, but vetoed by just one - the Goobernator) is:
(b) From 1850 to 1977, California's marriage statutes used gender-neutral language, without reference to "man" or "woman," in providing that marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract to which the consent of the parties capable of making the contract is necessary.
(c) In 1948, the California Supreme Court became the first state court in the country to strike down a law prohibiting interracial marriage. It was the only state supreme court to do so before the United States Supreme Court invalidated all those laws in 1967. The California Supreme Court held that "marriage is ... something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the state; it is a fundamental right of free men ... Legislation infringing such rights must be based upon more than prejudice and must be free from oppressive discrimination to comply with the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection of the laws" (Perez
v. Sharp (1948) 32 Cal.2d 711, 714-715). The California Supreme Court explained that "the right to marry is the right to join in marriage with the person of one's choice" (Id., at p. 715).
(d) In 1977, the Legislature amended the state's marriage law to replace the gender-neutral description of marriage with language specifically limiting marriage to a "civil contract between a man and a woman." The Legislature's express purpose for this amendment was to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying. The gender-specific description of marriage that the Legislature adopted in 1977 specifically discriminated in favor of heterosexual couples and discriminated against, and continues to discriminate against, same-sex couples.
Since that time, there have been numerous initiatives, counter initiatives, legislative attempts, etc. that I mentioned above. I support attempts to get full marriage rights for gay people by any of these legal methods, including judicial decision.
I do understand your position, BAFler - but I simply disagree with it. I genuinely hope your perspective works for you - it wouldn't for me.
ETF: typo.
[ edited by QuoterGal on 2008-12-06 02:39 ]
QuoterGal | December 06, 02:10 CET
I am going to go out on a limb (this always makes me popular) and say that to the state itself as a non-political entity (at least insofar as that's possible), any marriage between any two people theoretically encourages stability with the potential of raising new taxpayers so divorced from any moral or political angling, I believe that gay marriage supports the goals of the state (growth of the state economically and in population). Although, that may be offtopic ;). Not to hurt my hand patting us on the back, but I am proud of the way this thread has gone; go us ;)!
zeitgeist | December 06, 02:28 CET
;-)
Your contention is that the interpretation was reasonable, and the decision was also reasonable. Do I have that right?
I have no idea and with the best will in the world, it's 9 a.m. here (that time changed a couple of times in the writing BTW ;) and i'm not going to read up on the case right now (I haven't even had my coffee yet ;). My point in mentioning that date twice is, 1803 is a long time ago in US history, right ? So the idea of judicial interpretation of the constitution isn't some late arrival to the process, nor some recent exceptionalist perversion of the process, it basically is [part of] the process - I mean the constitution was written in about 1787, right ? 16 years later i'd imagine a lot of the people involved in writing it were still around, do we know if they were all up in arms over Marbury v. Madison's brand of judicial interpretation because that's not how they meant it to work ?
Saje: That, plus your comment that you have "no particular reverence for 'process' or for holding particular documents sacred," tells me that you're an "end justifies the means" person. And I'm not.
Only in the sense that you are too IMO, despite what you hope/claim (see below). The constitution is there to guarantee people equality and liberty and all that good stuff, right ? Well, in this instance that's been achieved and the constitution and the processes surrounding it are doing OK too. I agree it (probably) doesn't adhere to the intent of those that drafted it but my point is, in this case it still works anyway if you choose to let it. So it's not "the ends justify the means" specifically it's more "What's the gist of the constitution and does this adhere to that ?". That's not to say that next time the interpretation might put the main thrust of the constitution in jeopardy and then you take steps to amend it instead.
I do agree though that the definition of marriage has been changed and I agree that if judicial interpretation is always about the words and the spirit (i.e. if that's how it's meant to work within your system) then the Supreme Court judges didn't follow your system in this instance. My own perspective is, that's OK (cos that's basically how ours works anyway and the end result is in keeping with the constitution in general, particularly its first section) but I do understand if you want to avoid "kruft" creeping into your laws over time by stipulating that ALL interpretations inconsistent with when the constitution was written or the intent of the original drafters MUST be accompanied by an amendment (and, strictly, you need to go back and fix all the times - if any - that they weren't). Personally I think that messiness might just be a sign of time passing but I appreciate the attempt to write "self-documenting code" ;).
Without a common law of some kind, all we have to determine what is just is a feeling. That's not enough.
That's what justice is anyway IMO, as I say, laws are (when you strip them down) just those feelings codified to offer some kind of "proof" that they're "real" (i.e. that they're the feelings most people agree on) and process is a way of applying those codifications in the real (no quotes i.e. messy, actual) world. Laws and process have no inherent worth outside what we (as a consensus) feel about them which is why every legal system is a means/ends situation because the will of the many will always contradict the will of some one and it'll always be enforced, ultimately, by weight of numbers or main strength so it's always about least harm or most good (if murder makes someone happy they're no longer free to pursue it ;). That is, until the meaning of 'human' changes, then we might need an amendment ;).
Saje | December 06, 10:21 CET