The Federal Prop. 8 Trial / Gay Marriage Catch-All

Seth wrote:

I wouldn't consider that better. That's basically saying "you can have your cake and eat it too, mr bigot, so long as I can whine about it for a few minutes.

Dimmerswitch's logic has also been used to disparage boycotts, not only during the bus boycotts, but also during the British Petroleum boycotts in 2010. I think it's admirable to use nonviolent means to effect change against actions or events you find reprehensible.

Comparing consumer boycotts of BP or the Montgomery Bus Lines to the decision of Bistro at the Bijou to refuse service to a non-disruptive customer is pretty disingenuous. A more apt comparison might be British Petroleum deciding to not sell gas to Congressman Kucinich.

You're welcome to view either Jonman's or my suggestions (or both) as somehow less-good than engaging in discriminatory behavior. I don't think the characterization I've quoted above does you any favors in making that case, though.

There seem to be a lot of things attributed to me in this thread that I'm not saying - I disagree that "my" logic has been used to disparage boycotts. I support nonviolent action to promote more ethical & moral behavior by companies and politicians (and, in fact, engage in it on a regular basis). To reiterate: my point is simply that a business discriminating against an apparently non-disruptive customer is wrong, regardless of whether or not I personally find that customer sympathetic or repugnant.

Perhaps another thread is needed for "how ought we interact with bigots"?

[Edit: Tannhauser'ed on the new thread by Tanglebones. Thanks!]

Seth wrote:

I wouldn't consider that better. That's basically saying "you can have your cake and eat it too, mr bigot, so long as I can whine about it for a few minutes.

Dimmerswitch's logic has also been used to disparage boycotts, not only during the bus boycotts, but also during the British Petroleum boycotts in 2010. I think it's admirable to use nonviolent means to effect change against actions or events you find reprehensible.

You could always say something like "The person who will prepare your meal will do so unsupervised. He is also openly gay. If you have any words you would like to convey to him prior to his doing so, I suggest you do so now. Oh, and he looks a lot like Tyler Durden."

There's an interesting bit of political theater going on in New Hampshire regarding attempts to repeal the state's popular gay marriage law.

Both chambers of the NH Legislature have GOP veto-proof majorities, but that isn't ensuring that gay marriage is facing its death in the Granite State.

While the bill to repeal the gay marriage law will certainly pass, Democratic Gov. Lynch has said he will veto it. That is a problem for the Legislature because there are several Libertarian leaning GOP members who have publicly stated they will never vote to override the Governor's veto. The current whip count shows that there simply aren't enough votes in either chamber to override the veto. This is why, perhaps, the vote, which was to occur on January 3rd, was postponed until late February.

Additionally, every bit of polling done in NH shows that the gay marriage repeal is opposed by the NH public by a 2-1 margin. It has been rumored that GOP leadership in the Legislature is nervous that repealing the law could spell doom at the ballot box in November. They probably should be nervous. The GOP in New Hampshire has been undergoing a series of black eyes lately considering some of the legislation that has been introduced, from the Magna Carta citation bill to the bill making domestic abuse more fashionable. Of course, the GOP Legislature won't even consider sending the issue to the voters because they know the outcome.

My guess is that the wise GOP leadership in the Legislature will continue to postpone the vote, hoping they can get enough votes to sustain the veto.

I have to say, Dimmer, you changed my mind on this one. Once I get past that initial positive feeling for an asshole getting his due, I do feel that it was overall a negative decision.

You don't win hearts and minds by spitting in faces. A better solution: seat him with a happy, committed gay couple. "Your food today is being prepared by our fabulously flaming head chef, and your waiter today is a gay 19 year old college student. We sincerely hope you enjoy your meal." And then kill him with kindness.

It's much easier to say "Gays are bad people and shouldn't be allowed to marry" than it is to say "Jeff and James are bad people and shouldn't be allowed to marry". Which is why as people know more gay people, they become less and less homophobic and set against gay equality (I don't have any sources on this, just the hope in my heart).

kaostheory wrote:

I have to say, Dimmer, you changed my mind on this one. Once I get past that initial positive feeling for an asshole getting his due, I do feel that it was overall a negative decision.

You don't win hearts and minds by spitting in faces. A better solution: seat him with a happy, committed gay couple. "Your food today is being prepared by our fabulously flaming head chef, and your waiter today is a gay 19 year old college student. We sincerely hope you enjoy your meal." And then kill him with kindness.

It's much easier to say "Gays are bad people and shouldn't be allowed to marry" than it is to say "Jeff and James are bad people and shouldn't be allowed to marry". Which is why as people know more gay people, they become less and less homophobic and set against gay equality (I don't have any sources on this, just the hope in my heart).

Wow...a gay bigot being served by a gay cook and a gay server. I'm having flashbacks to the movies "Road Trip" and "Waiting" as to the stuff that could be done to his food. Only, you know, worse.

I believe the idea would be to provide quality service and food, to somehow show that gays are "good people." Unfortunately, I just don't think it would have much, if any impact.

kaostheory wrote:

I have to say, Dimmer, you changed my mind on this one. Once I get past that initial positive feeling for an asshole getting his due, I do feel that it was overall a negative decision.

You don't win hearts and minds by spitting in faces. A better solution: seat him with a happy, committed gay couple. "Your food today is being prepared by our fabulously flaming head chef, and your waiter today is a gay 19 year old college student. We sincerely hope you enjoy your meal." And then kill him with kindness.

It's much easier to say "Gays are bad people and shouldn't be allowed to marry" than it is to say "Jeff and James are bad people and shouldn't be allowed to marry". Which is why as people know more gay people, they become less and less homophobic and set against gay equality (I don't have any sources on this, just the hope in my heart).

Hooray for reasonable conversation!

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/HYHYW.jpg)

Spoiler:

Dibs on being the shark.

kaostheory wrote:

"Gays are bad people and shouldn't be allowed to marry" than it is to say "Jeff and James are bad people and shouldn't be allowed to marry".

I applaud the idea, but honestly Jeff and James are pricks. We should put our best foot forward here, what about Greg and Gary, those are wonderful people.

Yonder wrote:
kaostheory wrote:

"Gays are bad people and shouldn't be allowed to marry" than it is to say "Jeff and James are bad people and shouldn't be allowed to marry".

I applaud the idea, but honestly Jeff and James are pricks. We should put our best foot forward here, what about Greg and Gary, those are wonderful people.

Didn't you hear what Greg did to the Thompson's car? That guy is a dick! But Stuart and Bart are model citizens.

kaostheory wrote:

It's much easier to say "Gays are bad people and shouldn't be allowed to marry" than it is to say "Jeff and James are bad people and shouldn't be allowed to marry". Which is why as people know more gay people, they become less and less homophobic and set against gay equality (I don't have any sources on this, just the hope in my heart).

I can't recall any studies off the top of my head, but I'm positive there's been some done on this and you're correct. The more gay folk that people meet, the less likely they're going to remain homophobic.

Also, the more homophobic someone is, the more likely they are to be gay and closeted.

Science is fun!

Trachalio wrote:

Also, the more homophobic someone is, the more likely they are to be gay and closeted.

Science is fun!

I know that these studies consistently show this to be true, but every time I hear these claims, the only thing I can think of are Hans and Franz saying to themselves that they must "pummel out" their gay thoughts as they daydream of Patrick Swayze riding a horse shirtless on down a sunny beach.

I was going to make a joke about the guy getting tossed out of the restaurant feeling like his anti-gay stance wasn't a choice. Then I thought about it, and realized that I'd heard about as much from some fundies.

And, in one of the more "bizarre" bits of testimony before the Maryland Legislature regarding gay marriage, a 14-year-old girl wants only one thing for her birthday:

At least we know her parents' homeschooling techniques have given her a firm grasp of how to use fallacies.

I don't want anymore kids to get confused about what's right and ok either Sarah.

God that's creepy. Just... yuck.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

And, in one of the more "bizarre" bits of testimony before the Maryland Legislature regarding gay marriage, a 14-year-old girl wants only one thing for her birthday:

At least we know her parents' homeschooling techniques have given her a firm grasp of how to use fallacies.

Yonder wrote:

I don't want anymore kids to get confused about what's right and ok either Sarah.

Rubb Ed wrote:

God that's creepy. Just... yuck.

Try as I might, can't think that very many married, gay parents would teach their child anything remotely so narrow-minded and borne of hatred (can't say none because crazies come in all varieties, but still, this is certainly provably more evident, simply because of the Christian majority).

Silver lining: that video has 9 "likes" and 304 dislikes on youtube as of me posting this.

So where's the clip of the 14 year old saying all she wants for her birthday is to visit her Mom in the hospital, but she can't because her Mom isn't legally married to her other Mom?

Also, when did the state of Maryland start allowing constitutional law litigation from 14 year olds? I really hate that state sometimes.

Homeschooled in Bowie. That says it all.

Paleocon wrote:

Homeschooled in Bowie. That says it all.

I laughed when I heard that and thought the exact same thing.

My children will be homeschooled in Bowie. I don't want them to have to learn about Spiders from Mars on the streets. That's just quality parenting.

Lots going on in the world of gay marriage today...

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will release its opinion tomorrow on whether or not the Prop. 8 trail tapes can be released to the public. During the oral arguments, it seemed as if the Court was not leaning in favor of releasing the tapes, but you never know. No word on when they will rule on the constitutionality of Prop. 8.

+++++++

The four opposition parties in Scotland have all pledged their support for marriage equality in Scotland. The Scottish National Party, which has the majority in the Scottish Parliament, pledged last year that its party members would be allowed to vote their consciences instead of having to vote the party line. Most observers believe marriage equality will arrive in Scotland by the end of 2013.

+++++++

The vile National Organization for Marriage has, once again, lost a battle in court to keep its campaign donor list secret. Maine passed a law that would require NOM to disclose all of the names of their donors. The U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals held today that NOM has to release the names.

Not surprisingly, NOM says it will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

+++++++

And, at 6 PM tonight Pacific time, the Washington State Senate will take up debate on SB 6239, a marriage equality bill. The WA Senate already has the 25 votes needed for passage. The WA House passed an identical bill out of committee and will votes on it at a time to be determined. WA's Governor has said she will sign the bill within minutes after passage in the WA House.

I will report back on the vote as soon as I hear it.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

The vile National Organization for Marriage has, once again, lost a battle in court to keep its campaign donor list secret. Maine passed a law that would require NOM to disclose all of the names of their donors. The U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals held today that NOM has to release the names.

Not surprisingly, NOM says it will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

I would not be surprised at all if they manage to draw it long enough so that they don't have to release it until after the next attempt to get gay marraige legalized in Maine is over (it'll be on the 2012 ballot). It would be super awesome if they run out of appeals and are forced to release the information a month or two before the election.

WOW!!!!!!!

By a vote of 28-21, the Washington State Senate has passed its marriage equality bill.

The whip count before debate was 25-24!

The Evergreen State is now one roll call vote in the WA House from having full marriage equality.

Congratulations to the Washington State Senate!!!

That's how we roll here. Woo!

IMAGE(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_oj-FVGKo69w/TDJ9G_L6SEI/AAAAAAAABsc/voIllO4f0Jo/s1600/250px-Flag_of_Cascadia.svg.png)

clover wrote:

That's how we roll here. Woo!

IMAGE(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_oj-FVGKo69w/TDJ9G_L6SEI/AAAAAAAABsc/voIllO4f0Jo/s1600/250px-Flag_of_Cascadia.svg.png)

Hmm. This might actually be the thing that kick-starts my motivation to get citizenship, so I'll have a vote when the inevitable referendum to repeal this makes it's way to the ballot.

Ninth Circuit says Prop. 8 trial tapes will remain under seal.

More this evening.

Following up from this morning, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Judge Ware's ruling that the Prop. 8 trial tapes could be released to the public.

You can read the ruling here.

Boiling it down, the Court said that Judge Walker had promised to keep the tapes under wraps except for his personal use in reviewing the case. Releasing the tapes would undermine the judiciary, the Court said, because a judge must be of his or her word and those before the court must be able to rely on the word of a judge.

In all, a sound rationale.

Of course, the other side will claim this will help ensure that people don't harass people like David Blankenhorn or Dr. Bill "I Believe Every Thing I Read on the Internet" Tam.

No word on when the Court will rule on the constitutionality of Prop. 8.

Great news out of New Hampshire!

The GOP-controlled NH Legislature released its 2012 agenda for the coming legislative year. Guess what is missing? Yup. No mention of gay marriage. My guess is they have seen the writing on the wall and decided to just remove it from the discussion.

Today certainly had Rick Santorum and Chris Christie at their finest (or worst):

Santorum told a gay man in Missouri today that he didn't deserve the "privilege" of marriage because his type of marriage (whatever that means) doesn't benefit society the way a heterosexual marriage does.

SANTORUM: You’re not entitled “to special treatment under the law…[Marriage is] not a right, it’s something that has existed since the beginning of human history as an institution where men and women come together for the purposes of forming a natural relationship as God made it to be. And for the purposes of having children and continuing that civilization. It is an intrinsic good…And as a result of that, we extend a privilege. We extend certain privileges to people who do that because we want to encourage that behavior. [...]

Two people who may like each other or may love each other who are same-sex, is that a special relationship? Yes it is, but it is not the same relationship that benefits society like a marriage between a man and a woman.

Wow. I guess Newt Gingrich has given three times the benefits to society as Santorum has.

+++++++

Gov. Chris Christie believes that he is giving those in favor of marriage equality "the bargain of their life" by encouraging the entire GOP caucus in the NJ Legislature to vote for sending the issue of gay marriage to the ballot.

CHRISTIE: If the majority of the people want [same-sex marriage] prove it. Put it on the ballot, let it be voted on….I’ve told every Republican in the state legislator to vote to put it on the ballot. They need three-fifths to put it on the ballot. The Republicans have two-fifths in the legislature. So that means the Democrats only need to come up with one-fifth of the legislature…this is the bargain of your life. I’m giving you two-fifths! And the polls they show me say that if it goes on the ballot, it will lose. How much more magnanimous can I be? What else do you want me to do? Go campaign for it too? Look, I’m doing the best I can here!

Ah, Chris, you are a true prince. But not the kind you think.

I was thinking more along these lines.