(no subject)

[browngirl]

Prop. 8 sponsors seek to nullify 18K gay marriages.

I wish I were surprised by this attempt to use the law to oppress people. I hope people are right that this won't be done because it would be a retroactive application of the law.

I do have two things to say, though:

1) People keep drawing parallels between the current fight for LGBT rights and the Civil Rights Movement. I believe in a lot of those parallels, and I wish someone smarter and more eloquent than I would take Dr. King's Why We Can't Wait as a springboard for explaining why we can't wait now.

2) I want to find all the people I saw say that those fighting for marriage equality are as bigoted (or worse OMGWTFBBQ) as those who support efforts like Proposition 8 and its ilk, and show this to them, and ask them if we are really morally worse than people trying to dismantle 18,000 families. I do not believe we are. I won't -- I would put friends in the middle of the ensuing fights -- but oh do I want to.

Comments

[worldmage.livejournal.com]

Even if the judges don't rule in our favor as to the unconstitutionality of Prop 8 as a whole, I can't imagine them invalidating the marriages that were already performed. They were entered into in good faith, and there's no valid legal reason to invalidate them.

From a legal standpoint, I can understand why they're going there. Part of the plaintiffs' argument is that the existence of the marriages performed before Nov 4 creates a second layer of inequality which cannot stand under the current interpretation of equal protection. If you get rid of the old gay marriages that argument holds no weight.

From a moral standpoint, they're hateful, heartless lumps of excrement, wastes of valuable protoplasm, and I hope they all die alone and in pain for what they're trying to do to my family.

[chillyrodent.livejournal.com]

But first, may they pass 1000 kidney stones with no medication. Then die alone, in some more pain.

[griffen.livejournal.com]

1,000 kidney stones from each kidney.

I despise them.

[chillyrodent.livejournal.com]

Amen.

[figmo.livejournal.com]

A non-stop sigmoidoscopy done by a clumsy doctor would be more appropriate because it would give those folks what they've created -- a severe pain in the rectum.

[chillyrodent.livejournal.com]

A sigmoidoscope with a pointy burr.

[mtgat]

Amen.

[dan-ad-nauseam.livejournal.com]

The Oregon courts invalidated the prevote marriages here, but that was on the grounds that the local officials never had authority to issue the licenses in the first place. In California, single-sex marriage was indisputably legal for several months, and I don't think that constitutionally can be revoked without due process.

The argument I'd like to see attempted is that marriage is recognized as a fundamental right under the Equal Protection Clause, so restrictive classifications require strict scrutiny - and unlike some other states, California already recognized single-sex marriage, so they can't say that the fundamental right applies only to mixed marriage.

[worldmage.livejournal.com]

The argument I'd like to see attempted is that marriage is recognized as a fundamental right under the Equal Protection Clause, so restrictive classifications require strict scrutiny - and unlike some other states, California already recognized single-sex marriage, so they can't say that the fundamental right applies only to mixed marriage.

That's actually exactly what the court ruled when they overturned Prop 22 and gave us our marriage rights and is the basis of one of the arguments being put forward by the plaintiffs. In order for Prop 8 to go into effect it would have to change at least 2 parts of the state constitution: 1) Alter our (exceptionally strong) equal protection clause to exclude sexual orientation as a suspect class and thus no longer subject anti-gay laws to strict scrutiny. 2) Restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples. It's against the law to change two or more parts of the constitution with a single ballot initiative. That would require either a constitutional convention or two separate amendments.

[moondancerdrake.livejournal.com]

I just got a short story (today in fact) accepted to a charity anth to support Lambda Legal in thier fight against Prop 8. Just feeling good to be able to do anything possible about this crap.

call me confused

[andreas_schaefer]

I want to find all the people I saw say that those fighting for marriage equality are as bigoted (or worse OMGWTFBBQ) as those who support efforts like Proposition 8 and its ilk, and show this to them, and ask them if we are really morally worse than people trying to dismantle 18,000 families. I do not believe we are. I won't -- I would put friends in the middle of the ensuing fights -- but oh do I want to.

I have a serious understanding problem there : There are really people that believe that?

• On a purely quantitative level this can't be true.
  While the amount of bigotry on unrelated subjects such as yak-breeding may be statistically equal among prop8ters and prop8-haters on the subject of marriage equality the two groups are differing so the opposition to prop8 shows some bigotry less.


• Morally worse?
  How's that? How can unequal treatment of essentially equal people be morally worse than essentially random inequality?


• I am not convinced you would put friends in the middle of ensuing fights.
  Either they are friends, then I find it unlikely they would be UNDECIDED on this issue, or they are undecided, but cannot really be friends with someone holding strong opinions on this ( you).
  It might put friends on the front-line,for example with their families, but that is not the middle.

I admire and support your restraint ( I am not sure I would have that ).

Re: call me confused

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

Oh, there are definetely people who think so, or at least have said so. *sigh*

And, thank you. I'm trying to think of this as restraint rather than shirking my duty.

[lblanchard.livejournal.com]

Nothing to do with this post, and you may just want to zap this after reading:

I believe you may know the person who sent me a card via kightp and I hope you will tell her that my response will be forthcoming when I remember where I hid the stamps.

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

I think if there were ever a comment I'd want to keep it would be this one. :)

[koshmom.livejournal.com]

Let's suppose that this travesty passes. How will they know which of the more than 18,000 couples that were married in California were same-sex couples, and which were not? Was gender listed on the marriage licenses? If not, How will they determine which couples are same sex? Are they going to force everyone to take a genetic test for gender? Will they force all couples who got married to "drop their pants" (which isn't always sufficient to determine gender)? Who gets to peek? What if the couple no longer lives in CA? What if one/both has died? Will national / state level survivor's benefits go away? Will they have to pay the survivor's benefits back to the nation/state/company/other (now-closest) next of kin? What if there was a separation/divorce, and you can only find one of the couple...will they take that person's word for it that their partner was the same sex (what a great way to get out of alimony ... "I live in another state, and I'm paying alimony. I claim that my ex living in CA was the same sex as I, therefore we were never married, ergo I don't have to pay alimony anymore. No I won't come to CA to prove my gender, I know what gender I am". (or else force CA to find the ex and make them prove their gender, while not making the one outside of CA prove theirs...)

It's totally unenforcable.

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

I surely hope so.

[guiltyred.livejournal.com]

This all has me wondering, what about international tourists from countries where gay marriage is accepted? If they come here for vacation, and Something Happens (arrested for speeding or ate some bad scallops and ended up in the hospital, or worse) - what happens? Does America have the right to ignore their legally married status? Can America deny them the same rights here that any visiting straight couple might have?

It's a mess. This country needs to join the rest of the world and move into the next century already. It used to be that America was seen as a world leader; now we're so far behind our peers that it's downright embarrassing.

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

These are really good questions, and this:

It's a mess. This country needs to join the rest of the world and move into the next century already.

The only real answer.