Reactions to story from The New York Times

• 

  Non-politics politics Friday morning

  http://faustasblog.com/2008/05/non-politics-politics-friday-...
  200 days ago in Fausta's blog · Authority: 355

  While there are lots of interesting posts about Obama and all the rest of the Rezko, and some Republicans are total morons, today I probably won't be posting on American politics. You can say that, at least for today, I'm "up to here" with all
• 

  El reverso de la victoria histórica: Matrimonio gays

  http://levar.typepad.com/champolanet/2008/11/el-reverso-de-l...
  10 days ago in Champola.Net · Authority: 10

  Ha sido la otra cara de la moneda de la jornada electoral. La victoria de Barack Obama como máxima expresión de superación (en parte) de una larga, injusta y cruel discriminación contra los negros ha sido la cara espectacular de la moneda de la voluntad popular. La cruz ha sido que en los tres estados (California, Arizona y Florida) donde se había sometido a referendum una ley para prohibir el matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo los electores han aprobado la prohibición. El caso más espectacular y problemático es el de California porque hace unos meses el Tribunal Supremo (los tribunales supremos en los EEUU cumplen las funciones de Tribunal Constitucional) falló que la prohibición era anticonstitucional, contraria a la Constitución de California. Atención, en los EEUU las leyes sobre matrimonio son competencia de cada uno de los 50 estados (como ocurre con la pena de muerte y otras tantas cuestiones). Con el referendum del martes se enmiendan las Constituciones de esos tres estados para que la prohibición sea ya constitucional. ¿Qué pasará con las 18 mil parejas homosexuales que se han casado en California en los últimos cinco meses? En la sentencia del Tribunal Supemo de California uno de los jueces comparó la prohibición del "matrimonio gay" (aquí lo suelen llamar gay marriage o same-sex marriage) con la prohibición del matrimonio interracial que estuvo vigente en California hasta 1948 y en algunos otros estados hasta 1967. Los movimientos que reivindican su legalización hacen también esa comparación y dicen que esta reivindicación es parte de la lucha por los derechos civiles de hoy y que dentro de unas décadas, cuando se vuelva la vista atrás, se considerará tan injusta y absurda esta prohibición como injusta y absurda parece ahora la prohibición del matrimonio interracial. La paradoja histórica es que la movilización del electorado negro que ha supuesto la candidatura de Barack Obama ha contribuido a la prohibición del matrimonio gay, por lo menos en el estado de California donde 7 de cada 10 votantes negros han votado a favor de la prohibición. Los afroamericanos y los hispanos forman parte de los sectores moralmente más conservadores y tradicionales de la población estadounidense. El equipo de George W.Bush supo verlo y explotarlo y de ahí, en parte, el aumento de votos entre los hispanos que logró Bush. La aprobación de esas leyes demuestra también que muchos de los electores que han votado por Obama lo han hecho porque quieren un cambio, no porque de golpe hayan virado a la izquierda y a posiciones más "progresistas", liberals. Matrimonio gay en los EEUU. Resumen: está explícitamente prohibido en 29 de los 50 estados, en la mayoría de los casos tras referendums similares en los últimos cuatro años. En dos estados es legal (Massachusetts y Connecticut) y en tres no se llama matrimonio, sino "unión civil" (New Jersey, New Hampshire y Vermont). Durante el primer mandato de George W. Bush hubo un intento de enmendar la Constitución de los Estados Unidos para prohibir el matrimonio gay a escala federal. Hasta ahora no ha prosperado. Pero, step by step, golpe a golpe, referendum a referendum, estado a estado... Editado a posteriori gracias a la aportación de Paqui Pérez Fons. La viñeta de nuestro admirado Tom Toles en el Washington Post el viernes pasado: Pregunta: California ha aprobado una ley para que las aves estén en jaulas más amplias. ¿Qué harán con las jaulas viejas más pequeñas?
• 

  Gangster of love

  http://www.getreligion.org/?p=4135
  19 days ago in GetReligion » “The press . . . just doesn’t get religion.” — William Schneider · Authority: 614

  Dear Mr. Olbermann, I was watching MSNBC on Monday night, but the Home Companion heard the theme song from Countdown with Keith Olbermann begin, and then changed the channel. No one else in the room — neither I nor the three spayed female cats we liberated from the nearest no-kill animal shelter — dared voice even the briefest protest. Such is the dismal state of my life in November 2008 in what Americans, in our hubris, call the United States of America. It was not until later in the week that I began seeing samizdat links to your Special Comment on Proposition 8, which people said moved them to tears. I finally had a chance to watch the segment on my laptop, when I was least likely to be discovered and belittled by the Home Companion. (I think it may be a hate crime to identify the Home Companion more specifically, and I am striving for discretion.) I have now watched your Special Comment a mystical three times, and I noticed several different things that may have diminished your effectiveness in pleading with the people who voted for Proposition 8. • You begin by noting that Proposition 8 “rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue from coast to coast.” Would it not be important to note that the California Assembly approved this right statewide three years ago, and that the California Supreme Court struck down a ban on gay marriage in May? Is it not also relevant that this rights-rescinding language was imposed on Proposition 8 by Attorney General Jerry Brown? • You ask the supporters of Proposition 8, “Why does this matter to you?” and “What is this to you?” Have any of those supporters asked the same questions of you? Have they asked why they should pay attention to a lecture on marriage delivered by a 49-year-old heterosexual who, although unhindered by any vows of chastity, has never married? • You assure the supporters of Proposition 8 that you would like to hear their answers to your rhetorical questions. Why does your body language suggest otherwise? Although you heroically manage to refrain from your default Special Comment setting of splenetic yelling, why do you still furrow your brow and squint your eyelids into a glare? Did someone along the way convince you that this is a good way to soften people’s hearts? • For that matter, why does anyone need lessons in love and tenderness from the host of the Worst Person in the World segments? • You tell the supporters of Proposition 8: “You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then spread happiness — this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness — share it with all those who seek it.” In growing up Unitarian Universalist (a tradition known for its inquisitive religious education), or in dating the Catholic convert Laura Ingraham, did you not learn anything more precise than that about the world’s great religions? If your theology is that shallow, should you scold believers based on what you assume they believe? • You say: “This is the second time in ten days I find myself concluding by turning to, of all things, the closing plea for mercy by Clarence Darrow in a murder trial.” The murder trial involved Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb, and Darrow quoted Omar Khayyam. Considering the backstory of the killers, do you think a direct citation from Khayyam might have been a better idea? Bookmark to:
• 

  California: Prop 8 Turns Back the Clock

  http://www.ivorytowerz.com/2008/11/california-prop-8-turns-b...
  25 days ago in iVoryTowerz · Authority: 14

  by R.J. Forman I didn't vote. At all. I didn't vote for several reasons. My main reason was I feel the same way about voting as I do about going to bed with someone. You've got to be able to cite several specific reasons why you want to get into bed/office with that person and "I was drunk," "I just felt like it," or "they're Republican/Democrat," cannot be reasons. One of my other reason was I'm still registered to vote in Ohio (and I live in D.C.). I haven't lived in Ohio for six years so why would I vote for happenings there? And registering to vote in Washington, D.C. is pointless because the votes here don't count (the District has no real representation in Congress) and the city/district/quasi-state votes 90-92% Democratic. However, there was one election I wish I could have had a say in and that was the election in California on Proposition 8. Proposition 8 passed, banning gay marriage and overturning the California Supreme Court decision that gave gay couples the right to wed just months ago. Prop 8 passing is a crushing political defeat for gay rights activists. It also represents a personal loss for the thousands of couples from California and others states who got married in the brief window when they could. What the proposition really means is that gays aren't human. That they do not deserve the same rights as any other person in this country. Seriously? We let old creepy fundamentalist men marry and rape 15-year-old girls and we won't let two loving, adult people of the same sex marry? The ban on gay marriage passed in Florida and Arizona, too. That was somewhat expected. But California, oh California, you were the great hope! Californian is light years ahead of the rest of this country on things like renewable energy and energy conservation. Parts of California don't even have minority or majority ethnicity, the state is so diverse. And yet they fell short on this ban which will now set the tone for the rest of the country's moves on gay marriage. After the loss, defenders of same-sex marriage filed three law suits against the state. The suits are basically saying that the anti-gay marriage measure is an illegal constitutional revision. The suits are being called frivolous by supporters of the ban and will likely be dead on arrival in court. My friend Alix who's lived in Los Angeles her whole life recommended this: "gay people should stop trying to argue that they are born that way (even though it's true) and side with the people who say it's a choice. They should then say that being gay is a religious choice. That being gay is in itself a religion. Our country is way against religious discrimination. So denying marriage for a certain religion would be unconstitutional." Really? That's what it's come to? Remember when we wouldn't let people of different races marry? What about when we wouldn't recognize the marriage between two black slaves? Yeah, those were good times in history too. (For an earlier posting on Proposition 8, please see: "Isn't Love All You Need?") (Photo by takemytaco via Flickr, using a Creative Commons license.) politics Proposition 8 Prop 8 California Proposition 8 gay marriage gay rights culture Add to Technorati Favorites Subscribe in a reader
• 

  Calif. Ballot Initiative Threatens To Strip Marriage Rights From Same-Sex Couples

  http://www.acsblog.org/constitutional-interpretation-and-cha...
  54 days ago in American Constitution Society : ACS Blog : The American Constitution Society for Law and Policy (ACS) · Authority: 173

  by Shannon Price Minter, legal director, National Center for Lesbian Rights On November 4, California voters will be presented with a ballot initiative intended to strip away the fundamental right to marry from same-sex couples. Proposition 8, known as the “Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry Act,” would alter the California Constitution to bar lesbian and gay couples from marriage. The proponents of Proposition 8 have raised an unprecedented $25 million to flood California with radio and television ads supporting this measure. A significant portion of that money has come from out-of-state organizations with a long track record of opposing legal protections for gay and lesbian families, such as Focus on the Family and the American Family Association. This year, California became the second state in the country, following Massachusetts in 2003, to provide same-sex couples and their families the full legal protections of civil marriage. On May 15, 2008, in In re Marriage Cases, the California Supreme Court struck down California's statutory ban on marriage by same-sex couples, holding that gay and lesbian individuals and couples must be permitted to exercise the fundamental freedom to marry. In an unprecedented ruling, the court also held that sexual orientation is a suspect classification and that government discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation is therefore subject to the same strict scrutiny applied under the California Constitution to laws that discriminate based on religion, gender, or race. In 1948, in the landmark case of Perez v. Sharp, the California Supreme Court was the first in the country to strike down laws barring interracial marriage, holding that "the essence of the fundamental right to marry is the freedom to marry the person of one's choice." In the Marriage Cases, the court relied on Perez in concluding that the government cannot constitutionally bar persons in same-sex relationships from exercising that same fundamental freedom of choice. In an opinion authored by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, who was first appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan (then serving as California Governor), the court held: “in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.” Since the court's decision became final on June 17, 2008, more than 11,000 same-sex couples have married in California. If Proposition 8 passes – and current polls indicate that the election will be very close – it would mark the first time that voters in any state have stripped same-sex couples of an existing, established right to marry. It would also mark the first time that California voters have used the initiative process to eliminate a fundamental right only for a particular group, based on a suspect classification. If Proposition 8 were enacted, the fate of the thousands of same-sex couples who have already married in California is unclear. Some supporters of the initiative argue that it would render those marriages invalid. Others, including scholars such as Erwin Chemerinsky and Douglas Kmiec, have expressed the view that Proposition 8 could not be given retroactive effect and that existing marriages of same-sex couples would continue to be valid. For the more than one hundred thousand same-sex couples who live in California and for gay and lesbian people across the country, the stakes could not be higher. And for all Americans, the vote on Proposition 8 will say much about our future. Are we headed for a day when gay and lesbian couples and their children will enjoy full legal equality? Or will sexual orientation continue to be an acceptable basis for government discrimination? For those who care about these issues, the significance of Proposition 8 cannot be overstated.

Advertise on Technorati