"There can be 18,000 interracial married couples in California -- but no more!"

[villager]

Essentially what the Calif. Supremes have ruled, in today's terms...

If they'd made a similarly "brave" decision circa 1962 or so, what would've been done about it then...?

[Bankhead_ATL]

1. I am on your side but...interracial couples have nothing to do with this.

[underpants]

2. It is exactly the same thing

[DireStrike]

3. It's completely analogous. -nt-

[villager]

4. other than the fact they were similarly discriminated against once upon a time

...and not allowed to be married to each other?

[Warpy]

5. It's exactly the same thing

The rhetoric is exactly the same, complete with the bible beating and bleating about god's will.

If the majority can rule to oppress the minority, this country is finished. They knew that in 1962. They seem to have forgotten it in 2009.

[Bankhead_ATL]

9. Now this is the disconnect between gays and black people.......

I am a black straight man and I side with gays over marriage issue but my black friends and family really hate when the gay issues is compared to black issues

[Toasterlad]

11. So, You Don't See Any Similarity....

...between an historically oppressed minority held down by a bigoted majority who justify their hatred through religion and misinformation, and who predict dire things if the minority is granted equal rights and allowed to co-mingle with the majority? You don't find any similarity in the majority telling the minority who they may marry, where they may work, how they can live?

Interesting.

[annarbor]

60. I am a gay, black, woman...

And I see absolutely no difference between the treatment of gays and lesbians today, and the treatment of my people during the Civil Rights era.

Thanks for your post....

Ann Arbor-

[Toasterlad]

64. Thank YOU.

:hug:

[EFerrari]

15. Equality is a human issue. n/t

[Bluebear]

26. Then you should educate your friends & family to the parallels.

[EndersDame]

28. As the procuduct of an Interracial marriage

I think it is an apt comparison. Should it be approached with more sensitivity,Yes. Should people make comparisons to Slavery,hell no.

[LostinVA]

30. Why are you so concerned about "Oppression Olympics" instead of civil rights?

THAT is the questiuon. Why?

[Chulanowa]

40. Because that's how our society has been defined

The ruling classes find it beneficial to them selves to compartmentalize us serfs into competing camps. He's black. You're gay. I'm Pagan. Apparently we're all supposed to wrestle around over who gets the golden apple, while the fat bastards at the top are busy eating the damned thing.

It's a tough thing to overcome, because it's so ingrained. We might be able to do so, but for every person who breaks out of the cage, they leave ten behind, still barking and squabbling about how their camp is more important than that camp over there, and both are more valid than yours, and blah blah blah.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

31. We only have your word that you're black.

It may be that you are. And it may be that you're not and are just using the old "I am a lifelong xxx but.." canard.

Let's assume that you are.

Essentially, what you're saying is "My minority is of people that were unjustly persecuted. Your minority is icky and I don't like it, so fuck yourselves."

[Lex]

Tough.

Sorry they "really hate" the analogy, but it is sound.

[Sebastian Doyle]

42. I believe it was Dr. King who said

"....no one is free as long as others are oppressed". And he was right.

[Hepburn]

54. Amen. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

45. Tell them to argue with Coretta Scott King

"Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood. This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group."

And tell the thankless, ignorant fools Mrs King also told them this home truth:

"Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Georgia, and St. Augustine, Florida, and many other campaigns of the Civil Rights Movement. Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions."

So tell me. Do your friends and family really hate Coretta too?

[liberalmuse]

12. I disagree.

It IS the same thing. Basically, bigots banning the marriage of two consenting adults because it scares them, no matter there is no reason whatsoever for such a ban.

[LostinVA]

29. The analogy is sound

[ScreamingMeemie]

57. If you cannot see how they do...then you are truly blind.

[EFerrari]

6. I don't think that's what happened here today.

The Court issued no ruling on the number of marriages that are possible.

They said that Prop 8 was a proper amendment to the Constitution and not a revision. The marriages deemed legal may now open the way for equal protection suits.

[villager]

8. the point is, they "capped" the number of same-sex marriages

(a number which happens to be around 18,000), which would be the same as "capping" the number of interracial marriages "allowable" under their ruling(s)...

[EFerrari]

10. No, they didn't. That's what I mean. By allowing those marriages to stand,

they could be opening the way for an equal protection challenge.

They didn't have much choice today. When we left it up to the Court, they ruled for gay marriage, remember?

Eta: Or, that how it looks to me, anyway.

[villager]

13. well, yes they did, in that those are the only marriages considered "valid"

right now. That's exactly my point.

Of course they left it open for challenges -- but that doesn't mean the number of "legitimate" same-sex marriages is going to grow/expand before then. Because it's not.

Because it can't.

thus -- a "cap."

[EFerrari]

16. Maybe we're only having a half empty/half full disagreement here.

[indie_voter]

14. I'm not a lawyer, so I am very fuzzy on how this works

How can saying a certain number of people are married, but nobody else can stand? This isn't fair at all. How will this stand up in court?

Maybe this is the next battle, to take it on from this angle?

Lawyers? Thoughts?

I am so disgusted by this ruling, but after watching the hearings a few months ago and Starr's sickening performance, I'm not surprised. :(

[EFerrari]

17. Because that isn't exactly what they said.

First, they had to rule on the Proposition. Then, they had to rule on whether the marriages remained valid if Proposition 8 was upheld.

So, they didn't rule on the marriages first or, on gay marriage at all -- as I understand it. I'm not a lawyer, either.

[indie_voter]

19. I gotcha! Thanks..

So:

1. Prop 8 is upheld

2. Those who married before are still married.

Totally separate issues.

However, now, is it lawful for 18k people to be married while other gay folks can't? As a layperson, it seems this violates equal protection? Or maybe not? On another thread somebody pointed out marriage wasn't a right, so perhaps they can do this and remain within the law?

Sick.

[EFerrari]

21. I think those marriages may be key to getting H8 overturned or repealed.

No matter how much shit Gavin took for those marriages, if that turns out to be true, he'll be a hero.

[indie_voter]

22. I hope so!! n/t

[Statistical]

18. Not a lawyer but....

by preserving the 18,000 existing marriages it opens a stronger avenue of attack under equal protection.

What is different between the couples married and the couples not yet married? Nothing.
Then why do they have unequal protection under the law? Good question. They shouldn't.

By leaving the existing marriages in place and "capping" (as the OP incorrect calls it) they have created an unequal situation which is bound to gain standing before the ninth circuit.

Had they annuled the exiting marriages such standing wouldn't be as automatic.

The one "roadblock" is the legal requirement of marriage as a right.
Is marriage a right? I don't mean in the moral sense or philosophical sense but in the legal sense of the word.

I think it is but the courts tends to look upon precedent and there is very little precedent to indicate it is a right.

Hell the very fact you need a marriage license from the state before your church can marry you would support the idea it is a privilege.

[EFerrari]

23. That court already ruled in favor of gay marriage.

That's how this whole thing started, remember?

The real challenge here is how to outwit the wingnuttery's legal maneuvering. They may able to delay gay marriage in California but there's no way they will win this, finally.

[indie_voter]

25. I agree, the wingnuts are on the losing side of history.

I was watching MILK the other day and I couldn't help but think about this current fight. We just have to be organized and fight back smart.

I was complacent last summer, living in my San Francisco bubble, I didn't think prop 8 would pass, even as the polls tightened. By the time the danger was clear, it was late in the game to regroup.

No more. I think it's a fight we'll win in the end, but getting there isn't going to be easy.


Newsom's statement:

http://www.sfgov.org/site/mayor_index.asp?id=104862

[EFerrari]

27. I feel the same way. I didn't do enough -- thought it was in hand.

Being straight, too, I was looking to follow someone else's lead. Never again. We do have to fight back smart and I have every confidence that we will.

[Retrograde]

39. They ruled that marriages contracted in a legal manner remain legal even though the law changed.

No post-facto bans and all that.

Now, the next step is to rule on whether a same-sex marriage that occurred in, say, Iowa, remains legal when the couple relocates to California.

[slackmaster]

7. There can be three million legally owned "assault weapons" in California, but no more!

It's not fair.

[villager]

20. Hey! Why can't every thread be a pro-gun thread!?

After all, for some people, it's the only possible prism through which to view the world!

[slackmaster]

36. My support for same-sex marriage rights comes from the same place as my support for RKBA

To me there is no real difference. If you exclude one group of people from a right that another group enjoys, you have infringed on the liberty of the excluded people.

[Sebastian Doyle]

43. Oh Jesus Hussein Christ on a nuclear powered pogo stick!!

How the FUCK are you a second class citizen because you can't mount a 50 caliber rifle on the back of your god damned monster truck?

[slackmaster]

46. You don't get it

I'm not a second class citizen. I already own a grandfathered .50 BMG rifle.

If you live in California, YOU would be a second-class citizen because you can't buy a .50 BMG rifle.

BTW I drive a mid-size SUV and the issue has nothing to do with that vehicle.

[Sebastian Doyle]

49. Horseshit.

You CHOOSE to be a gun owner. I don't have a problem with that choice, within reason (i.e. law abiding sane adults who can pass a background check) but its hardly a valid comparison to same sex marriage, or even interracial marriage. You're born with sexual orientation and melanin content, but not with guns.

[slackmaster]

55. People who marry CHOOSE to do that as well

The issue at question in this sub-thread is discretionary behavior, and whether it is right to allow some people to engage in it but not others.

[Bluebear]

24. "Why do you people turn every tragedy into an anti-gun thread". Gee, who said that?

[slackmaster]

34. I have said that many times, and I'll keep saying it every chance I get

Cognitive dissonance is a beautiful thing.

I support all of YOUR civil rights. I expect you to support mine in kind.

[villager]

35. Yes, and you will say it everywhere and ad naseum

confirming at least one thing the rest of us suspect about the obsessiveness of the gun fetish crowd...

[slackmaster]

37. Written with exactly the same zeal as those who oppose same-sex marriage

Right down to the broad-brush personal attack.

:hi:

[villager]

41. happy hijacking, Slackmaster!

"What? What was the topic again? Oh yeah -- guns!"

:hi:

[slackmaster]

48. I'm simply trying to point out that disparaging one group's rights is hypocritical

If you claim to be progressive, liberal, or even a Democrat IMO.

[villager]

53. At least you've added "IMO," there as a qualifier...

...on that note, back to our regularly schedule programming for this thread!

[slackmaster]

62. You got your thread bumped and a chance to take a swipe at me

Here's another free bump for you.

:hi:

[villager]

63. thanks!

:hi:

[Touchdown]

58. Oh! Go get a boner cleaning your gun!

Fetishist!:eyes:

[EndersDame]

32. I think that is an apt description as the product of an Interracial Marriage.

I faced alot of stigma even in the '90s I wasnt white and wasnt mexican enough. My heart goes out to all the families that were ripped apart.

[CBR]

33. Being in an interracial marriage... I totally agree that this comparison is

apt and continuously needs, as it has been, to be restated in the debate.

[indie_voter]

38. Also in an interracial marriage and ITA. n/t

[tinrobot]

44. I think they left the door open.

The supreme court was asked to nullify those 18,000 marriages, but they didn't.

This opens the door to a slew of new lawsuits regarding unequal rights, and I think these will be a lot more successful than trying to overturn the amendment on procedural grounds.

[TexasObserver]

47. Forty years ago, my cousin couldn't marry an Asian man because of the law.

One day not too far away, this reprehensible discrimination against gays will be considered as awful and as absurd as that law.

Then, as now, she had to run to a state that did allow such marriages.

It ain't right.

[EFerrari]

50. And the coverage of this result will spur that movement.

The assholes on the right don't understand this yet, but in bringing Prop H8, they've only helped impel this state to embrace equality. Their obvious unfairness doesn't sit at all well with most people and neither does their hysterical, hypocritical nastiness.

[TexasObserver]

51. I hope enough straight Californians are shamed by this to correct it.

Many states, Texas included, are far from giving equality to gays, but we all expect California to be a leader in civil rights. I hope that California is too proud to let this injustice linger for long.

[EFerrari]

52. We did many points better this time than the last time this was put up.

I don't remember how many any more -- more than five, less than twenty. This thing only passed by a couple of points.

And who knows if that is even right -- too much of our state votes on machines and especially in L.A. Country that must be won. We lost it in L.A. County and there's no way to even know if the COUNT was right. :grr:

[theboss]

56. Not really

You can't have a state law in violation of a federal law.

So...inter-racial marriages are a poor analogy.

[Lex]

59. what "federal law" are you even talking about?

[HOLOS]

61. k&R