Gay Marriage, SCOTUS & Initiatives

California voters desired the ballot initiative concept to allow the people to place issues on the ballot that wouldn't get there through the normal legislative process. Initiatives allow the will of the people to be expressed if the legislature is unwilling to express that will.

California passed Proposition 8 and it modified the California constitution. The people's will was expressed and the Supreme Court of California (SCOCA) upheld Prop 8 because it amended the California constitution.

Then plaintiffs brought suit against the State of California in federal district court and argued that Prop 8 was unconstitutional under the US Constitution. A single judge, Justice Vaughn Walker, found the law unconstitutional because, as he divined, the majority of Californians could only have voted for such a law because of their animus toward gays. It is not clear how he could know the motives of the voters. Even though it is not the judge's role, nor is it possible, to determine the motive of the people, Judge Walker did just that. It is similar to when others say that the only reason anybody opposes President Obama's policies is because of racism. There is no way for those doing the judging of other's motives to know this, but apparently they are sufficiently confident in their judging of other's hearts to make legislative and judicial decisions based on it. So in this way, these oracles might just as easily conclude that your vote can be thrown out at the ballot box if you voted for someone other than Obama because the only reason you would cast such a vote is because you have animus toward a black man which means you are a racist and racist's votes should not be counted because that is not a proper basis upon which to cast a vote. This is essentially what Judge Walker's ruling based on his unfounded augury did. (It will be interesting to see whether those opposed to bigamy, polygamy, incestuous marriage, open marriage, et al. will argue something other than what Walker identified as "not a proper basis on which to legislate," that is, "moral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest" and "animus" towards these groups.) To Walker's defense, even if there were compelling societal reasons to support Prop 8, the defense of those reasons may have been so weak or ineffectual that Walker may have had no recourse but to conclude that animus was the only reason that remained.

As a matter of process, it is the Governor's job to defend the laws of the state. This is why you often see court cases with the Governor's name as one of the parties in the suit. The state's Attorney General enters the court on behalf of the people and defends the law that the people through an initiative or the legislature has enacted. However, in California both Gov. Schwarzenegger and Brown refused to do their duty and defend the people's will in court. They decided that their feelings on the matter overruled the majority vote of the people.

If the Governor decides to not enter the court to defend the laws that the people have willed via the democratic process, he/she is in effect nullifying the law and ignoring the initiative process because the people automatically lose the case because nobody shows up to defend their side. (This is called a default judgment and is similar to when an arresting officer does not show up at a traffic violation court hearing, the case is forfeited, or lost, by the party that does not appear in court.) In this case, Gov. Schwarzenegger and Brown both refused to represent the people of California in court as they were required to do.

Fortunately, it just so happens that California has a law that allows somebody else to defend a proposition if the elected officials refuse to. The SCOCA has affirmed this process wherein the proposition supporters are able to come forward to defend the law if the elected representatives won't and acknowledged that the whole point of an initiative is to allow the people to overrule representatives that are unwilling to legislate the people's will by allowing the people to legislate from the ballot box.

Because a gay couple brought the case and since they are the ones harmed by Prop 8 they have standing. However, the appeal to the Ninth Circuit and ultimately on to the SCOTUS were brought by the supporters of Prop 8 because California governor did not step forward to defend the law. As discussed earlier, the private supporters have standing in California because of their law that allows supporters to defend the proposition when the Governor/AG refuses to. But there is no federal allowance for surrogate defense when the state government refuses to defend its own laws. It was for this reason that the SCOTUS decided that the Prop 8 supporters had no standing and that the last legitimate action, whether correct or not, was the decision of the federal district court.

So who are the winners? Gay marriage supporters and by extension any other type of marriage supporters. The loser? The initiative process.

Pro Choice: Transgender

The LA Times reports that transgendered could be switching it up in the future.

He cited the case of Eli Erlick, a high school student in Mendocino County who was born male but identifies as female. He said Erlick was prohibited from participating in girls' gym classes while in middle school and noted that Erlick's parents testified in favor of the bill.

He acknowledged that parents may be uncomfortable about their children sharing bathrooms with students of a different sex, but he said, 'It's also important to protect our children from prejudice.'

How long until whites self-identify as black? Before you go and get all snooty, hasn't this been the point made by same-sex marriage supporters? That denying marriage to gays is the same as denying marriage to blacks? I guess Elizabeth Warren was ahead of the curve when she identified as Fauxcahontis based on the incontrovertible evidence that "My grandfather had high cheekbones like all the Indians do," and a few purloined recipes in the "Pow Wow Chow" cookbook.

Watch out Olympics, you're next. Oops, never mind. Been there done that.

Transgendered bathroom use news:
Oregon HS
State of California
Massachusetts
Colorado

Marriage For All

Isn't this the inevitability of redefining marriage?

Hollywood director finds it acceptable for people to commit incest.

In an interview with The Wrap, director Nick Cassavetes believes no one should judge a brother and sister being with each other if they are in love.

“I’m not saying this is an absolute but in a way, if you’re not having kids – who gives a damn? Love who you want. Isn’t that what we say? Gay marriage – love who you want?” Cassavetes told The Wrap. “If it’s your brother or sister it’s super-weird, but if you look at it, you’re not hurting anybody except every single person who freaks out because you’re in love with one another.”

If procreation is the singular barrier, one supposes that an incestual gay couple is the ideal. And if, as we are told, love is the only criteria for redefining marriage, how is Cassavetes' conclusion wrong? Certainly incestual marriage does not threaten traditional marriage.

If those in favor of redefining marriage do not include Cassavetes' view or polygamous relationships, are they not telling certain groups who they can love? Everybody is defining societal customs by defining marriage - Democrats and Republicans alike.

Hey Jude. Hey Dude.

If traditional marriage is the same as racial discrimination, when Paul McCartney during the 2012 Olympics opening ceremony asked just the boys and then just the girls to join him in singing the chorus of 'Hey Jude', was that the same as asking just the blacks and then just the whites to sing?

God Hates Fags, You're Going To Hell, Eat Mor Chikin

This image is the height of dishonest political discourse and is designed to impugn the name of everyone who disagrees and to tar everyone who disagrees with horrible motives. Is it possible for good people to disagree on this issue? Apparently not. Polls show that religious blacks oppose same sex marriage. Are they all fag haters? Anybody going to post an image depicting blacks in a similar manner? (BTW, the use of "fag" in a disparaging manner, just like the use of the N-word, is ugly. It is debasing and does nothing to elevate conversation.)

This is bullying of the first order. This cornering technique seeks to create submission with threaten and shame everyone else into lockstep. It plays on the good nature of all involved, because, after all, nobody wants to be thought of as a hater. It is similar to a public execution and says to everyone else, 'See what's coming your way if you dare to cross us.' It is reminiscent of the mafia of old, 'Nice little livelihood you have there. Be a shame if something bad happened.'

Chick-fil-A's president, Dan Cathy, recently said:

We’re inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage. And I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude that thinks we have the audacity to redefine what marriage is all about.

There are plenty of franchisees who don't share his view. But apparently that doesn't matter. Just lay waste to everything and everybody that doesn't agree.

It also seeks to place a wedge between good people and their religion. You are either just a fag hating blind follower of some old-fashioned religious claptrap, or you can be sophisticated and smart and progressive. The choice is simple. And, oh by the way, if you cling to that silly religious notion about traditional marriage, the compassion crowd will bring hell on earth to your doorstep and destroy your life.

This is about as intolerant a technique as exists. Cathy said he thought God might judge America. Lots of people think that sort of stuff for all kinds of reasons. He didn't say "God hates fags" or "you're going to hell". You can infer anything you like, but you could just as easily say he has great compassion and prays daily for the gay community. He might believe what is presented on the mocking signs, but at least let him say it before you assert it or attribute it to him.

And so what if Cathy believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman? Do the stores refuse to serve? Are they checking marital status at the door? In every way their behavior is respectful and decent to every customer. But that isn't enough? So you think he's a dolt. Don't go. But he's not even allowed to voice his opinion? Whatever happened to the 'if you don't like what's on TV change the channel' crowd? When it is your ox being gored, civility goes out the window. Civil discourse if for the other guy; only one side is expected to be respectful and courteous.

So The crowd passing this graphic around Facebook thinks that because Cathy has a different view - and the temerity to express it - he and his company needs to be destroyed? This mindset also prevailed in California over Prop 8. Even those who never spoke out but who just contributed even small amounts of money to pro-Prop 8 groups were targeted for financial destruction. It is a 'my way or the highway' mentality. What if the other side behaved that way? What if they treated you this way? What if they really were as intolerant as this image depicts? What if they gathered together and made scurrilous accusations and sought your ruination?

Clearly you cannot only shop at places that share every single belief you hold. If absolute agreement is the criteria, a Christian would not be able to shop at a Muslim's store since it seems likely that they won't share every view. How about a Jew? People in other denominations? The atheist? The guy who believes in aliens? What if he also believes the earth is literally 6,000 years old? Should he be publicly ruined for that? Isn't this an un-American way of thinking about disagreement?

Hell, some environmentalists think Gaia is going to judge America for CO₂ emissions and will wipe the infection of mankind from her skin. How is that different than God judging the earth? Should everyone that disagrees with that seek to destroy every environmentalist's livelihood? Ben and Jerry's holds some different views. Anybody trying to destroy their world – and everyone who works for them? Anyone telling them they shouldn't set up shop in a city because they don't share the city's values? It is unnerving that so many think that this sort of distortion and destruction of lives is ok.

And don't mention that the very crowd that is shouting "homophobia" because this guy thinks God might judge the homosexual, is more than happy to not only judge his behavior, but to dole out some good 'ol fashioned wrath. It is as though they are following the prescript, "But I commendeth your love toward us, and if you anger me I will soon pour out my wrath upon you, and spend my anger against you. There is no escape from the holy wrath. Today is Judgment Day."

This is not an argument for one side or the other with regard to the marriage issue. This isn't even about gay marriage per se. It is about whether the guy has the freedom to speak his mind. Whether there is such a thing as religious freedom. Whether distorting his words is honorable. Whether the Eat Mor Chickin graphic above elevates or degrades discourse.

One pines for conversations that are better than this sort of straw man, mean spirited, take no prisoners argumentation. Bring good, civil arguments to the table so that all can have intelligent discussions and not resort to this hayfork and torches mentality. This suggests a carelessness of thought and is embarrassing - forsaking discussion of the issues for demonization and character assasination.

It might be that those you disagree with are not all just bigoted, selfish, hating, mean-spirited, homophobic, sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, fascist, stupid, greedy, racist, and misogynistic. Could it be - is it possible - that they just have a different point of view? Different visions? Those passing around this graphic seem to suggest that if one is not in lockstep with their ideas they are therefore a hateful bigot.

Good people can disagree - at least they should be able to. And one of the best things about America is that disagreements can exist without forming brute squads to round up all those who think differently.

Here's a news flash: All of the people that are on the fence or opposed to the redefinition of marriage are not gay bashing, homophobic, bigoted, hating monsters. Stop acting like they are. Employ some nuance. Join a conversation and stop the name calling.

[You don't know how I feel about this issue. We may agree or disagree. And if you think you have divined my position on this issue based on the previous discussion, I doubt that you have.]

UPDATE: Chicago Alderman Joe Moreno says he will block a Chick-fil-A permit. He said,

It's a very diverse ward-- economically, racially, and diverse in sexual orientation.

Well, I guess he can only be so tolerant. He is not tolerant of Cathy's views and is willing to use the power of the state to harm those he disagrees with.

UPDATE: Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino has vowed to keep Chick-fil-A out of Boston. He said,

Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston. You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population.

Uh, they haven't. Any reports that they do not serve or treat customers differently? Cathy is a devout religious person. Has he denied service to atheists?

So as a government employee, Menino believes he can deny permits because he disagrees with the applicants beliefs:

If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult -- unless they open up their policies.

So he wouldn't have trouble if a Muslim denied permits to atheists. Or Jews. Or Christians. Or if a mayor who supports traditional marriage denies a permit to a company that has a president that expressed his view in support of redefining marriage?

UPDATE (7/27): James Taranto:

The irony of exclusion in the name of inclusion apparently escaped Menino.

UPDATE (7/28): Jonah Goldberg:

You're free to participate in the American system, free to say whatever you believe, do whatever you want, just so long as you agree entirely with liberals on everything.

UPDATE (7/28): Mark Steyn:

Chick-fil-A does not represent “Chicago values” -- which is true if by “Chicago values” you mean machine politics, AIDS-conspiracy-peddling pastors, and industrial-scale black youth homicide rates. But, before he was mayor, Rahm Emanuel was President Obama’s chief of staff. Until the president’s recent “evolution,” the Obama administration held the same position on gay marriage as Chick-fil-A. Would Alderman Moreno have denied Barack Obama the right to open a chicken restaurant in the First Ward? Did Rahm Emanuel quit the Obama administration on principle? Don’t be ridiculous.

...this guy Menino isn’t the mayor of Soviet Novosibirsk or Kampong Cham under the Khmer Rouge, but of Boston, Massachusetts. Nevertheless, he shares the commissars’ view that in order to operate even a modest and politically inconsequential business it is necessary to demonstrate that one is in full ideological compliance with party orthodoxy. “There is no place for discrimination on Boston’s Freedom Trail,” Mayor Menino thundered in his letter to Mr. Cathy, “and no place for your company alongside it.” No, sir. On Boston’s Freedom Trail, you’re free to march in ideological lockstep with the city authorities -- or else.

Menino is happy to hand out municipal licenses to groups whose most prominent figures call for gays to be put to death. The mayor couldn’t have been more accommodating (including giving them $1.8 million of municipal land) of the new mosque of the Islamic Society of Boston, whose IRS returns listed as one of their seven trustees Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

As an exercise in sheer political muscle, it’s impressive. But, if you’re a feminist or a gay or any of the other house pets in the Democrat menagerie, you might want to look at Rahm Emanuel’s pirouette, and Menino’s coziness with Islamic homophobia. These guys are about power, and right now your cause happens to coincide with their political advantage. But political winds shift.

It’s easy to cheer on the thugs when they’re thuggish in your name.

UPDATE (7/29) Francis Cardinal George, OMI, Archbishop of Chicago

Recent comments by those who administer our city seem to assume that the city government can decide for everyone what are the “values” that must be held by citizens of Chicago. I was born and raised here, and my understanding of being a Chicagoan never included submitting my value system to the government for approval. Must those whose personal values do not conform to those of the government of the day move from the city? Is the City Council going to set up a “Council Committee on Un-Chicagoan Activities” and call those of us who are suspect to appear before it? I would have argued a few days ago that I believe such a move is, if I can borrow a phrase, “un-Chicagoan.”

Same Sex Marriage

James Taranto:

Same-sex marriage is a logical extension of the idea of sexual equality. If men and women are at the deepest level interchangeable, then there's nothing to distinguish a "husband" from a "wife" and no reason that a "marriage" has to consist of one of each rather than two of one or the other.

You Must Comply

Another example of intolerance.

So far, students at Indiana University South Bend got the chain booted from campus, according to a post on Change.org

What happened to diversity? Chick-fil-A, a private company, is not allowed to give as it sees fit? Thuggery. Pure and simple.