• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    MsMass on Maybe this will motivate the…
    Ga6thDem on Maybe this will motivate the…
    Beata on Maybe this will motivate the…
    Beata on Who do we blame for the Restau…
    jmac on Who do we blame for the Restau…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Who do we blame for the Restau…
    MsMass on Who do we blame for the Restau…
    William on Who do we blame for the Restau…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Who do we blame for the Restau…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Critics review Trump’s latest…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Critics review Trump’s latest…
    William on Critics review Trump’s latest…
    riverdaughter on Critics review Trump’s latest…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Critics review Trump’s latest…
    jmac on Critics review Trump’s latest…
  • Categories

  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

    • What’s the matter with Kansas?
      The stupid is winning. Early last month, commissioners rejected McKenney’s proposal for a mask mandate. But as COVID-19 cases in the county and across the state surged and Kelly reiterated her call for a statewide policy, they agreed to consider a compromise.Most of the people who showed up for a public hearing opposed the mandate … Continue reading What’s t […]
  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • Open Thread & Fundraising Update
      We are now just over $7k raised, putting us about $1,000 from the second tier, of: Three more articles, this set most likely on the conditions that create golden Ages, including one on how to create an ecological Golden Age (what we need next.) If you like my writing, and you can afford to, please […]
  • Top Posts

Go read Glenzilla


I wanted to do a good piece on Sonia Sotomayor,  Obama’s nominee to replace David Souter, but Glenzilla said it first and better.  My favorite part:

It is very encouraging that Obama ignored the ugly, vindictive, and anonymous smear campaign led by The New Republic’s Jeffrey Rosen and his secret cast of cowardly Eminent Liberal Legal Scholars of the Respectable Intellectual Center.  People like that, engaging in tactics of that sort, have exerted far too much influence on our political culture for far too long, and Obama’s selection of one of their most recent targets both reflects and advances the erosion of their odious influence.  And Obama’s choice is also a repudiation of the Jeffrey-Rosen/Ben-Wittes/Stuart-Taylor grievance on behalf of white males that, as Dahlia Lithwick put it, “a diverse bench must inevitably be a second-rate bench.”

As for the California Supremes decision on Prop H8, I think they made the right decision legally, although it was the wrong decision morally.  Judges are supposed to interpret the law, not make it.  Their original ruling that made gay marriage legal was based on the California Constitution, and the voters chose to amend that constitution last November.

We need to win this fight at the ballot box and/or the statehouse.

Please Digg & Share!

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl

95 Responses

  1. Dissenting Justice also had a good piece today:

    Sotomayor = Supreme Court Pick! Plus: Anti-Conservative Talking Points

    Well, it looks like the smackdown against the smackdown worked. Obama has shown courage in the face of conservative distortion and apparently chosen Sonia Sotomayor for the bench.

    It’s 1 am here and I’m going to be. I’m already curious to see what my RSS feed will give me in the morning.

    The “News” should be interesting with lotta Sotomayor.

    • I think Sotomayor is a good pick, but I wouldn’t say she is a liberal pick.

      Like Obama, her ethnicity is not evidence of her political ideology.

      • Would you say she’s to the right of Souter? I’m seeing rumblings about her pro-corporate stances. god, I hate Obama. He’s so bad that there’s always this relief that he didn’t do something worse, when the reality is there’s absolutely no excuse to not replace Souter with someone equally liberal.

      • If she’s not liberal, Myiq, and I don’t think she is, what makes her a good pick, given the current makeup of the court?

  2. Prop 8-Since when is it legal to write discrimination into the constitution?
    Then let’s have a proposition so Hispanics and Catholics can’t marry.
    Since when do we “vote” on who can get married?

    • I didn’t say it was the right decision, I said it was the right legal decision.

      We want judges to be constrained by the law, not what they think the law should be.

      It’s up to us to change the law.

      • So you think there is never a legal argument against the notion that the majority may deprive minorities of their rights?

        • Strawman much?

        • Ok, I take that to mean that you do think there is a legal argument against the notion that the majority may deprive minorities of their rights. However, in stating that you agree with the court’s legal reasoning, you seem to say that such an argument is not possible in this case. Why?

        • The legalization of gay marriage in California was based on the CSC’s interpretation of the CA Constitution. Like it or not, that constitution was legally amended by the voters when they voted to approve Prop H8

          What is “right” and what is “legal” are not always the same thing.

        • Well, I would encourgage others to read the dissent. Actually, equality and respect for certain inalienable rights underly any constitution, and thus Prop. 8 was certainly not a mere amendment, as the majority erroneously ruled today.

        • There are no “inalienable” rights set forth in either the US or CA constitutions.

          You must be thinking of the Declaration of Independence – but “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” were the only ones mentioned there.

        • Well, with that logic I suppose you think that courts should have allowed schools to remain segregated, women to relinquish control over their own bodies, and gay people not to be alowed to have sex in private.

          Those rights also were not spelled out in the constitution, but they have been determined by courts to be part of the fundamental principles upon which the constitution derives its authority. The founders understood that the constitution grants more rights than those that they specifically enumerated.

        • There you go with those strawmen again

          The law is what it is, not what we wish it to be.

          If we don’t like it we have to change it.

        • Well, you assuming that I am confusing my Declaration of Independence with my constitution, where I was just stating principles that, in the cases I was referring to, were agreed upon by majorities of U.S. supreme court justices, is something of a strawman as well.

          The law is that schools may not be segregated, women may have abortions, and gay people may have sex in private.

        • You obviously don’t understand the legal basis for the decisions you offer as evidence to support your opinion. Most obviously you fail to understand the difference in which constitution is being interpreted.

          Argue with yourself.

        • Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that marriage is a civil right. That should settle the matter, but unfortunately we’re constrained by the system we have and those who administer it. Any appeal for marriage equality based on LvV would lose with this court, based on simple bigotry.

        • I understand the legal basis for those decisions. You are making the textualist argument championed by Scalia, among others, rather than the arguments made by the majorities of Brown, Roe, and Lawrence. You’re entitled to your opinion of constitutional interpretation, of course, but the majorities in those cases did not agree with your opinion, fortunately.

        • No, I am not.

          If you want to insult me we can play a game called “This Way To The Egress”

        • I’m not insulting you, I am just pointing out that your legal analysis is not what has been followed by the U.S. Supreme Court on several important occasions relating to the ability of the majority to diminish the rights of minority.

          Again, I would encourage people to read the dissent in today’s case.


          It was based on the CA Constitution, which was amended by the voters last November.


        • First, the majority opinion is trying to have it both ways, stating that gay people can not be discriminated against, but then seemingly saying that the denying them the right of marriage is not so important that it rises to the level of discrimination, and that denying them the right to be married is not so important as to rise to a revision, rather than an amendment, to the state’s consitutions. To me, this seems a rather untenable position. It is rather like Obama’s claim that he supports equality for gays while denying them marriage rights. The dissent makes a much more logical argument.

          Second, the case was based on the U.S. constitution to the extent that the California constition is not permitted to violate the U.S. constitution.

          Finally, the fact that gay marriage has not specifically been held to be guaranteed by the U.S.
          Supreme court does not mean that the California Supreme Court justices could not have decided that it was. Gay marriage has also not been specifically denied as a constitutional right by the U.S. supreme court. The issue has not yet been placed before that court.

        • But if the CA Supreme Court had decided that it was, based on Loving or something else, it would be appealed to SCOTUS and overturned. Thus proving a pointless gesture and establishing an awful SCOTUS prescedent.

        • Seriously,

          I don’t disagree with that. From a tactical perspective you are probably right that this is not a good time for this kind of case to show up at the U.S. Surpreme Court.

          My point in bringing it up was only in the context of pointing out that the CA court’s legal reasoning was wrong.

    • Absolutely. Separation of church and state. Abolish all marriage. The state has no business getting involved with religious rituals and the church has no business imposing its “traditions” on the state. Let’s get rid of the whole damn mess.

      • I think civil contracts for couples should be the rule, not the exception, but whatever exists must be equal. The problem with the CA Supreme Court is that they failed to consider, except for the dissent by Moreno, the conflict of constitutional provisions: the equal protection clause of the California constitution vs. the unequal treatment that Prop 8 mandated. It was by no means a “correct” legal decision. They resorted to formalism when this is an issue of substantive due process and needed the application of conflict of laws doctrine.

  3. What courage has Obama shown here? He chose a woman who is also a latina. It is all good from his POV. He believes his pick has pleased two minority groups which will help him in 2012.

    • I’ll give him credit for not picking someone like Sunstein IF she makes it on to the Court. It would be just like Obama to pick a sacrificial lamb, watch her get slaughtered and then turn around and say alas, I guess I am forced to allow the Repubs to select a nominee they’ll like.

  4. As for Sotomayor being Hispanic, and that being some sort of insurance of the Hispanic vote, she’s Puerto Rican, 10% of the Hispanic population. The rest of the Latino community (is there is such a thing) doesn’t really have a whole lot to cheer about here.

    • Boricua Como El Coqui (musica Jibara)

      Latinos don’t make distinction about who is Puerto Rican, who is brown, who is Asian, who is black, who is white and who is mixed…they are Latinos. So, having a ‘coquí’ (term of endearment for those of Puerto Rican descent) singing on the Supreme Court would be celebrated.

      • That’s not entirely true.

        Hispanics/Latinos are NOT monolithic

      • whoa, have you heard folks from South America talk about Mexicans ? I’ve even heard arguments between how ‘spanish’ your descent is, compared to how aztec or inca …

        • When I was in Venezuela the Venezalanos looked down on the Columbians as inferiors. While I was there there was almost a war started when the Columbians in a border town played the Venezuelan National Anthem on a xylaphone. Both countries actually moved troops to the border before the Columbians apologized and saner heads prevailed. There is equal and there is “equal” among Latinos.

        • I have heard Mexicans talk about Puerto Ricans, and not kindly.

        • Also, most of the Cubans I know call themselves Cubano or Cubana … and that’s it

      • I am not Mexican or Puerto Rican, but from what I understand, many Puerto Ricans don’t make an ethnic distinction between Puerto Ricans. That doesn’t necessarily translate to automatic affection for all other “Hispanics.” I’d be interested to hear from someone closer to the issue, though.

        The only thing in my “culture” I can think of that relates is that Africans, Jamaicans, Haitians, etc. don’t necessarily embrace each other, or African Americans, either. For many black Americans, it’s Obama’s wife and children, not his father, that validate his “blackness.”

        • I believe Puerto Ricans are the touchiest people on the planet and they sure know how to enjoy life. As to the differences, or the comments some may have heard, well, you will always find that sort of thing, but from my little perch, I see that which connects and why the need to focus on the negative.

          After all, it was this theme (connections), that finally got the Native tribes/pachangas/rancherias some economic relief, once there was the realization that most of the Latino Caucus had Native blood (of course not all, but most, being the qualifying word here) and therefore they had more in common than not. An alliance was formed and the vote was taken and the rest is history.

          So, who here went to the annual pow wow, where the tribes were present from as far and wide (North to South)? I get on with all the island folks, including Haitians and Jamaicans (very nice folks). Lovely accents.

          Oh, and Don Francisco is Jewish…

        • I could not describe it like that. It is the Nigerians and Jamaicans that mostly don’t get along.

  5. Of all the mealy-mouthed (excuse me, nuanced) things Obama has uttered since becoming president, this quote particularly annoyed me:

    Look, when my parents got married in 1961, it would have been illegal for them to be married in a number of states in the South. So obviously, this is something that I understand intimately, it’s something that I care about. But if I were advising the civil rights movement back in 1961 about its approach to civil rights, I would have probably said it’s less important that we focus on an anti-miscegenation law than we focus on a voting rights law and a non-discrimination and employment law and all the legal rights that are conferred by the state.

    I’m with Hannah Arendt on this one. To quote Wikipedia:

    In 1958, the political theorist Hannah Arendt, an emigre from Nazi Germany, wrote in an essay in response to the Little Rock Crisis, the Civil Rights struggle for the racial integration of public schools which took place in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957, that anti-miscegenation laws were an even deeper injustice than the racial segregation of public schools. The free choice of a spouse, she argued in Reflections on Little Rock, was “an elementary human right”: “Even political rights, like the right to vote, and nearly all other rights enumerated in the Constitution, are secondary to the inalienable human rights to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence; and to this category the right to home and marriage unquestionably belongs.” Arendt was severely criticized by fellow liberals, who feared that her essay would arouse the racist fears common among whites and thus hinder the struggle of African-Americans for Civil Rights and racial integration. Commenting on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka against de jure racial segregation in education, Arendt argued that anti-miscegenation laws were more basic to racial segregation than racial segregation in education.

    Obama’s own parentage placed him in a perfect position to argue that history and common decency were on the side of gay marriage, but of course he chose the political coward’s route.

    But I guess I should give Obama due credit for making the politically obvious and seemingly reasonable choice of Sotomayer for his first SC pick, rather than someone truly awful like Sunstein.

    • Btw, I misspelled my own pen name. Oops!

    • Marriage is not a right. It’s a rite. Big difference.

    • Comparisons of gay marriage to interracial marriage are very strained though I know that is an unpopular opinion here. Human sexual behavior is sufficiently complicated and diverse that there is little to no clarity on what sexual identity even means much less to what extent propensities to certain sexual behaviors are chemical/ hormonal/biologic/ genetic or environmental. The extent to which sexual behavior itself either reinforce or counter pre-existing biological predispositions is itself unknown.

      Besides this rather simply question lie questions of self identification in terms of sexual identity. Is someone who claims to be ex-gay actually homosexual if nothing in their life suggests homosexuality or are they simply in denial as to their fundamental sexual identity? Who gets to determine that? What of people who regularly engage in sex with persons of either gender? Are they a gay person playing straight or a straight person playing gay? All of this is to say that sexual identity is not the same as ethnic or racial identity. GLBT are not a group in any definable sense of that word, though they are a community bound by the commonality of experience of being “different” in their sexual preferences and practices. So in that sense they are a group that chooses to be a group through the process of self identification as opposed to say, Asian Americans who are identifiable Asian by descent and whose group status is assigned to them by society at large at birth.

      Same-sex marriage is likely to be the future of the country, but let us not pretend that it is merely the extension of some pre-existing right to which GLBT are currently excluded. GLBT can marry under currently law just as straight people can. What is proposed is a fundamental redefinition of marriage itself.

      • We don’t need to go that deep. Marriage has been defined as a civil right, and everybody’s entitled to enter into one legally with one other consenting adult. That’s all the legal system need concern itself with.

        • But indeed it is that deep. The legal system deals with definitions and even your statement about “one other consenting adult” implies a defining limitation of what marriage means. Under currently law gays consenting persons of legal age (may not necessarily be adults depending on the state law) can get married, whatever their sexual orientation may be.

        • It deals with definitions but it doesn’t need to go into some kind of sociological treatise about attraction and behavior and all that to deal with a marriage contract. Sure gays can get married in certain denominations, but if they can’t have their marriages legally recognized and receive the benefits thereof, then that’s a lesser class of marriage than a straight person’s.

      • Do blacks and other races passing as white cease to be black, or whatever they started out being? I’m not sure I understand your point. LGBT people cannot marry each other. That’s what the fuss is about. Saying we can marry as long as other people get to chose the parameters is just wrong, imo. Marriage is simply a traditional convention, it is not a right, nor was it designed and/or mandated by God, imo. That’s where I believe the fundamental disagreement lies. Some believe that thousands of centuries after God invented the earth, He or She came back an dictated an owner’s manual to human beings.

        • I didn’t bring God into the equation at all, and in any event marriage preceded religion and transcends particular cultural boundaries.

        • If it is not mandated by God, what is your reasoning for it being natural, or a right, or anything that invalidates gay marriage? As far as I know, it’s a way to transfer wealth in an orderly way to family members.

        • yup, it’s a traditional institution set up for transference of property rights, pure and simple … that’s got nothing to do with civil rights.

    • Inky,

      Thank you for bringing Arendt into the discussion.


  6. I’m not thrilled with the idea of yet another freakin’ Catholic on the Supreme Court. But I’m glad it’s not another white guy. So I’m mixed on this pick. Not horrible but not perfect either.

    • Let’s not pretend Sotomayor’s anything that radical. Could the pick have been worse? By a long way. Is she toward the moderate end of the spectrum? At least. Definitely not liberal, unless anything to the left of neo-con looks liberal. She seems pro-affirmative action, which ordinarily I would say is good, but which is going to play out in a very controversial decision on New Haven fire fighters. Her two decisions involving issues surrounding abortion but not about abortion have favored the pro-life stance. Her views on the death penalty are unknown, but Obama is pro-death penalty and I doubt he’d pick someone who was not of the same mind as him on that issue. It remains to be seen. If one had believed his rhetoric on the campaign trail, we’d be seeing the new Earl Warren now. I doubt we are. No hope, no change. Just historic.

  7. theblackcommenter,

    I’ll try to respectfully respond to your comment by saying, yes you are correct, gay people are free to marry persons of the opposite sex just as blacks or whites or Asians were once free to marry persons of their same race. Only by changing the law were they allowed to marry outside of their races.

    While I can’t speak for all gay people, I am gay, I have been gay since I can remember and did not choose it. So your statement implying that my rights aren’t impinged because I’m free to marry a male is an insult. You may as well tell me I’m free to marry a goat.

    What is proposed is not a fundamental redefining of marriage. That is a recent phenomenon which began with DOMA. What is proposed is upholding the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

    • I’m curious – did you really say this?:

      antifish 05.26.09 at 11:34 am

      I just don’t want someone on the SCOTUS who is going to advocate for granting amnesty and more to illegal aliens. Sotomayor may well be that person. I’m sure those justices don’t have to look out their front doors, as I do, and see what was once one of the nicest houses on the street reduced to a shambles in just six years because eighteen to twenty people are living in a four bedroom house. I seriously doubt that I could sell my own house although it’s probably the nicest in the entire neighborhood.

      • Yes, I did.

        I’m not an advocate for illegal immigrants by any stretch of the imagination. I myself am a legal immigrant and it was not easy to become a US citizen, but I didn’t break any laws.

      • Why not go to PumaPAC, where this comment was placed, and discuss it there?

        Why drag other people’s comments – made in another context – over here?

        Too chicken to enter what might be unfriendly territories?

        (And why quote two comments as if they were one?)

    • I appreciate the respectful way you responded to what must seem a very hurtful and dismissive attitude. Thank you. I have no intention to be offensive, though certainly I know that my statements are likely to offend.

      @your response: anti-miscengenation laws in this country (and other discriminatory legislation) created categories of people singled out for different treatment based on heritable characteristics. The chief motivation was not racism per se, but economics as early on in the history of what would become the United States the largest number of interracial marriage were between Black men and White women, since those were the two categories of people most likely to be slaves/indentured servants respectively. Since children traditionally inherited their mother’s status, the child of a white indentured servant and a Black slave would be considered free. By restricting marriage slave owners potentially increased their own wealth (through sleeping with slave women) while keeping the subject population subject. That’s beside the point though.

      Discriminatory racial laws were based on membership in a group with heritable characteristics. GLBT persons are not a group at all in this sense of the word. I don’t think that people choose to be gay, but what it is to be gay (or bisexual or any other category of sexual minority) is itself uncertain and ill defined.

      @fundamental redefinition of marriage – well yes, same sex marriage does redefine marriage as traditionally and historically understood. The only reason why this is an issue is because marriage has always been understood to be between persons of different gender. That’s why marriage amendments in state constitutions generally simply define marriage. Granted, they define it in a way that excludes the possibility of same-sex marriage, but that is not a revision rather an affirmation of what marriage has always been understood to be.

      • Does that alone make it right, or unalterable?

        • I don’t know. I have my opinions. But I do know that we need to at least be honest about what it is being debated on this matter rather than just saying its all about love and fair treatment. It may be about those things; indeed I’m sure it’s about that. But it is about something much larger too and pretending it ain’t don’t change it.

      • Last year I looked at some deeds from 70 or 80 years ago, they didn’t come out and say “no blacks, no Latinos, no Jews, no catholics,” but everybody understood that’s what those phrases meant. Just because it was understood didn’t mean that once people started challenging it that the nature of home buying was fundamentally changed.

      • I don’t think this is about redefining marriage. That’s been done already, not only in states which have codified homophobia into their constitutions, but by states such as MA, IA, CT, VT, and ME where same sex marriage is, or soon will be legal.

        The issue is now about equal protection and it’s only a matter of time before the SCOTUS is forced to rule on this.

      • Why is it people think marriage is immutable or “has always been” a certain way? Marriage was once polygynous, polygamous, oppressive to women, patriarchal and hard to dissolve in the ancient Middle East. In eastern Native American societies, though, at the same time period, it was matriarchal and easily dissolved. It is culturally determined and ever-changing, frankly. It may “always” have been between men and women in western culture, but in Native American societies berdaches could marry. If history is your argument, then history is on the side of same sex marriage, because in America, it was practiced by the native people. And when in Rome…

  8. myiq2xu – here is my problem with the courts decision I live in the south where if civile rights issues were desided at the ballot box we would still have white only bathrooms and drinking fountians and Rosa Parks would be on the back of the bus….

    Women woud still be getting abortions with coat hangers. ..

    The Courts not the ballot box are the minorities last refuge fgor justice…as it has always been .

    Justice was not served here. will we now see an ammendment in california requiring the rounding up and internment and deportation of illegal aliens with the borders?

    Should the hispanic community expect the support of the LGBT community in their fight to prevent the passage of such an ammmendment.

    Or how about an amendment that would ban medical services being granted to those who cannot afford it.

    Maybe even an ammendment prohibiting state support to single mothers who have not married their babies daddies? when the baby’s daddy can but chooses not to support the child?

    the Civil Rights of a minority should never be abrogates by the majority.

    • What I’m talking about is that the original decision legalizing gay marriage was based on the CA Constitution – and that constitution was legally amended by the voters in November.

      I keep emphasizing (and people keep ignoring) that I think it was the correct LEGAL decision but that it is MORALLY WRONG

      • I’m not ignoring that that is what you are saying. I realize, and believe, that you think the decision was morally wrong.

        I just disagree with you that it was legally wrong. The dissent puts forth the case better than I do, but they had it exactly right, from a LEGAL perspective.

    • marriage really isn’t a civil right … it’s more like a legal right … now you can argue that equal treatment by the law is a civil right, but a marriage license is really no different than a fishing license, a liquor license, a driver’s license or whatever …

      if you think about each of those licenses, there are restrictions… you have to have a different basis to access those things, the right to a fishing license or the right to drive isn’t a civil right…marriage is also restricted by age and number of people in the institution and what are the basis of challenges to those? religions groups want to argue that it’s okay to marry some one underage and to have multiple spouses because restrictions violate religious freedom …

      marriage itself is just a property rights contract … what’s needed is equal access to that social contract

      the right to privacy, the right to free speech, the separation of church and state are civil rights and civil liberties…

      • good points dak, but the chief difference is that marriage creates the legal fiction of being blood relations and thus has social ramifications that driving licenses don’t. And generally fishing license disputes are not adjudicated before state supreme courts.

        • well, it’s a property rights issue more than anything else … it was originated to transfer the chattel of one man to another via a woman …or i should say including that woman as chattel property… remember married women were considered their husbands property years and years and years after the emancipation proclamation. Until very recently, you would see many rape departments in police departments in the property crimes area.

      • Marriage is a civil, fundamental right. Read Loving v. Virginia. It does not mean that it can’t be regulated, but against a fundamental right (which is to privacy, BTW) the state must have a compelling interest if it seeks to interfere with that right. It may regulate for health and safety and to ensure the contract will be valid as a matter of public policy, hence the issuing of licenses.

    • you’re mixing up a bunch of different things here under the general heading of discrimination …

      Roe V Wade was based on the idea of Right to Privacy, same with the sodomy laws

      in order to get access to the ballot box, you had to enfranchise blacks and then later women into the constitution, then pass a federal access law to enforce it …

      you can’t group a property rights/social contract under the heading of a civil right or civil liberty … it’s a different animal.

    • I agree and disagree… civil rights were taken away from blacks by a court decision and restored by a legislative act. For 70 years the government agreed to look the other way on denying blacks equal treatment under the law.

      • just an interesting note … this weekend, our neighborhood association finally got a recognition plaque and national historic site status for a small piece of land near a railroad track in our neighborhood … it was famous as the place were Plessy v. Ferguson was started. Homer Plessy boarded a train right down the road from my house to challenge the Jim Crow Laws which unfortunately led to separate but equal laws… we just had a great ceremony this weekend to install our historical marker!

  9. man the spelling in the last comment was bad hope you got my drift…

  10. I frankly think the answer to situation is to just dump marriage as a civil institution and not grant special rights based on that … I have no idea what the deal is, I find marriage a form of indentured servitude and a way of transferring women, as chattel and their property to men … it remains that way and it creates an inherently unequal partnership…

    i have no idea why people would fight so hard to indenture themselves to an institution, antiquated property laws, and basically something that historically enslaves women

    • Beautifully put, dakinikat!

    • I’ve been married to the same guy for 18 years now, d’kat. In no way, shape or form do I feel like an indentured servant or chattel, a slave or an unequal partner. Marriage is what two people make of it. Some marriages work, some don’t. If you view marriage as punishment, it will probably end up being so. As far as antiquated property laws go, do you know something I don’t know? Far as I can tell, marriage actually protects women’s property rights.

      • well, it didn’t in nebraska … totally depends on the state … I was married for 20 years. I didn’t really feel that way until I insisted it was my turn to put my career first and I needed to move … then all hell broke loose, I wound up be battered, and all kinds of things I would have never imagined happened … i think it sets up a power dynamic when ever one’s interests aren’t aligned and you don’t find out how things will lie until things fall apart. there are an awful lot of pissed of divorced male judges out there that got caught in the alimony, child support, and property division thing, you don’t want to ever have one overlooking your un-rendering, believe me

      • And I’ve been married to the same guy for 31 years (come July 4th). So what? That doesn’t say anything about the institution of marriage. It says something about the couple.

        It doesn’t matter how well my husband treats me. I’m still treated as his appendage by society. I often cite the following personal anecdote, one from a long list of many.

        I started a local music zine a little over 10 years. After it got off the ground my husband was nice enough to take up the responsibility of delivery the issues once a month. When the magazine was the subject of an article in a DC paper, it reported that the magazine was published by ___ ____ (my husband’s full name) and “his wife.” Even though I was the publisher, I was reduced to “his wife.” This is how society views women and marriage, wherein the delivery man is more important than the woman who creates the publication simply because the delivery man is a man.

        Property rights can be protected by a civil union contract. There is absolutely no need for marriage. It’s a religious ritual that is based on the idea that women are chattel. The state needs to extricate itself from the marriage business and maintain a proper separation of church and state.

  11. What’s everyone’s opinion of the already legally married gays getting to stay married. I kind of think that’s a purposeful opening to some later legal argument. Something like how come they get that right (or whatever) and I don’t.

    • well, I think there’s enough states and that decision to make a statement, the deal is to get it someplace where it can hook into something that represents a constitutional right

    • Yeah, you’d think that would create an Equal Protection problem. You’re creating two classes within a classification, one with access to benefits, one completely locked out.

      • Yea, I was thinking they left it that way on purpose. For an obvious opening to undo prop 8. A sort of end around run.

        • They should find two people with the same employer, one of whom was married on Monday before the election, the other who was married on Wednesday and whose marriage isn’t recognized by the state, and lay out the differences in their status in a suit.

  12. New Post is up.

  13. Considering the state of California’s finances, you’d figure they’d welcome anyone marrying who had the money to pay for the license fee(It’s at least $45).

    • well, my guess is if they put it on the ballot this time, it will pass in an off presidential election year because the voting dynamics will be different than they were in November. My guess is that it will go on the ballot and pass this time.

      • It actually polls worse now than when Prop 8 originally passed. There’s got to be a lot of ground work done.

        • Ah, the tyranny of the majority over the minority. I wish we had some protection from that….

  14. These two decisions, Sotomayor for justice and the passage of Prop 8 must be seen as being of one piece. Both are carrying out Obama’s plan for what America will look like. Obama does not think marriage for same sex couples is a fundamental right. Obama thinks marriage for same sex couples (but not interracial couples) should be left up to the states. Obama is courting a Catholic vote vigorously, and so he has appointed at every chance people who are “personally against abortion” like Daschle (who struck out, but was his choice for HHS), Biden, etc. He campaigned with Kmiec, who was an architect of Prop 8 and is a Catholic priest. He campaigned with active gay haters. He has chosen for the court a person who shows no signs of being pro-choice, pro GLBT rights, progressive, liberal or what have you. She upheld the Mexico City Policy re: prohibiting groups receiving federal money to fund abortions or supply abortion info. She has been anti-illegal immigrant to the extent we have any opinions of hers. Only on affirmative action has she taken anything that can be remotely counted as liberal, and in a case that most people for affirmative action would not defend. She comes recommended by a neo-liberal (some say neo-con) Patrick Moynihan, and appointed by Bush I. Obama is choosing a very middle road, and it isn’t a question of showing courage or not. He is putting in place his neo-liberal, pro-capitalist, pro-globalist vision of American that is unconcerned with minority rights at all.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: