MetaChat is an informal place for MeFites to touch base and post, discuss and
chatter about topics that may not belong on MetaFilter. Questions? Check the FAQ. Please note: This is important.
One of the justices just compared gays to criminal defendants, since they're both classes that can potentially be discriminated against. And voters upheld the death penalty, so hey!
"It would appear to me that life, at least in my view, is a fundamental right... And yet, when this court dealt with a fundamental right, the right to life, this court said that restoring the death penalty in CA was not a revision [of the Constitution]."
My god, this woman is suggesting that overturning gay marriage would make the death penalty unconstitutional. What a fucking stretch. (And if it does, good.)
I can't even watch the coverage anymore. It makes me too stressed and depressed. (Esp. since whatever happens in CA will take about 500 years to be felt here.)
You know I can't watch or listen to it either. Actually, I am drained as far as news is concerned. If I hear Rush Limbaugh's name one more time I don't know what I'll do. Every morning, Fresh Air, or other shows I enjoy on NPR on Sirius, are speaking about the failings of the former administration, the current administration, Prop 8, the dueling Dems, the state of the GOP, or the war in Iraq. I don't want to bury my head in the sand in the least but I need a break. I was so relieved to hear Terry interviewing a biblical scholar this morning. What a refreshing break. I learned a lot concerning the differences between the Gospel of Mark versus Luke.
I suppose I could listen to music but that would be too easy.
Nope, not German. From Wiki: "She was born in a Japanese concentration camp in the province of West Java in Indonesia. English is not her native language; she speaks it with a slight Dutch accent."
From a liveblogging I'm reading: Chris Kruger (asst. atty. gen. for Jerry Brown) is arguing that Prop 8 is unconstitutional but I believe he is disagreeing with the other anti-Prop 8 lawyers that it is not an amendment. Not sure. Yep. He is disagreeing with his own side but his argument is that it is unconstitutional. His argument is very confusing and he doesn't seem clear yet.
I get the same way, Lori... this is why I always go into total news blackout when I take a vacation, and sometimes I just have to spend a day or two with NPR off at home (and CNN off here at work) because I feel myself getting overwhelmed. I also find I tend to mentally filter out stories that seem pointless to me- political finger-pointing, celebrity "scandals," the octomom or Limbaugh or whatever.
I can't do that with the anti-gay stuff of the last 5 or 6 years, though, because it affects me so directly. I realized late last year that it was giving me real depression and anger issues, so I've had to just stop listening to it for awhile out of self-preservation.
Maybe I'm an irresponsible gay person, but I don't pay any attention to the whole marriage thing. The reason it will never be resolved & it will keep flip flopping is because they don't even know what they're fighting about. And they're not even fighting about the same thing on both sides. The anti's just want to strip gays of rights (marriage or otherwise), and the pros want the same marriage benefits for everyone.
IMHO which I've stated before, unless there are kids involved, the government shouldn't have any business being involved in marriage. OR, it should be treated as a partnership - as in business - since that's what it really boils down to. (Of course, we don't have kids & never wanted them, so it's easy for me to say.)
Maybe I'm an irresponsible gay person, but I don't pay any attention to the whole marriage thing.
Honestly, it's the inheritance issues that worry me most. It scares me (not to mention pisses me off) that even though we've been together almost 20 years, if one of us were to die, the other would probably have to take out a 2nd mortgage just to pay the taxes on our home, or else lose it. We can't build a financially secure future... someone's going to be left alone and in debt, no matter what we do, solely because we can't get married.
Fortunately my employer, and most in my city, allow for benefits to domestic partners, regardless of gender combinations. It's scary to ponder how prevalent the opposite situation is. . .
Of course, this issue is also near to me, on account of having a queer daughter. Lori, I hear you, though, and I am approaching the overload point, also.
BoPo- That is scary, but couldn't you write a will do handle that and leave the house to your S.O.? My father and his girlfriend who are not married did that for each other.
(This is separate from the marriage issue, which I think should just be a legal contract between any participants regardless of gender etc)
We've got wills like that, rmless2, and we're both on the deed and the mortgage as well, but apparently the state tax is unavoidable for unmarried couples.
That does suck BP. I also wanted to add that *if* other gay folks here do care about what happens with the whole to be or not to be marriage thing, I totally respect that. Didn't mean to sound flippant earlier.
And I totally respect your right not to care, chewie.
It's weird for me -- I really have no interest in getting married. It was never an option, so it was never one that I wove into my ideas of how my life would turn out. (And honestly, now that it's looking like an option that will be available sometime in my life, I'm feeling a little panicky about it. But that's another story.)
I feel invested not because it's something I personally want, but because it feels like this faceless mass of people I don't know, and who don't know me, are doing their damndest to ensure that it's something that I personally am never allowed to do. And it doesn't affect them. Not a bit. And that pisses me off.
All this stuff I'm listening too right now, about how it's really an issue of constitutional law, is bullshit. Red herring. And that pisses me off too -- they don't even have the courage to admit what's really behind their movement.
But again, I respect (and admire, even) the decision not to get caught up in all that. It's more peaceful that way, anyway.
I just read an article that Annie Leibowitz is having financial problems because Susan Sontag, her long-time partner, left a lot of property to her after her death. The taxes on the estate are difficult to deal with. If one of them had been a man and they had gotten married, there would be no (or fewer?) estate taxes to deal with.
And it doesn't affect them. Not a bit. And that pisses me off.
Yeah, totally. I'm not gay but it irks my sense of compassion and my sense of justice.
They have 90 days to issue the ruling, but it'll happen much quicker than that. From what I hear, the justices usually make a draft ruling before hearing arguments.
I thought it was really interesting (as a California lawyer) -- I wish California residents would change the Constitution to limit initiatives (though not until Prop 8 is fixed of course). I thought Shannon Minter was awesome, also Terry Stewart. The guy from the AG's office was flummox-ey, but the position of the AG's office is harder to explain than the main argument, to be fair. Though he wasn't very clear.
Legally, this challenge to Prop 8 is really difficult. The California Supreme Court is more of a "legal" group than a "political" group. I think they will unanimously state that the prior marriages are legal, and nearly unanimously state that going forward Prop 8 is the law (until amended by initiative, or struck down by the federal courts, and noting that the state legislature can delete marriage altogether from the statutes and use a different word).
I'm so nervous I'm watching through the internet equivalent of laced fingers over my eyes.
From my total layman's perspective, I think the equal protection argument should be a slam-dunk (i.e., you can't take rights away from a so-called suspect class -- in this case, gays and lesbians), but I've talked to at least three lawyers (all totally sympathetic to same-sex marriage) who have explained why it's not so easy. I wish I could remember the details... all I know is that I am very, very worried.
I *hate* to be a glass-half-full person on this, but in some ways it's really amazing to think that:
thousands of people were watching the argument and thinking about gay marriages and the families of gay people;
everyone on the Court agreed that the domestic partnership rights are now part of the California state constitution and also agreed that those rights are really important;
Shannon Minter fucking rocks, and no one thinks about him as "transgender lawyer Shannon Minter" he's just Shannon Minter;
even someone as truly odious as Ken Starr felt it incumbent to reference the "moderate" parts of his side (e.g. that the "bundle of rights" is still in place);
no one -- not the odious Ken Starr or the conservative Chin -- expressed disrespect for gay couples and their families (I know, people could have been thinking disrespectful things, but the change in rhetoric is really remarkable).
I think the equal protection argument should be a slam-dunk (i.e., you can't take rights away from a so-called suspect class -- in this case, gays and lesbians),
Yes, but. That's why we won last year. This year the state Constitution is different. Yes, it includes references to "inalienable rights," "liberty," "privacy," and "equal protection." But it now also includes Prop 8. So the language of Prop 8 is part of the Constitution now, right alongside those other provisions.
The reason it seems weird is that it's unusual. The federal Constitution has fundamental rights and "equal protection," but it's hard to amend, so the discriminatory thing that might be reviewed and struck down is not itself part of the Constitution.
This is the thing that really scared me about Ken Starr (and Prop. 8 in general). They are essentially arguing that there are no inalienable rights - that in California the majority has the constitutional right to oppress the minority by ballot. The court brought up the death penalty and I think it's an apt comparison, actually. Should average citizens have the right to vote on whether a class of people deserves to die? Should they be allowed to pass intiatives to put all child molesters to death? Or shoplifters? Or pot smokers? At what point does the judiciary have the right to review? It seems to me like religious conservatives are arguing that the court has no right to review those constitutional amendments, and I for one completely disagree.
They are essentially arguing that there are no inalienable rights - that in California the majority has the constitutional right to oppress the minority by ballot.
I think that's a strong argument, and is the one that the AG guy was trying to explain, as well as Shannon. That there are inalienable rights that underlie the entire endeavor of constitutional democracy generally, and our state constitution specifically. And either those inalienable rights cannot be revoked at all (AG guy), or they can only be revoked by the more deliberative process (Terry Stewart).
The challenge is the state's long history of amending the Constitution frequently, and often with a simple majority voting against minority interests (for example, Prop 209).
This is the thing that really scared me about Ken Starr (and Prop. 8 in general). They are essentially arguing that there are no inalienable rights - that in California the majority has the constitutional right to oppress the minority by ballot.
Yeah, this is the centerpiece for me. Some of the lawyers I was watching it with suggested that it reveals just how radical and brazen the pro-prop-8 argument is, and hoped that it would lead to a backlash against the radical religious right.
Seriously, it's a very real point, not just a political one. If prop 8 is allowed to stand, then hate initiatives are totally permissible by CA law. Next election cycle, we could very well see initiatives like "Hispanics and African Americans are not full citizens and should therefore not be allowed be to vote; moreover, every vote they've contributed in the past should be invalidated." Yes, Ken Starr actually fucking said that this is perfectly OK with him and the people he represents, but -- and here's where he wants us all to breathe a sigh of relief -- he doesn't think it would actually happen. Even though it could. And the justices barely even flinched. Holy crap.
If prop 8 stands, the door is wide open for hate initiatives of all kinds -- not just to get on the ballot, but to become actual law.
The player doesn't seem to be working for me, but it sounds bad from the way you and the others have described it. Here's hoping that someone, if not something, snaps some sense into their heads...
photo by splunge
photo by TheophileEscargot
photo by Kronos_to_Earth
photo by ethylene
