In another blow for same-sex marriage advocates, the oral arguments before the California Supreme Court yesterday indicated that the majority will uphold controversial Proposition 8 and its ban on same-sex marriage.
Two justices who previously voted in favor of same-sex marriage under the state constitution indicated that they would reluctantly vote to uphold the new law. Chief Justice Ronald George and Justice Joyce Kennard, who were part of the 4-3 majority that vote for same-sex marriage in 2008, stated that they would have to yield to the will of the people. Kennard stated “Our task is quite limited. The people are those who have created the Constitution and what you are overlooking is the people’s broad power to amend the Constitution.”
The decision is likely to spur similar legislation in other states and may reduce the calls for a U.S. constitutional amendment. In the meantime, it is not clear what will happen to all of the couples who were married during the period between the two rulings. This could make for some interesting fights and a U.S. Supreme Court challenge. Those couples have already been married and have a claim to that prior status that would raise viable federal questions — even if it did not raise the core equal protection issue of same-sex marriage generally.
For the full story, click here.
From the Article: “Rights are important, but they don’t go to structure,” Starr said. “If you tinker with the structure and undermine the authority of this court, you’ve gone too far. But, your honor, rights are ultimately defined by the people.”
Starr raised a few eyebrows when he suggested that voters could likely ban anti-discrimination laws, prevent gays from adopting children, and just about any other thing they want — as long as it doesn’t affect government structure.
“Under our theory,” he said, “the people are sovereigns and can do unwise things.”>>>
I’m rendered speechless.
“The State of the Nation on Same-Sex Marriage: Key Court Losses Mean It May Be Restricted to Massachusetts For Now”
By JOANNA GROSSMAN (Circa 2006)
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20060808.html
Good summary of the cases on this topic and contains a link to Chief Judge Kaye’s dissent in Hernandez v. Robles.
Ken Starr is a sleazy human being, who smugly believes he is principled. I think that even if the court upholds prop 8 it will only be a Pyrrhic Victory against the rising tide of freedom and equal justice for homosexuals. In our justified outrage against the ignorance that is homophobia, we lose sight of the fact that it is only a Potemkin Issue thrown up as a cover for a philosophy of giving the most to those who already have. It is a distraction to make people forget the real purposes of faux conservatives and faux Christians, which is to get people to vote against their own best interests. The mass of Americans from both the left, right and center are catching onto this game.
This will eventually become a Federal issue and then we can take the old Supremacy Clause out for a spin. Maybe the Commerce Clause too – think Heart of America all you lawyers out there. I always thought the next State’s Rights battle would be over marijuana laws, but this particular stupidity may now be the leading contender.
I was hoping that I never had to see or read anything about Ken Starr. He is one of the sleasiest people I have seen or read about. The idea that the state can take away human civil rights is scary. Why doesn’t it surprise me that Ken Starr is behind the movement to take away civil rights?
Discrimination — in any form — is unjust and illegal.
The battle for equality suffers a temporary set back.
LGBT civil right will triumph.
Kenneth Starr, what a maroon!
(Yes that looks like a typo, but the guy with the Jets logo used it a while back, and for me it captures the contempt Starr displays for civility.)
CCD,
Amen! Starr is a “maroon”!
The point that struck me in the linked article was when Chief Justice Ronald George
I’m very tempted to say “Yes. And Good.” The history of human rights has been one of expansion, one of gradual but increasing recognition of rights previously ignored or denied. A “right” that can be taken away by a simple majority vote is not a right at all but a mere privilege dependent on current political winds.
(And yes, I am aware that requiring a two-thirds vote only raises the bar for stripping away rights, it does not eliminate it. That only serves to emphasize that what we are talking about here is not actually rights or right-and-wrong but legalities. And as we all know, the law and justice are not the same thing.)
CCD -
what a maroon!
Just FYI, as far as I know that phrase originated in a Bugs Bunny cartoon.
The point that struck me in the linked article was when Chief Justice Ronald George
posed a hypothetical in which same-sex marriage wasn’t upheld by the court, and then was followed by two initiatives – one that legalized such marriages and a subsequent one that outlawed them.
Wouldn’t it be a “one-way street,” he asked, if one group was allowed to extend rights while another was prohibited from removing them?
I’m very tempted to say “Yes. And Good.” The history of human rights has been one of expansion, one of gradual but increasing recognition of rights previously ignored or denied. A “right” that can be taken away by a simple majority vote is not a right at all but a mere privilege dependent on current political winds.
(And yes, I am aware that requiring a two-thirds vote only raises the bar for stripping away rights, it does not eliminate it. That only serves to emphasize that what we are talking about here is not actually rights or right-and-wrong but legalities. And as we all know, the law and justice are not the same thing.)
Oops!
Sorry for the double post. The first one didn’t appear after a few minutes so I thought the comments couldn’t handle the blockquote, so I reposted without it. My bad.
LarryE,
I think you’ve made several good analysis of cases presented here.
Jill -
Thank you.
Self congratulation for pointing out the obvious isn’t analysis.
Rights are inalienable and inherent to the human condition. See Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence.
Privileges are rooted in a sense of entitlement, usually self-imposed and/or taken without consent of the totality.
There is is a difference.
While it’s true that the recognition of rights by the totality is an incremental process, there is no argument to be made for their equivalence. Go on down that path. It’s a dead end. Just because those with privilege don’t recognize a right does not mean that right does not exist. That’s at the core of both the French and American Revolutions – the “privileged” decided to piss on the rights of others for their benefit. It worked out so well for those claiming privilege. And that is what you are claiming, that the religious have the privilege of depriving the minority of their rights because it does not comport with their belief. It’s the same argument they used to make about blacks. Again, see how well that worked out.
Homosexuals have the right to seek love and happiness as much as heterosexuals. No “law” set by those with privilege to do so will change that fact. They have that right simply because they are human. A law that restricts a fundamental inalienable right like that is not a just law, but tyranny.
Contrast to the right of women to vote. Or the extinct right of primogeniture. One is a right, one is a privilege despite both bearing the label “right”.
Just to be clear.
Obfuscation is the tool of propagandists and apologists.
BIL -
Who are you addressing?
Who bites troll bait?
As I’ve read and re-read all the comments in this thread a thought occurred to me. The essence of this whole issue is the
Californian propensity to have these special ballot initiatives. On the face of it there seems to be a good principle behind it: i.e. Let the people decide. I think though if an examination of these initiatives would be made, the result would be three-fold.
1. They allow special interests (In this case The Mormon Church, et. al.) to wage well-funded propaganda campaigns that inflame public opinion and raise false demons.
2. The biggest beneficiaries of this process are Corporatists and fundamentalist religious groups. Not the public need or good.
3. They actually interfere with the democratic process rather than support it.
There are other States that also have these special votes and my sense, with only the impression of memory to go on, is that they usually involve issues where big money proponents and/or opponents carry the day with propaganda and false characterizations. Our governmental system as constituted is of course far from perfect, but it works to a good degree, I believe this “voters choice” process often negates process and replaces it with emotionally charged debate that distorts the issues. This is what happened with Prop 8 in California and its’ sister Prop 2 in Florida.
Finally, although not quite the same thing (but of the same idea) we see the California recall of Grey Davis as Governor. It was based on a financial crisis that we later learned was deliberately caused by Enron’s greed. At the low point of his public disapproval he was recalled. The resultant gubernatorial election circus elected a famous action movie star, whose career was on the wane and who ran against a field of candidates that bordered on the farcical. How does that feel now Californians with your State on the verge of bankruptcy and your economy in the tank? You replaced a boring person with a charismatic one who promised fiscal reform. A man who in reality had close ties to Enron. The reform they’re getting is certainly fiscal
BIL -
Who bites troll bait?
This evasive non-answer comes from the person who just said “Obfuscation is the tool of propagandists and apologists.”
:sigh: But still I have to assume, based on your prior behavior, that it was addressed to me. So here’s the short version of my answer:
Say what?
Here’s the longer version:
Are you so set on trying to trash whatever I say that you can’t even be bothered to understand it before you go running off at the keyboard?
I noted Chief Justice George’s hypothetical – intended to criticize the arguments of those who wanted to overturn Prop8 – which suggested they would create a “one-way street” where it was easier to recognize a right than to deny or remove that recognition.
I said that would be a good thing. I said that “The history of human rights has been one of … increasing recognition of rights previously ignored or denied.” And I said that suggesting a right can be taken away by a simple majority is to denigrate it as being not a right “but a mere privilege dependent on current political winds.”
I suggested no equivalence between rights and privileges, in fact I counterposed them.
As for
you are claiming that the religious have the privilege of depriving the minority of their rights because it does not comport with their belief,
I have absolutely no clue where that came from. None.
What I said was that requiring a 2/3 vote of the state legislature (I assumed everyone would realize that was the 2/3 to which I referred) rather than a simple majority in a referendum “only raises the bar for stripping away rights, it does not eliminate it.” That is, it would still be legally possible to strip away those protections. Which is why, I said, it’s important to remember that what is at issue in the case are the legalities of recognizing a right, not the right itself. We are not, that is, arguing about the right of same-sex couples to marry but about the legal recognition of that right.
All of which means, you dodo, that I agree with you that human rights exist outside of the framework of law and that law is related to the recognition of such rights, not their creation (or elimination). And I fully agree that “Homosexuals have the right to seek love and happiness as much as heterosexuals,” a human right that exists with or without legal recognition of it.
(If you still doubt it, I invite you to follow the link to my blog and do a search on “same-sex marriage.”)
I will accept that I was not at clear as I could have been, but I didn’t think detailed explanations were necessary because I believed – and believe – I would be easily understood by anyone reading with their eyes instead of their biases.
Clarity is all I ask for Larry.
But you’d better lay off the ad hominem, sport. Last guy who did that walked got scarred. Ask him. He’s still here. I’ve been playing nice so far because I wasn’t sure if you were a troll or just a rude ass. I think I’m satisfied now.
that walk got
Crackberry
“Larry
…A “right” that can be taken away by a simple majority vote is not a right at all but a mere privilege dependent on current political winds.”
Exactly. That’s why Federal involvement will have to eventually come into play. If racial minorities and women had to rely on States alone Black Americans would again be in chains and women would again be legally recognized as chattel in many States. States can not be allowed to control civil rights issues.
IMO the upcoming battle over ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ is going to be a test drive for addressing sexual preference as a civil rights issue from the Federal pov.
Clarity is all I ask for
You had it the first time. You were just too eager to rush to judgment to see it.
On the other hand, I could have expected something from you along the lines of “Ah, I misunderstood, sorry.” or “I guess I read too quickly.” Or something. It was a good thing I didn’t.
you’d better lay off the ad hominem, sport
After the vituperation you heaped on Prof. Anderson (without factual basis) in that other thread, along with calling me a half-wit and a douche and now “a troll or just a rude ass,” I really don’t think you’re in a position to gripe about anyone else’s supposed ad hominems.
I will say that in this case if you’re by chance referring to “dodo,” the truth is I was so frustrated by your failing to see what seemed to me a quite obvious point of agreement that I wanted to call you something but didn’t want to be nasty so I chose a word that I figured would come across as sufficiently silly to indicate it was meant to be taken as teasing, not insult. If it did come across as nasty, for that I will apologize.
But at the end of the day, it may well be true that you’re more skilled at sniping and insult than I am. I’ve just never understood why that is a skill about which anyone would brag.
It’s useful for boor hunting as well as troll killing.
But I’ll be clear once again.
Once you read something you didn’t like you came in rude and insulting, you continued rude when prodded. And then you attempt to paint me in with the same brush? Well, there’s a problem with that tactic, Karl. I admit to using the tactic for the aforementioned reason. I don’t fight fair. This isn’t court, there are no rules except one – this is JT’s playground. That’s why I’m playing nice. He asked. Let’s trace this, shall we? You come unhinged on me, I poke you a couple of times, you still act as you acted and here we are. You don’t like what I said about Professor Anderson? Where’s your proof I’m wrong? You don’t have any, just ad hominem hot air. That’s the last refuge of the desperate and poor tactics. The truth of the matter is unless you’re Professor Anderson, which would REALLY be pathetic, neither you nor I have the 411 on her thought process. So why doesn’t she explain it in public? Explain how a student performing the assignment as assigned has created a “perception of threat”? It must not have been too threatening as none of the other students called the cops or fled the building in terror. And “perception” created by one’s own ineptness in giving an assignment still narrows down to her being the causal error.
Either way, boor or troll (and I’ll let others come to their conclusions), you’re not worth seriously addressing any further.
Mike,
You’re a bit off…at best on your facts. The Mormon church gave no money to Prop 8. Moreover, the anti-Prop 8 supporters actually had MORE money than their counterparts. To thus conclude that the Mormon Church waged “well-funded propaganda campaigns” is either naivety, disingenuous…or both.
“They actually interfere with the democratic process rather than support it.”
That’s actually an interesting comment which I agree with. Special interests are generally more motivated and push for change en mass. With apathy in the general populace, those movements gain considerable and magnified traction. But take out special interests to rid churches of political forces, and you also remove most civil rights organizations. I don’t know if that’s a hill you’re willing to go down.
All,
I believe the Court screwed up in addressing Prop 22, and now we’re in for a hairy ride. The issue before the court was what is the “official family relationship,” which excluded gays. But leaving that alone, the CA Ct. went after marriage? Boy…they’ve got themselves into an unnecessary pickle. I agree that there’s a substantive civil rights issue, but that the court simply treated the wrong one.
Aaron
“You’re a bit off…at best on your facts. The Mormon church gave no money to Prop 8. Moreover, the anti-Prop 8 supporters actually had MORE money than their counterparts. To thus conclude that the Mormon Church waged “well-funded propaganda campaigns” is either naivety, disingenuous…or both.
Aaron,
It is you who doesn’t have the facts, or are being disingenuous as shown by the following which just took me a few minutes to google, with far much more related material to link to that disproves your contention. The LDS on its’ own news site admits to around $190,000 in in-kind contributions.
However, LDS organized a fund raising campaign for Mormons to give between $22 million and $39 million in cash.
http://mormonsfor8.com/
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/church-clarifies-proposition-8-filing-corrects-erroneous-news-reports
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rick-jacobs/mormon-church-on-prop-8-w_b_140804.html
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/10/now-the-mormon.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/27/BAP113OIRD.DTL
LDS was significantly in the fight against Gay Marriage in California, even by their own admission and statements. Do they have a right to express what they feel, of course they do. however, once doing so then they also must suffer the consequences of their actions. I’m not particularly against
LDS except on three grounds.
1. It bothers me when a religion runs a State in that it threatens Church/State separation and LDS runs Utah. It is therefore disconcerting when LDS begins to venture out into running other States.
2. As a Jew the missionary work of LDS, Baptists and Catholics also offends me. I get very annoyed when approached on the street by bright-eyed pimply faced teenagers who are going to tell me how to be saved.
3. That LDS has had the effrontery to “baptize” Jewish Holocaust victims posthumously is highly insulting to other Jews and myself. Although it has been claimed to be stopped rumor has it that it continues in secrecy. Posthumous Baptism is actually an unwarranted continuation of the Shoah. Also please to those Mormons out there, I know more about Jews than did Joseph Smith. There were no legions of Jews in North America in 600 BCE, it is only your way of trying to usurp the history of Judaism to your own benefit.
When it comes to religious belief I’m a live and let live kind of person. However, many people of varying religious stripes fail to recognize the insults that other people, with strong though differing beliefs have to suffer, because of these zealot’s need to make others believers in their visions of the Creator. I’ll worry about my own salvation, thank you.
Why is government in the marriage business to begin with? It’s been suggested on this site, forgive me I don’t recall who or where, that civil unions would legally satisfy all the contracts of matrimony. Then adults who desire a religious ceremony could get married together in their respective faith.
Instead of a municipality or the county issuing a marriage certificate, they would issue a civil union certificate, which would legally join a couple irrespective of their sex. This would honor the legal rights of all couples. Is this to simplistic?
CCD,
Simplicity is the best solution in any situation. And honestly, most of the homosexuals I know would not care what it’s called as long as they can see their loved ones when they fall ill and be afforded the chance to help them by getting them under their insurance umbrella. That’s also a reason I think this is going to be a State’s Rights issue now. Single payer health care is coming as a matter of national security and sound fiscal practice whether you like it or not. There are a lot off parasites in the health system that make profit and not care their motive and it’s time for you to be leaving now. Spend away on your lobbyists. There is a very real reason so many of our allies have socialized health care. Churchill said that, “Healthy citizens are the greatest asset any country can have.” It’s simpler. Less moving parts to break. More efficient. Less ways to skim money away from patients and facilities expenditures. And then this inevitability finally hits, you won’t be able to discriminate any more. Civil Unions compliment this and let the “purists” (meh) keep their precious word while not committing the most egregious sin of keeping the dying from their loved ones.
Simply, I love simple.
BIL -
Since you like clarity and asked specific questions, I’ll give you a clear answer.
I went back to my original comment on the Anderson case just to be sure about what ad hominems I may have employed.
These are the critical terms I used:
- presumption
- thin gruel
- utterly ridiculous
- sheer speculation
- jumping to conclusions
- thin evidence
Every one of them was applied to the arguments and logic I was criticizing. The language may have been harsh, but no harsher than deserved by the level of presumption they addressed. More to the point, not one of them is an ad hominem, which refers to going after the person instead of the argument.
The rest of my comment consisted of suggesting a couple a ways the whole incident could have arisen from a misunderstanding.
Your response was filled with ad hominems against Prof. Anderson and in at least one case directly misrepresented my argument; in fact, you had made personal attacks against Anderson, her judgment, and her motives before I said anything. Bluntly, I was not the one who introduced personal attacks into the matter.
you come unhinged on me, I poke you a couple of times, you still act as you acted
Curious how someone who supposedly is so tough that they feel a need to warn of “scarring” me if I don’t behave the way they want, regards stiff dissent as being “unhinged.” You’re really got that “I’m the victim!” routine down, haven’t you?
Where’s your proof I’m wrong
Point One: You are thus acknowledging you drew conclusions and made judgments about Anderson.
Point Two: The burden of proof is on the claimant. It’s not for me to prove you’re wrong, it’s for you to prove you’re right. Which you have not even attempted to do.
Point Three: If you wish to maintain, as you have, that the topic alone is what provoked the response, you must explain why only Wahlberg was questioned. An inability to do so is evidence that you are wrong.
neither you nor I have the 411 on her thought process
Oh, for…. That was the point! We don’t know what she was thinking. Nor do we know what Walhberg said, nor what went on during the class. Despite that self-professed ignorance, you made cracks about “brain police” and you and others asserted that the “threat” she perceived was the topic itself. By your own words, you have confessed that you accused Anderson of wrongful conduct without having the facts necessary to back it up. You have not rebutted or deflected my argument, you’ve confirmed it!
why doesn’t she explain it in public
Already asked, already answered. But to summarize:
She did state a rationale: She perceived a threat. You’re demanding not that she state a rationale but that she defend it in detail. But to judge that detailed defense you must know the context, which means you must also demand that Wahlberg recreate his entire presentation – plus examining witnesses to see if his recreation accurately reflected the original. That is, you’re actually demanding a full-scale investigation at a time when all concerned seem prepared to drop the matter.
you’re not worth seriously addressing any further
I fully expect we can and will have mutually-civil exchanges in the future. But on this topic, you can rest assured the feeling is quite mutual.
CCD -
Instead of a municipality or the county issuing a marriage certificate, they would issue a civil union certificate…. Is this to simplistic?
No. In fact one of the justices of the CA Supreme Court suggested the possibility of requiring the state “to employ non-marriage terminology” so that the state would deal only in “civil unions” and “domestic partnerships” rather than “marriages.”
At least in the short term, the problem with having both “civil unions” and “marriages,” as I see it, is that it still suggests a difference, invites a judgment of superiority: “Oh, well, we’re married, y’see. You just have one of those civil union things.”
In a similar way, it wasn’t that long ago that there was a general sense that being married by a JP or a judge somehow wasn’t as “real” a marriage as one performed in a religious setting. Being “married by the judge” carried an implication of a marriage that was done in haste or otherwise suggested a lesser commitment.
On the other hand, that is a difference about which few people bother today. So maybe in time the difference between “civil unions” and “marriages” would fade, too.
CCD, Buddha & LarryE,
Civil Unions for all would be an effective and logical solution to the entire marriage question so I agree with your points of view. Having said that I must say that the use of Civil Unions is too my mind far away. My reason for that belief has nothing to do with their logic, but with the fact that the Gay Marriage opposition is more a reflection of the broad based Fundamentalist Culture War, than it is reflective of a governmental policy discussion.
The Fundamentalists need to believe that society is “going to hell in a hand basket” to use another of my favorite cliches.
They see any encroachment in tradition as a threat to their personal beliefs and further evidence of destruction to society. This immunizes them to seeing other points of view, especially because their own is so based on fear. Most annoyingly, this represents the condition of the followers.
The leaders of these Fundamentalist campaigns are for the most part calculating, hypocritical bastards, who seek power, wealth and possibly even sex for their ego gratification. They hold their flocks together by fear and by the common human false belief that things were better in “the old days” which was a “purer and simpler” time. They need these cultural battles to maintain their control, raise money and continue to wield power over “the sheep being sheared.”
Mike,
Your point about this being a culture war issue is spot on, but really I think that just highlights the pending issues we have with State’s Rights. Since culture like politics is local, does the Federal Government have a right and role to dictate your state’s culture by dictating it’s laws when the national consensus is that they are correcting a wrong, but the local consensus is contrary? Well the answer has to be yes in light of the precedent(s) created during the Civil Rights movement of the 50′s and 60′s. And when universal health care comes about and local culture threatens to interfere with providing equal services and care, the last legal domino will fall or be positioned to fall. The social division will still linger. But I ask you, is there any way to correct that other than education? Getting Civil Unions to become reality still won’t overcome that battle. However, just like racism, I think it’d be hard to argue that the effect of a Federal ban on discrimination has not helped in the fight against racism – especially in the generations since. Early intervention by the Feds on the Civil Union issue could avoid some future litigation over refusal of service issues, but then again, it may be those every suits that force the Feds hand. Let’s not forget the whole Full Faith and Credit issues created by disparate states recognizing same sex unions. Can you rightfully deny access to someone based on relation when one state recognizes the relation but the other doesn’t? So to be, and I hate this word, proactive or not to me seems a valid question. As a practical matter, I know it will come to a fight before it’s resolved to the point the Feds step in – thinking ahead isn’t their strong suit and especially if it means angering a voting segment (no matter how troubled they may be). Naturally reflexive. It would be nice to see the Feds get out in front a problem for a change though.
Speaking of which, did you catch FDIC Chair Sheila Bair on 60 Minutes last night? No wonder Geithner tried to knock her out last December after what I saw last night – her offer a practical solution for the big banks issue that he’ll never float because he’s too tied to the problem. She’s a sharp gal. No nonsense either. Obama should be asking her advice.
Bob,
Interesting article. I like the multi-pronged approach she suggests vis a vis access and insurance as separate issues.
Buddha,
I agree with you that federal intervention is needed to trump individual States in this. On a State level it is too easy to allow money and propaganda to block good policy.
Secondly, I did see 60 minutes last night and commissioner Bair showed intelligence and good sense. Yes too, Geithner is to of the culture to be able to see beyond it and that is a big problem. I hated his appointment, was willing to give him a chance, but his solutions don’t impress me and I’ve never liked Larry Summers.
Third, the other piece on 60 Minutes I found inspirational and although off thread, certainly is not inimical to this blog site and JT’s career accomplishments. I was struck by and moved by the NC detective who not only admitted he goofed but seemed so willing to learn from it. This is unusual behavior by public officials in DNA release cases. The reconciliation and acceptance of the woman who had been raped and her joining with Mr. Cotton to inform on the false ID issue brought tears to my eyes and choking in my throat. Those two people, so instrumental in this wrongful imprisonment, showed true humanity in atoning for their error.
Mr. Cotton’s willingness to forgive far exceeds my own and shows him the better man for it.
Mike,
Mr. Cotton is quite a guy. That really impressed me too. Actually, I was impressed by how they all handled it after science verified Mr. Cotton’s innocence, but none more so than the actions of the man himself. That’s true character.
Mike,
Totally off topic, but I thought you’d enjoy this. A little literary history and archeology rolled into one.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7931823.stm
Thank you for the replies to “Government in the marriage business.”
BIL, I appreciate you connecting the dots. The U. S. spent 17 % of GDP on health care in 2008. It’s projection to 20 % by 2017 is ruinous. Health care in Germany, Canada and France are closer to 10 % of GDP or less. Churchill’s quote is genus.
We the people have to enforce separation of church and state in order to provide civil liberties for all.
CCD,
One lives to be of service.
And now for the bad news, this link does relate directly to issues in this thread.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/09/court-will-not-expand-min_n_173066.html
I’ve always disliked Scalia and Roberts, but now I’m moving into Bob territory for certain.
Buddha,
Enjoyed the link, though you lead me into “off track” sinning.
In that vein, though aimed at a 100 years later: Have your read Neal Stephenson’s Baroque Cycle. He presents a history of the Enlightenment, Natural Philosophy and the rise of our modern financial system. In the process presents exciting, well defined main characters swash buckling in and around Newton, Descarte, Leibniz, Hooke, Louis XIV and the entire known world of the time. Its a combination of historical novel,SF and Swords & Fantasy. Among the absolute best pieces of literature written in the past 50 years.
Mike,
I’ll have to confess I’ve been remiss on Stephenson. I picked up I think it was “Diamond Age” once upon a time, but alas life interfered and I never got to it. I’m almost done with my current projects, so maybe I’ll move him to the front of the fun list. Do you have a suggested starting point or is he the kind of author you can jump in anywhere along the line?
Buddha,
Start with Cryptonomicom and then move on to the Trilogy of the Baroque Cycle, or vice versam. His latest book is Anathem and I also like it alot and it is pure SF. The other two I like best and in fact I’m currently re-reading the Baroque Cycle (No
mean feat about 2,700 pages) but given the economy problems I want to read again, to see how our financial system began. Some are not impressed with him, but I believe he’s one of the greats.
Thanks, Mike.
Mike Spindell, thank you for the 60 Minutes suggestion about Cotton and Thompson-Cannino. Very interesting piece, really amazing.
Mike,, Buddha, Gang
If civil unions are the remedy than all licenses to unite couples should be issued fairly as civil unions and let the religious among us take their vows in the houses of worship that they choose and who will support their requests.
I agree with Mike, as Jew, I find the policy of LDS conversion of Jews in absentia a disgusting practice which many Jewish leaders have asked them not to do. They refuse. Or they agree, temporarily. On the other hand what they do within their temple walls is their business and since I don’t believe that their conversions have any effect over me, my family or any other Jew then great. Let them knock themselves out. This is on par with the whack-job evangelicals who are buying property in Jerusalem to be close to the Mt of Olives when jesus returns. So far as long as they don’t bother Israelis with their missionary mishegoss (when they do, they are deported) and weigh the mental health system down with cross-toting psychotics, again let them live and be well.
LIving and being well, minding one’s own business should be what we focus on. Seriously. The Lesbian couple down the street from me, does not affect me, how I raise my kids, my marriage, my ability to breathe freely or in any other way. Should their marriage which was recognized and now may not be recognized in CA due to the circus act which is Prop 8 has zero affect on anything going on in my life. I wish them well. I can get behind any couple who chooses to seek comfort and affection, chooses to rear children thoughtfully and who goes to work and tidies up their lawns well and invite them to live wherever they choose.
Gay marriage will ultimately be a civil rights issue, a commerce clause issue and an issue that humanity must address for the sake of what means for us to live in a plural society.
Do I wish the religionists would stoop ringing my doorbell? Sure. Are they effective in any real way? I don’t think so. At worst they are an annoyance, at best a bunch of people getting out in the fresh air and working off their lunch. Most folks know and believe what they know and believe and while the gospels may have been the best way of disseminating news in their time, most of us, probably all of us, have perfectly good religions of our own and I believe this is true for all of the world.
My problem lies with mega churches who issue voting guides and who campaign from the pulpit. They use God and two sentences from scripture to promote a social agenda that does not affect them in any real way. If every gay couple who wanted to marry did so later this afternoon, no one aside from that couple would notice any changes in their lives just like it is with straight couples.
GWLSM,
By the way welcome to the ongoing discussion. Your posts are always thoughtful and promote, rather than inhibit the exchange of ideas. Regarding the Mormon’s and their conversion practice, I agree that in the end it is mostly a meaningless exercise. Then too as a Jew I’m sure you understand the underlying disrespect for Shoah victims it shows. That, however, while angering me personally is also something that is really of small consequence, since despite what their canon may approve, no one can believe that baptizing someone after their death has any effect in God’s eyes, no matter how one defines the Creator.
What does cause me distress, is the plethora of stories this week on President Obama’s Mother being baptized when he got the nomination and the corollary stories that the involuntary post-mortem conversions of Shoah victims continues, albeit surreptitiously. While on one hand these are meaningless acts to those who do not follow the LDS, on the other they represent an LDS strategy that looks years forward. The LDS is an intelligently run operation with many propaganda skills. In a hundred years or so these conversions will be used as proof that all manner of people joined LDS because they recognized the “truth” of it. In 100 the LDS will advertise itself as holocaust victims and use it to show that they are the inheritors of Jewish history.
Is it paranoid of me to think so, no. How much denial of the Shoah exists in today’s world, when I’m sure that like me you personally know survivors. We will be gone in 100 years, as will the survivors and our children. We know from history that much is hidden through time, the Armenian Genocide for instance and this is where I see the LDS policy heading and so I decry it.
BIL,
By all means get back to “Diamond Age”, you’ll like it I’m sure, and while steampunk has fallen into some disfavor a book I (for some unknown reason) always associate with Diamond Age is “The Difference Engine” by Gibson. Not the same books, not even close but still I associate them. The Difference Engine is an excellent book. Another couple of books I associate in this small weird group are “Snowcrash” and “Ano Dracula”. Maybe because they deal with alternate realities (Ano Dracula and Difference Engine) and future reality (Diamond Age and Snowcrash) but I must confess, Ano Dracula is there as a guilty pleasure. Alternate reality and vampires- what’s not to love?
Mike
Thanks for the warm welcome
I try to read all the posts to the topics that stimulate my imagination or alternatively cause me to feel outrage and while I can’t possibly respond to most of them and don’t have the attention span to get involved in who-is-who and the personality stuff, maybe that’s what folks here might enjoy. For me, I enjoy the exchange of ideas and love to hear from people who stimulate me to look at things in ways I had not previously considered.
Naturally I am worried that once all the survivors are gone that the deniers will move in to take their place. How paranoid do you have to be? and btw, ever notice how when we bring this up we are accused of something called “playing the Holocaust card?”
Just as easily and as importantly we have other cards in our deck, the Pol Pot and Khmer Rouge card, the Darfur card and many others that speak to the darkness in the human heart and maybe that’s why, in my travels, I’ve sought out rather than avoided the places where atrocities have occurred so that I might report back stuff like I’ve seen the actual waterboard used by Pol Pot and saw the working guillotine outside the window of the cell block (a generous term at best) where Senator McCain and other American POW’s were held and tortured.
There is a corollary to the baptism of shoah victims and that is the notion among evangelicals that Jews are incomplete, requiring spiritual perfection ( see: Ann Coulter) through the recognition of Jesus as the Jewish messiah. All of this is colossally insulting and while LDS policies really do not affect us, the notion that they have the largest growing organization of any religious organization and are the best funded, my concern is not for my spiritual well-being but for the notion that by funding special elections in CA that law can be overturned by any well-funded majority that has the $$ to produce commercials that claim gay marriage will cause erosion of free expression of religion. as if by allowing gays and lesbians to marry churches by the hundreds, maybe thousands will have to shut their door permanently. While laughable to those of us who know better and to those of us who can find the gods of our choice in any setting this is fear-based campaigning with others sure to follow
This notion gave the Framers pause and resulted in their rather narrow definition of citizenship. White, Christian, men, landowners, the economic elite had the vote and there was no popular vote for the Senate until the 20th century if memory serves. My fear has always been that a well funded majority could take control of the civil rights of the minority who are supposed to enjoy equal protection under law and this is exactly what has happened in CA.
As a CA resident, voter and some-time political activist, I can say that CA is in truth a pretty conservative state. Pockets of liberals in LA and the Bay Area do exist and they do vote but none of us thought that the organized battle against gay marriage would end in this Prop 8 shtuss.
lottakatz,
I’ve read “The Difference Engine”. It’s in my library right now as I am a huge Gibson fan. I’ll have to look into the others as time permits.