Anger building

[Rick336]

I can feel it coming on. The latest news from California has alerted that silent rage within me. Apparently the news is not in our favor about the overturning on Prop 8. After the hearings, the California Supreme Court may have hinted that Prop 8 will stand. But we still need to wait for their final decision.

It feels that the attacks on our freedom just keep coming (at least that's my present perspective) and after being in the movement for 32 years I'm so damn tired of it. Chances are, there are hundreds of thousands of LGBT Americans feeling the same thing; dread, frustration, simmering rage. My anticipation of a bad outcome is from way on the other side of the country from California. I can only imagine what LGBT Californians are feeling right now.

The Right-wing of course will celebrate another victory for "family values" and their "sanctity of marriage" bullshit. Their arrogant righteousness will make the court's decision seem just that much harder to take.

Our rights, our citizenship, our value as equal human beings will have been attacked....AGAIN!....if the court fails to invalidate Prop 8.

So now we wait. And the anger simmers.

Rick

[tdogg]

The hearings did not go well for us. Our representatives got drilled. The justice's comments and questions did tend to indicate the vote would be to uphold Prop 8. They are also reluctant to invalidate the marriages performed though.

It will be interesting to read the basis for the decision if the CSC rules to uphold Prop 8 and to uphold the marriages performed. The two are totally contradictory. If the court decides to invalidate the marriages, it will be a mess and paperwork nightmare for everyone.

I am anticipating the decision not going our way. But if the marriages are upheld, it will weaken Prop 8 and make it easier to bring forth an initiative to repeal it which is definitely in the works. EQ CA is trying for 2010 but I think we stand a better chance in 2012.

I am pissed that my civil right to marry was put up for a popular vote. I am pissed that it can be stripped away from me by a 52% simple majority. I am pissed that my rights were even argued in court.

[Zerbie]

I read some quote from a judge yesterday saying "the people are sovereign" and it led me down a very not good to be on trail of thought.

If people have a sovereign right to take away other peoples' rights though, then, do we really want to play out where this will lead? I don't want to see it.

[tdogg]

The thing is, it would never be allowed by the courts to take away rights based on race or religion. We could try it, but I doubt if the CSC would allow it and even the SCOTUS. But when it comes to GLBT folks, it's on.

Because it is a 'new' concept for most. The justices are very reluctant to override the will of the people on this particular issue. For many reasons (recall, voting them out, etc.). They brought up the CSC ruling on the death penalty and the subsequent recall of Byrd, and then a vote of the people restoring it. That was discussed at length during the hearing yesterday.

It didn't bode well for us. Again, we can make the argument that Prop 8 opens the door to take rights away from everyone, and it basically does, but the justices will never allow it to happen based on race or religion. It's open season in CA for the GLBTQI community. :mad:

[Linda2008]

Angry isn't always bad provided your anger doesn't consume you.
I admit I feel taken aback by the Supreme Court's hesitancy to address this matter.

[Emproph]

I am pissed that my civil right to marry was put up for a popular vote. I am pissed that it can be stripped away from me by a 52% simple majority. I am pissed that my rights were even argued in court. It’s also important to remember that that majority vote was acquired fraudulently, they lied their asses off. And don’t even get me started on their hypocrisies when it comes to the Bible.

What’s pissing me off now is that this majority vote is being spoken of as though it’s legitimate. After the election, I heard the L word used on several occasions, but now it doesn’t seem so important.

I realize that calling them liars doesn’t have any practical impact, and that we’d just be called sore losers, sour grapes, petty, etc., but I believe that this is one of those occasions where our “petty” accusation of dishonesty should be seared into the minds of the public.

Any way you slice it, they’re going to lie about us and accuse us of what they are doing, so we have nothing to lose.

This is an opportunity for us, and it’s being wasted. Even if the CSC doesn’t rule in our favor, there are active voters out there who need to know they made a mistake in trusting the “Christians” who ran the Yes on 8 campaign.

There is absolutely NO reason why our talking heads should EVER be on the defense, and every reason they should be on the offense.

It’s inexcusable that the anti-gay religious right is not being backed into a corner and always on the defense.

All the social concerns have been addressed and refuted, as well as all the Biblical arguments - AD NAUSEUM.

Until the LGBT community, and our allies, continue to take seriously the notion that this has anything at all to do with religion, we will be on the losing end.

As soon as the “religious freedom” canard is brought up, the Bible should be discussed IMMEDIATELY.

According to the Bible, the family of Adam and Eve was an incestuous one. God’s original design for marriage and family.
God also approved of polygamy.
Leviticus 20:13 is a DEATH THREAT!
And remarriage is adultery (unless your spouse cheated on you or is not a Christian) - as per Jesus God Himself.

And there’s tons more where that came from. Or did God change his mind on all those things?

Sure, they’ll figure a PR way to slime and slither their way around those things, but that’s the entire point. The more they try to vindicate themselves, the clearer their hypocrisy -- and thus dishonesty -- will be exposed.
-------------------
In CSC Prop 8 related news, here’s a clip (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908#29539445) from the Rachel Maddow show, Thursday March 5th.

The transcript is here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29549668/).

Here’s the beginning of that segment:Today‘s hearing was about three really specific particular points. First, is Prop Eight invalid? Should it never have been on the ballot in the first place because it‘s a revision of the state Constitution instead of an amendment to the Constitution?

Revision versus amendment—what does that mean? Stay with me, that will be explained uno momento.

Second point: Does Prop Eight violate the separation of powers doctrine? Is it blocking the courts, a co-equal branch of government, from enforcing the equal protection clause of the state Constitution? And third, if Prop Eight is constitutional, if the ban stands, what is the effect on those 18,000 same-sex couples who married in California before the ban came down like a hammer?

The arguments were today. The court now has 90 days to decide? Do you want to know what‘s likely to happen?

Well, we‘re joined now by San Francisco City attorney, Dennis Herrera. He, along with others, filed the lawsuit that the Supreme Court heard today, arguing that Prop Eight is invalid because it‘s a revision rather than an amendment to the Constitution.The interview continues from there.

Their motive to amend the constitution(s), is to invalidate the courts - one of our three branches of government, each designed to keep the others in check for the sake of justice. TO AVOID TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY.

The court system is the most likely of the 3 branches to be objective on any given matter, because their decisions are bound by what the constitution says.

Prop 8 and all the other amendments are definitive examples of tyranny of the majority - which the anti-gay “Christians” staunchly defend. Theoretically, they could pass an amendment that makes it legal to murder gay people, and the Supreme Court would then have to uphold it because their decisions are based on what the constitution says.

Overwhelming them with logic and truth in the political game is so simple, and so easy. And for the life of me I can’t understand why their own arguments are not being used against them.

[tdogg]

I don't understand why Shannon Minter was unable to specifically provide examples, when asked, of how domestic partnerships are not the same as marriages. The court practically begged Minter to provide examples and he redirected the conversation.

The court practically handed AG Brown's rep his own argument and he was not competent enough to go on with it.

The other two attorneys were good, but again, not one attorney on our side provided any specifics as to why separate isn't equal. They did not bring up, with any conviction, the rights that were being taken away by Prop 8. I believe it was a lack of preparation, either because they feel it's in the bag or there isn't any chance.

I was so disappointed by the testimony. Very similar feeling to how I felt about the No on Prop 8 campaign starting about a month before elections. Why are we doing it this way? Why are we saying this? Why aren't we doing and saying these things??

Even after the hearing, I think it might be a crapshoot. I don't think the hearing will be what the decision is based upon. It was more show than anything. The justices have stacks and stacks of paperwork, written testimony, amicus briefs, etc. to sift through. But, with one or two justices up for reelection soon, and a threat of recall by the yes on 8 people, it will be a longshot for them to overturn Prop 8. Even if we can see the logic in that decision, and no logic in the other.

[taminator]

I don't think it should be up to each individual state. It's insane that heterosexuals can get married in "timbuktu" and then go home to Ohio and still be married, but we can't! How is that fair to us, even if a handful of states recognize our inalienable rights? I feel for our brothers and sisters in California. But I'm from the midwest. Even if my partner and I went to a state where we could legally get married, once we came back home we'd be in the same boat as before. I feel that it should be a federal law that gives us the rights we deserve as Americans, as people.

[BruceChris]

Be sure and say hello to Phred for me.

Just kidding

Peace and Love, BruceChris

[BruceChris]

Or legislative action. And if a simple majority is enough to change the law, it should take at least a two-thirds majority to change the constitution. An amendment to the US constitution requires first a vote of the Federal government, and then a vote of the states. Obviously California needs to tighten up it's standards.

BC

[Gennee]

I can feel it coming on. The latest news from California has alerted that silent rage within me. Apparently the news is not in our favor about the overturning on Prop 8. After the hearings, the California Supreme Court may have hinted that Prop 8 will stand. But we still need to wait for their final decision.

It feels that the attacks on our freedom just keep coming (at least that's my present perspective) and after being in the movement for 32 years I'm so damn tired of it. Chances are, there are hundreds of thousands of LGBT Americans feeling the same thing; dread, frustration, simmering rage. My anticipation of a bad outcome is from way on the other side of the country from California. I can only imagine what LGBT Californians are feeling right now.

The Right-wing of course will celebrate another victory for "family values" and their "sanctity of marriage" bullshit. Their arrogant righteousness will make the court's decision seem just that much harder to take.

Our rights, our citizenship, our value as equal human beings will have been attacked....AGAIN!....if the court fails to invalidate Prop 8.

So now we wait. And the anger simmers.

Rick

I know how you feel, Rick. However you have to keep on going. The opposition isn't going to quit and neither should you. Even if you lose keep going! Future generations are depending on it.

Gennee

[Gennee]

The hearings did not go well for us. Our representatives got drilled. The justice's comments and questions did tend to indicate the vote would be to uphold Prop 8. They are also reluctant to invalidate the marriages performed though.

It will be interesting to read the basis for the decision if the CSC rules to uphold Prop 8 and to uphold the marriages performed. The two are totally contradictory. If the court decides to invalidate the marriages, it will be a mess and paperwork nightmare for everyone.

I am anticipating the decision not going our way. But if the marriages are upheld, it will weaken Prop 8 and make it easier to bring forth an initiative to repeal it which is definitely in the works. EQ CA is trying for 2010 but I think we stand a better chance in 2012.

I am pissed that my civil right to marry was put up for a popular vote. I am pissed that it can be stripped away from me by a 52% simple majority. I am pissed that my rights were even argued in court.

Look at it this way tdogg; you did gain some new allies and supporters. Fifty-two percent to forty-eight percent is not a gap that can't be overcome. I'm sure more people wil come on board if they are told the truth and see what you're all about.

Gennee

:love:

[Gennee]

It’s also important to remember that that majority vote was acquired fraudulently, they lied their asses off. And don’t even get me started on their hypocrisies when it comes to the Bible.

What’s pissing me off now is that this majority vote is being spoken of as though it’s legitimate. After the election, I heard the L word used on several occasions, but now it doesn’t seem so important.

I realize that calling them liars doesn’t have any practical impact, and that we’d just be called sore losers, sour grapes, petty, etc., but I believe that this is one of those occasions where our “petty” accusation of dishonesty should be seared into the minds of the public.

Any way you slice it, they’re going to lie about us and accuse us of what they are doing, so we have nothing to lose.

This is an opportunity for us, and it’s being wasted. Even if the CSC doesn’t rule in our favor, there are active voters out there who need to know they made a mistake in trusting the “Christians” who ran the Yes on 8 campaign.

There is absolutely NO reason why our talking heads should EVER be on the defense, and every reason they should be on the offense.

It’s inexcusable that the anti-gay religious right is not being backed into a corner and always on the defense.

All the social concerns have been addressed and refuted, as well as all the Biblical arguments - AD NAUSEUM.

Until the LGBT community, and our allies, continue to take seriously the notion that this has anything at all to do with religion, we will be on the losing end.

As soon as the “religious freedom” canard is brought up, the Bible should be discussed IMMEDIATELY.

According to the Bible, the family of Adam and Eve was an incestuous one. God’s original design for marriage and family.
God also approved of polygamy.
Leviticus 20:13 is a DEATH THREAT!
And remarriage is adultery (unless your spouse cheated on you or is not a Christian) - as per Jesus God Himself.

And there’s tons more where that came from. Or did God change his mind on all those things?

Sure, they’ll figure a PR way to slime and slither their way around those things, but that’s the entire point. The more they try to vindicate themselves, the clearer their hypocrisy -- and thus dishonesty -- will be exposed.
-------------------
In CSC Prop 8 related news, here’s a clip (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908#29539445) from the Rachel Maddow show, Thursday March 5th.

The transcript is here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29549668/).

Here’s the beginning of that segment:The interview continues from there.

Their motive to amend the constitution(s), is to invalidate the courts - one of our three branches of government, each designed to keep the others in check for the sake of justice. TO AVOID TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY.

The court system is the most likely of the 3 branches to be objective on any given matter, because their decisions are bound by what the constitution says.

Prop 8 and all the other amendments are definitive examples of tyranny of the majority - which the anti-gay “Christians” staunchly defend. Theoretically, they could pass an amendment that makes it legal to murder gay people, and the Supreme Court would then have to uphold it because their decisions are based on what the constitution says.

Overwhelming them with logic and truth in the political game is so simple, and so easy. And for the life of me I can’t understand why their own arguments are not being used against them.

Emproph, you're about having nothing to lose. Leaders must be on the OFFENSE! By the sound of it, they dismiss your complaints as petty. One thing I do know is that NO ONE has the right to keep someone else from living their life. This is something I will fight, even if it means losing my life.

Gennee

[Gennee]

I read some quote from a judge yesterday saying "the people are sovereign" and it led me down a very not good to be on trail of thought.

If people have a sovereign right to take away other peoples' rights though, then, do we really want to play out where this will lead? I don't want to see it.

The majority was wrong about slavery, about women, about civil rights, about Vietnam, about Iraq, and the economy. They are wrong about this too.

Gennee

[Gennee]

I don't think it should be up to each individual state. It's insane that heterosexuals can get married in "timbuktu" and then go home to Ohio and still be married, but we can't! How is that fair to us, even if a handful of states recognize our inalienable rights? I feel for our brothers and sisters in California. But I'm from the midwest. Even if my partner and I went to a state where we could legally get married, once we came back home we'd be in the same boat as before. I feel that it should be a federal law that gives us the rights we deserve as Americans, as people.

Taminator, I totally agree with what you said.

Gennee