Good news: Prop 8 Struck Down by Federal Judge

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Everyone here is probably quite aware that California's Prop 8 barring same-sex marriage has been struck down by a Federal court. Here is a WSJ blog on the matter:

A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down California’s voter-mandated ban on gay marriages, but stopped short of finding that other states or the federal government were required to recognize same-sex marriage. The decision sets the stage for the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on gay marriage as soon as next year, and could add fuel to the issue in the presidential campaign. In a 2-1 vote, a panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said California’s 2008 law, popularly known as Proposition 8, violated the 14th Amendment’s equal-protection clause by stigmatizing a minority group without legitimate reason.

Of course, Californians same-sex couples are anxious to know when they can get hitched. LA's mayor has called for the stay on marriages to be lifted.

How do you think the Supreme Court will weigh in on the many issues involved? Do you believe they should not consider the issue?

Comments

[ford-prefect42.livejournal.com]

I suppose that is one plausible interpretation.

What would *you* call a bunch of people having a heated debate in divisive terms regarding an issue of minimal importance to the life, liberty, or property of any individual or group in the face of multiple simultaeneous existential crises to the entire group?

I am reminded of the Golgafrincham. "Do people want fire that can be fitted nasally?"

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

While idiot is a word that we frown on here, I think that was non specific enough to get by.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Consider the source. It sounds like a compliment to me.

[bikinisquad3000.livejournal.com]

...an issue of minimal importance to the life, liberty or property of any individual or group...

Forget "idiots," this is what's bringing me up short. Getting or not getting a tax credit is one thing, but there are a good number of people in long-term same-sex relationships who—just going off the top of my head here—have been forcibly kept away from their (unofficial) spouse as the spouse died in a hospital, not been allowed to make medical decisions for said spouse, not been allowed the hospital visitation privileges granted to the most distant relative, denied coverage on their spouse's health insurance plans, screwed out of property they would have inherited or continued to own if there had been a marriage contract, and/or denied survivor benefits by companies large and small, including the U.S. government and its military. The only cause for these situations has been a lack of a marriage contract and the complete inability of these couples to obtain one.* Do you honestly consider these issues of minimal importance when it comes to life, liberty and property? I'm not asking rhetorically; I'm really curious about what your standards are if none of these go above "minimal."


*Except health coverage. Some employers have been kind enough not to wait until they were legally compelled to provide joint benefits to same-sex couples, although good luck finding one who did that ten years ago.

[ford-prefect42.livejournal.com]

"Do you honestly consider these issues of minimal importance when it comes to life, liberty and property? I'm not asking rhetorically; I'm really curious about what your standards are if none of these go above "minimal.""

Yes. Almost all of those were subject to solution based on *very* simple paperwork. Simpler in most cases than obtaining a mariage license.

[bikinisquad3000.livejournal.com]

Ah yes. You mean like power of attorney, right?

[ford-prefect42.livejournal.com]

And healthcare proxy, and a few others, yes.

[bikinisquad3000.livejournal.com]

Gotcha. Unfortunately, while that absolutely does take care of things on paper, history has shown that it's not a reliable substitute when applied to real life (and I'm sure you'd agree that medical emergencies are a time for reliability). This is true even for civil unions, and even for ones identical to marriage in everything but name; it always comes down to a human being evaluating the situation, and people simply persist in not taking anything as seriously as an official married relationship. (But of course that's how it is, or why else would this debate exist at all?) It shouldn't be so, but it is so.

[ford-prefect42.livejournal.com]

And my apathy remains. As does my lack of respect for those that take this issue seriously.

Look, here's the thing. We have a trade deficit that amounts to 10% of GDP. A budget deficit that amounts to another 10%. We are officially hated and wanted dead by a substantial percentage of the world. We have 25% unemployment, if measured by the same metrics that were used in the great depression. The world financial system is failing. We're at or near peak oil. We're at or near peak coal. We're at or near peak natural gas. There is no viable energy source to substitute for any of the preceding 3. Our manufacturing sector is moving overseas. Our populace is increasingly dependent on social services. Our populace is approachingly a watershed time when there will be more people living on the public treasury than paying into it. Every day, copper thieves steal the working parts out of essential pieces of infrastructure. People have stolen *railroad rails* off active lines, derrailing trains. We have *zero* hope of solving any of these issues.

We're going to frelling die. In droves, blood like a gorram river.

This is the climate in which you bring up the issue of healthcare proxies not being quite as reliable as wedding rings.

Sorry, but I consider that we have more important things to deal with. This issue is a distraction at worst. It *might* be a serious issue in a time when things were going well, but that surely isn't here and now.

[bikinisquad3000.livejournal.com]

I don't really care that you don't care, though; be indifferent to whatever you like. I was simply responding to your assertion that individual life, liberty and property are barely affected by a lack of legal same-sex marriage. That's not a matter of opinion, y'know?

You spent some time though, so as for your argument as to the logical basis for your not caring: it's dumb, sorry. It's bad reasoning generally, of course, in that it assumes only one issue can be worked on at a time, and/or that anyone focusing their attention on it would absolutely be focused on one of these other problems instead, were they not so occupied. Besides that, the number of people a civil rights issue affects has never been the reason to take action for that issue anyhow.

I don't think it's all that honest, either, or it wouldn't be so dumb. The issues you listed are large, but they all have one thing in common: they will affect you, personally, if you live long enough to see them hit the tipping point. Great swaths of Africa dying of famine and AIDS, the Bhopal disaster and other such incidents, not so much, though their sizes and the number of lives they affect is great indeed.

[ford-prefect42.livejournal.com]

Fine. You understand my position, I understand yours. You don't respect mine, I don't respect yours.

That's a basis for a lack of future conversation, which is all I am really looking for.

I guess I should also mention, the issues I have mentioned also have one other thing in common, they will all also effect the homosexual population *far* more than whether or not they are married will. That's what *existential threat* means, it means that it's something that effects *everyone*, and in a *major* way.

[bikinisquad3000.livejournal.com]

That's a basis for a lack of future conversation, which is all I am really looking for.

Well, there's one guaranteed way to get that.


I guess I should also mention, the issues I have mentioned also have one other thing in common, they will all also effect the homosexual population *far* more than whether or not they are married will.

That's not all: they're all things that will affect the homosexual population in the future, should they occur. This is as opposed to the marriage issue, which is one that has been affecting them for a very long time and is still affecting them as we speak.

At any rate, this is only a compelling argument if you assume that the gay population must ignore all of these other issues in order to devote time or effort to this one. It also assumes that gay marriage affects only itself, and that an increased level of medical, financial and psychological stability in a segment of the population would have no affect on anything else, including the population's ability to solve its larger problems. I don't have to tell you what leaps both of these are, or so I'd think.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

The same people who put the world into an economic tail spin are the people who vehemently oppose recognizing homosexual partnerships. There is a connection there.

[ford-prefect42.livejournal.com]

That's an extremely tenuous connection. One that isn't worth exploring.

[ford-prefect42.livejournal.com]

Sorry, busy manning pumps.

[ford-prefect42.livejournal.com]

I just fell like.... Okay, in the LOTR, at the end, the good guys go to the black gates, the gates open, the orcish hordes come out, they surround the armies of minas tirith, the good guys are outnumbered 50 to 1... and all of a sudden, pippin decides that *now* is the time to talk about all those "short jokes". It's just a severe issue of scale. That's why I keep making "deck chairs on the titanic" similies, because on the scale of the issues we're looking at, getting all wrapped around the axle on *this* is... lolwut?

[bikinisquad3000.livejournal.com]

Same as above, basically: since those are all issues we are looking at, there is no compelling reason for other members of "we" not to focus on this one. Some people are devoted to preserving or improving our infrastructure; others are devoted to other goals because infrastructure, serving its purpose, allows them to do so. That is the purpose, isn't it? We could hardly have made the progress we have in any department if everyone had to grow their own food.

[ford-prefect42.livejournal.com]

So in your mind, it's perfectly normal for people to be arguing about the arrangement of the deck chairs on the sinking titanic? Okay. I rest my case.

[bikinisquad3000.livejournal.com]

Thank goodness.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

I suppose that is one plausible interpretation.

But I thought we had an agreement. I love people who respect their commitments.

[ford-prefect42.livejournal.com]

AWWW It's Been *days* since I got an abuse flag!

SRSLY tho, I do know that that one was close to the line. But given that it *wasn't* partisan, being directed at *both* sides of the issue at hand, I thought that it might at least escape the "vitriol" clause.

And, given my personal position, that I would like a resolution that was equal, I thought that that might be credible enough to kinda mitigate the harsh language term.

What I didn't count on was the onslaught of one-sided inquisition. I had kinda figured on being an equal-time disrespector. rather than winding up solely defending the status quo.

anyway, I'll continue working on it.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

It's not a flag. I'm trying to have a conversation.

Our arrangement included you pointing me at things you believe I'm missing, I believe. When I make such a deal, I'm prepared to respect it and to trust that you will, too.