Our era's American civil rights issue: A milestone on gay discrimination

[Craig234]

Civil rights issues can take a long, long time. Martin Luther King said their progress has a long arc, but leans to justice.

Ours is the issue of gay discrimination. It was practically a forbidden topic as recently as about the 1960's.

Early steps included just any mention of gays in public, that they existed. In earlier times, there wasn't really even the idea, it seems of a 'gay person', but just someone who did perverse things - the same way there was no 'orientation' to be a murderer or thief, just people who did those things.

A milestone was the Supreme Court ruling that criminalizing homosexual behavior was unconstitutional - overturning laws that could jail gay couples for having sex.

Other milestones are the creeping start of including gays in non-discrimination laws (some have, many haven't), or legalizing gay marriage in a few states (most are not close).

But today, we have a milestone in the next two hours coming with the release of the judge's decision on the federal constitutionality of discrimination against gay marriage.

It'll either be a milestone in progress - or a setback if he rules the other way. But we should appreciate it, as we remove one more unjust discrimination in our society.

Women have had a long road - from having the vote for less than half our history, to having legal protection for equality at work only in recent decades. No President yet.

Blacks have had a long history - from centuries of serving our desire for cheap labor to enrich us in slavery, to the 14th amendment, to the ending of a century of legal racism.

Things are still progressing for equality - indeed women have now gained a big advantage in many areas to the point of concern for men.

But let's pay attention to the progress on the civil rights issue today - gay equality.

Hopefully, the judge will rule that the constitution protects against the bigoted discrimination underlying the law against gay marriage.

A ruling that is very plausible today, that would have been unacceptable to society for over 90% of our nation's history.

It'll be one more great progress as an example for the world as well, much of whom - including much or most of Muslim society - still has very strong gay bigotry.

 

[woolfe9999]

Craig, are you eliciting comments, or are you just wanting people to read what you wrote?

Anyway, I am logged into Pacer right now. It is the federal court's e-filing service, and I'm in the docket for Perry v. Schwarzenneger. So far no order, but it should be posted there within an hour or so.

I note that the defense already filed a motion to stay the order yesterday, before the order came out, so apparently they think they are going to lose.

I'll post when it becomes available.

- wolf

 

[PokerGuy]

It's a judge in Cali... of course the defense is going to lose. This needs to be appealed all the way up to the supremes for the people to have a chance to have their votes/choices matter. Sadly the SCOTUS is the last line of defense for the country now.

 

[woolfe9999]

It's a judge in Cali... of course the defense is going to lose. This needs to be appealed all the way up to the supremes for the people to have a chance to have their votes/choices matter. Sadly the SCOTUS is the last line of defense for the country now.

That, or the defense will lose because there is no real argument for discriminating against gays. Their position is morally, intellectually, and legally bankrupt. I bet the SCOTUS rules with the district judge on this one.

- wolf

 

[Craig234]

Craig, are you eliciting comments, or are you just wanting people to read what you wrote?

Anyway, I am logged into Pacer right now. It is the federal court's e-filing service, and I'm in the docket for Perry v. Schwarzenneger. So far no order, but it should be posted there within an hour or so.

I note that the defense already filed a motion to stay the order yesterday, before the order came out, so apparently they think they are going to lose.

I'll post when it becomes available.

- wolf

Comments are welcome. This was just starting a discussion, with my view people can agree or - though it'd be said to see anti-gay bigotry - disagree with.

While I'm optimistic about the ruling - a bit remarkable that it's coming from a gay judge in San Francisco - the defense motion seems just precautionary.

Hopefully, the public (and forum) is celebratory about the progress for our society. For what it's worth, we seem to have a very small number of gay bigots here.

 

[Craig234]

It's a judge in Cali... of course the defense is going to lose. This needs to be appealed all the way up to the supremes for the people to have a chance to have their votes/choices matter. Sadly the SCOTUS is the last line of defense for the country now.

The idiocy starts. "The media is all commies! The judges in CA are all commies! Waaaaah!"

 

[PokerGuy]

I think this is the kind of thing people mean with "activist judges". The people spoke loud and clear with their vote. Since some people find the vote inconvenient, a judge will simply invalidate the will of the people.

 

[woolfe9999]

Comments are welcome. This was just starting a discussion, with my view people can agree or - though it'd be said to see anti-gay bigotry - disagree with.

While I'm optimistic about the ruling - a bit remarkable that it's coming from a gay judge in San Francisco - the defense motion seems just precautionary.

Hopefully, the public (and forum) is celebratory about the progress for our society. For what it's worth, we seem to have a very small number of gay bigots here.

Judge Walker is rumored to be gay, never been confirmed. He has a reputation for ruling to the right of center, however, tending to favor businesses and corporations over individuals.

- wolf

 

[woolfe9999]

I think this is the kind of thing people mean with "activist judges". The people spoke loud and clear with their vote. Since some people find the vote inconvenient, a judge will simply invalidate the will of the people.

It's a good thing the Constitution trumps majority rule, or the next thing you know the majority will vote to censor your speech.

- wolf

 

[Craig234]

I think this is the kind of thing people mean with "activist judges". The people spoke loud and clear with their vote. Since some people find the vote inconvenient, a judge will simply invalidate the will of the people.

Your comments are consistently filled with terrible logic.

I'll make an exception to respond to this one, especially on the chance you might vote.

You do not get the concept of 'constitutional right', the idea of a minority having any protection from the majority.

The right to free speech means the majority can't (in theory, anyway) pass a law against an unpopular opinion being stated.

The right against cruel and unusual punishment means the majority can't pass a law for a child molester to be sexually tortured in revenge.

The right to a jury trial means the majority can't say suspected US citizen terrorists don't deserve jury trials and get summary justice.

In all these cases - and the case of the majority expressing its anti-gay bigotry by denying them the right to marry - it's about a constitutional right protecting against the majority.

Contrary to your un-american opinion, the majority voting for something isn't the last word on the issue, and it shouldn't be for good reason. We provide some protection from it.

We have not always - blacks' right to freedom, women's right to vote, gays' right to have sex or marry - but we do provide some protection.

 

[Tristicus]

Shutup Craig.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

As with most issues like this (social ones that challenge "traditions"), until there is a SCOTUS decision we won't see gay rights.

 

[PokerGuy]

Like I said, the people spoke, they amended the CA constitution, then some folks didn't like it so they resort to judicial activism to ram their agenda through no matter the will of the people.

And yes Craig, I do vote. Someone has to offset the crazy lib vote.

 

[Craig234]

Judge Walker is rumored to be gay, never been confirmed. He has a reputation for ruling to the right of center, however, tending to favor businesses and corporations over individuals.

- wolf

I saw a press report saying he's "openly" gay - 'neither hides nor advertises it'.

http://www.examiner.com/x-27745-SF-...--Live-coverage-live-chat-link-to-read-ruling

 

[shira]

I think this is the kind of thing people mean with "activist judges". The people spoke loud and clear with their vote. Since some people find the vote inconvenient, a judge will simply invalidate the will of the people.

You do understand, don't you, that The U.S. Constitution > votes?

 

[FuzzyBee]

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=paragraph

^^ those help with legibility. Just an FYI.

 

[woolfe9999]

I saw a press report saying he's "openly" gay - 'neither hides nor advertises it'.

http://www.examiner.com/x-27745-SF-...--Live-coverage-live-chat-link-to-read-ruling

I hadn't followed the most recent reports. Walker has never come out publically about it. It has been a rumor for a long time. It seems that since this case started, people who know him have been speaking to the press and now it has less the quality of rumor and more of fact.

I tried a case in his court in 2003. Back then it was a rumor. You'd never know it if someone didn't tell you.

- wolf

 

[Craig234]

I think this is the kind of thing people mean with "activist judges".

Actually, you're right, it is - but that's just proof those people are idiots.

The people spoke loud and clear with their vote.

Show me where in the constitution it says 'Congress shall pass no law restricting the freedom of speech, unless the people speak loud and clear with their vote to do so.'

Show me that with any constitutional right, including the right to equal protection under the law regarding the law on the right to marry.

Since some people find the vote inconvenient, a judge will simply invalidate the will of the people.

Since some idiots find the constitution inconvenient, they demand a vote overrule it.

 

[Amused]

For the second time in as many weeks, I find myself agreeing with Craig.

Now if Craig would only understand this concept of a Constitutional Republic designed to protect us from mob rule applies to ALL civil rights (including the 2nd Amendment), not just the ones he agrees with.

 

[PokerGuy]

Next up, churches will be required to perform these 'marriages', freedom of religion be damned.

 

[woolfe9999]

The Pacer site is so clogged with traffic right now I am getting timed out trying to refresh the docket page. My guess is that the ruling is now in but I can't access it directly.

Edit: nope, it's not online yet.

- wolf

 

[Craig234]

For the second time in as many weeks, I find myself agreeing with Craig.

Now if Craig would only understand this concept of a Constitutional Republic designed to protect us from mob rule applies to ALL civil rights (including the 2nd Amendment), not just the ones he agrees with.

I do agree with the 2nd amendment and every bit of the constitution overruling 'the mob'.

The question on the 2nd amendment isn't whether it protects its right from the mob, but rather what precisely the right it protects is.

The Supreme Court dodged this question pretty much from 1789-2010 at least. The amendment is not entirely clear, though you may say it is, as you prefer it were.

But, welcome on the other issues.

 

[ShawnD1]

It's a good thing the Constitution trumps majority rule, or the next thing you know the majority will vote to censor your speech.

I'll let you guys in on a little secret: most people are profoundly retarded. Taking away the voice of the majority (ie retards) is probably a good thing.

I'll even give you guys an example. In my city, the majority rule is trying to shut down an airport that is used exclusively for medical flights from small surrounding towns. Shutting down this small airport would basically add an hour of travel time to medical flights because this small airport is about 1 mile away from a hospital while the next closest airport is waaay out of town and nowhere near a hospital. Environmental studies on the land show that the land is basically worthless and nobody would ever be willing to buy it if the airport were shut down. Despite this land being totally worthless and there being nothing to gain by closing this airport, the majority opinion is to close this airport and kill people who need to be flown in for medical treatment. This is what democracy does - people who are stupid as fuck tend to do stupid fucking things.


Majority rules:

 

[Craig234]

Next up, churches will be required to perform these 'marriages', freedom of religion be damned.

That's a lie.

 

[Kirby]

As with most issues like this (social ones that challenge "traditions"), until there is a SCOTUS decision we won't see gay rights.

Agreed. This case, regardless of outcome, is just a stepping stone.