(no subject)

[fpb]

The Supreme Court of California deserves honour for having gone against its own clear views in the service of the law and the people. What it will get is something I am familiar with: the most vicious, sustained and homicidal floods of hate-mail you can NOT imagine. If you haven't been at the ugly end of a homosexualist hate campaign, you simply have no idea what hatred is like. It is not only frightful, it is foul; it is a thing that makes you feel dirty even if you resist it, that makes you want to turn back and abandon the field merely because it is so disgusting. Even standing against it is depressing and frightening. I just hope the justices are prepared for what awaits them.

Comments

[becomethesea.livejournal.com]

I admit, I was rather surprised at the decision to uphold the ban. Am I incorrect in thinking another state ruled a similar ban as un-Constitutional? I thought I remembered hearing something about that, and was curious to see how it would play out over time.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I do not think that any state supreme court has so far ruled against the will of the public expressed in a referendum (what do you call them over there, an initiative?). The Supreme Court of California had already validated "gay marriage" as passed by the local lawmakers, but I guess that popular sovereignty was the one point beyond which they dared not thread. I feel sorry for those justices. To be targeted for hatred and vengeance by your ideological enemies is dreadful enough; to be so targeted by those you basically agree with, because you did your duty even when it disagreed with you, must be a bleak experience indeed.

[becomethesea.livejournal.com]

CO rejected a similar referendum and state amendment related to gay marriages (2006 state elections), so I believe that is the proper terminology. The justices are for sure going to get a slew of hate mail and calls, but their decision is valid.

I admit I don't have much of an opinion on homosexual issues, probably since I am not one. It isn't for lack of compassion against hate crimes (which I find disgusting), but is a battle in which I don't choose to fight. I feel guilty for this at times as I have a half-brother with whom I am not close, and trying to have some relationship with, that is homosexual. For all I can tell, he is a delightful human being. I suppose that is what is most important, regardless of state laws and referendums.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I have had plenty of homosexual friends, though to the best of my knowledge no member of my family is one. I also have had at least three friends and acquaintances who are transsexual, for that matter. I have even once been in love with a 100% butch lesbian. I still oppose gay marriage, for a number of reasons, of which the most important is that the Humpty Dumpty theory of language ("when I use a word, it means what I want it to mean, neither more nor less"), does not work for me. I also think that there are quite a few homosexuals who do not recognize themselves in the homosexualist movement, and of whom the bravest would tell you exactly what I did about its character.

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

You've got the order wrong.
* Domestic partnerships were created.
* Prop 22 passed, banning gay marriage as a referendum-law.
* The legislature tried legalizing gay marriage but was vetoed by Arnold due to the existence of Prop 22 and an ongoing legal case.
* The Supreme Court struck down Prop 22, as an unconstitutional law.
* Prop 8 passed, as a referendum amending the constitution.
* The court has rejected challenges to that, but reportedly has pruned Prop 8 down to only barring the word 'marriage' for gays; the previous ruling, that gays have a right to all the substantive rights of marriage, still stands, which may mean strong civil unions in the future. Though Prop 8 passed with only 52% and the trends are downward, so repeal soon is likely anyway.

As for "homosexualist"... never mind.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Why "never mind"?

As for all the trends being downward - you mean those same trends that informed you, before the referendum, that Prop 8 was indubitably going to lose? And in view of the brutal tactics, complete coherence of the whole leading class (politics, business, media, Hollywood) and vicious contempt aimed at the supporters of Prop 8, the 52% of citizens who had the courage to vote in its favour count for well beyond their numbers. And since I do - as I repeat - have some little experience of homosexualist fighting methods, I would be grateful if you did not sneer at this remark.

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

I don't believe I was "informed" that Prop 8 was indubitably going to lose; polls were close. The trend is that Prop 22 passed with 61% of the vote, plus the recent wave of decisions, laws, and polls this year, and the fact that the younger generation is substantially in favor of gay marriage.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/26/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5040555.shtml

On the flip side, Prop 8 had lots of church support and funding, and lots of lies being told about how churches would be forced to perform gay marriages.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Lies? In this country, it's about to happen, and it ain't lies, it's a government bill being steered through the House of Commons. And if happens here, they - and you - will want it to happen there. So don't give me that crap. Supporters of "gay marriage" are the ones who lie - and that includes the media from which you take your line.

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

Your telepathy is failing. I have no interest in churches being forced to perform marriage rituals they disapprove of. As for the bill, can you point me to it? I only see mention of a bill regarding employment discrimination in non-key posts.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Non-key posts being defined as anything short of bishop. What the bill means is that no church shall be allowed not to employ practicing homosexuals. It also includes provisions against free speech.

The fact that you have no interest in manipulating the churches only shows how distant is your understanding from that of those who are manipulating you.

[stigandnasty919.livejournal.com]

I had not heard of this act, do you know if it is a government or private members bill?

Would it actually force a Church to perform Gay Marriages?

[blue-sky-day.livejournal.com]

I don't understand how they could even hear the case, legally. How can the state supreme court rule on whether a state constitutional amendment is valid? Last time around, the anti-gay marriage initiative was to pass a normal bill, which could be and was overturned by the state supreme court. This time around, the campaigners went for a constitutional amendment, which isn't subject to state supreme court review. So, having not followed the matter too closely, I'm wondering what the legal legerdemain was that allowed the Supreme Court to hear this case.