<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Breaking: CA High Court Upholds Prop 8; Marriages Valid</title>
	<atom:link href="http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/05/26/breaking-ca-high-court-upholds-prop-8-marriages-valid/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/05/26/breaking-ca-high-court-upholds-prop-8-marriages-valid/</link>
	<description>Politics for liberal newsgeeks</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Feb 2012 01:04:53 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: SpikeSmudik</title>
		<link>http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/05/26/breaking-ca-high-court-upholds-prop-8-marriages-valid/#comment-26648</link>
		<dc:creator>SpikeSmudik</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2009 05:37:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/05/26/breaking-ca-high-court-upholds-prop-8-marriages-valid/#comment-26648</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Speaking of bromides, I harken back to Himmler’s speech at Poznan (Posen).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;And then they all come along, the eighty million good Germans, and each one has his decent Jew.&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;So who are you going to disenfranchise next, SCOCA?  What equivocations, euphemisms and rationalizations will you use?&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Speaking of bromides, I harken back to Himmler’s speech at Poznan (Posen).</p>
<blockquote><p><b>And then they all come along, the eighty million good Germans, and each one has his decent Jew.</b></p>
</blockquote>
<p>So who are you going to disenfranchise next, SCOCA?  What equivocations, euphemisms and rationalizations will you use?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SpikeSmudik</title>
		<link>http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/05/26/breaking-ca-high-court-upholds-prop-8-marriages-valid/#comment-26647</link>
		<dc:creator>SpikeSmudik</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2009 05:22:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/05/26/breaking-ca-high-court-upholds-prop-8-marriages-valid/#comment-26647</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Sorry, Teddy.  Rights are rights for everybody.  Marginalization of minorities diminishes us all.  Too bad that SCOCA has chosen to step backwards.  Too bad that the MSM works to obscure the roots of this issue.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On a lighter note, I like Kinky Friedman’s (Texas satirist extraordinaire) take on supporting gay marriage.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;I support gay marriage. I believe they have a right to be as miserable as the rest of us.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry, Teddy.  Rights are rights for everybody.  Marginalization of minorities diminishes us all.  Too bad that SCOCA has chosen to step backwards.  Too bad that the MSM works to obscure the roots of this issue.</p>
<p>On a lighter note, I like Kinky Friedman’s (Texas satirist extraordinaire) take on supporting gay marriage.</p>
<blockquote><p>I support gay marriage. I believe they have a right to be as miserable as the rest of us.</p>
</blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BargainCountertenor</title>
		<link>http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/05/26/breaking-ca-high-court-upholds-prop-8-marriages-valid/#comment-26646</link>
		<dc:creator>BargainCountertenor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2009 21:45:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/05/26/breaking-ca-high-court-upholds-prop-8-marriages-valid/#comment-26646</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;That would work too.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It’s a solution I’ve advocated for years.  In europe, couples who want to marry have a two-step process.  They go to the clerk’s office and register the union, and they go to church (or where ever) to get whoever else’s stamp of approval is necessary.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Then everyone’s equal.  The State need not recognize unregistered relationships, and the Church need not sanction any relationship it finds distasteful.  So, I wouldn’t expect to see the Roman Catholic Church conducting same-sex weddings any time soon.  But that wouldn’t stop gay couples from registering their unions with the County Clerk.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That would work too.</p>
<p>It’s a solution I’ve advocated for years.  In europe, couples who want to marry have a two-step process.  They go to the clerk’s office and register the union, and they go to church (or where ever) to get whoever else’s stamp of approval is necessary.</p>
<p>Then everyone’s equal.  The State need not recognize unregistered relationships, and the Church need not sanction any relationship it finds distasteful.  So, I wouldn’t expect to see the Roman Catholic Church conducting same-sex weddings any time soon.  But that wouldn’t stop gay couples from registering their unions with the County Clerk.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: esseff44</title>
		<link>http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/05/26/breaking-ca-high-court-upholds-prop-8-marriages-valid/#comment-26645</link>
		<dc:creator>esseff44</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2009 20:42:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/05/26/breaking-ca-high-court-upholds-prop-8-marriages-valid/#comment-26645</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I think this is a critical part of the decision.  They have narrowed Prop. 8 down to a single word that can’t be used to describe otherwise equal unions.  All the same rights are still there, just not the word “marriage.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Big deal.  Put an initiative on the ballot to eliminate ‘marriage’ and make them all ‘civil unions’ that are recognized by the states.  Get the government out of the marriage business and leave that to the biblicans and the churches.  Why does it have to be any thing more than a civil union as far as the state is concerned?  I think most people would vote for such an initiative and save a lot of time, money and energy.  Informally people can call their unions what they want just like they always have.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The court was preserving a very important democratic process of lawmaking directly by the voters.  Like every good thing, the initiative process can be misused and abused but there are still many good reasons that it should remain as a way for a direct voice especially at times when the elected officials are corrupt or bought off by special interests.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Civil unions for everyone!  Ban all marriages for legal purposes.  That will fix it.  Just pass an initiative replacing ‘marriage’ by ‘civil unions’ in the California code.  Poof!&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think this is a critical part of the decision.  They have narrowed Prop. 8 down to a single word that can’t be used to describe otherwise equal unions.  All the same rights are still there, just not the word “marriage.”</p>
<p>Big deal.  Put an initiative on the ballot to eliminate ‘marriage’ and make them all ‘civil unions’ that are recognized by the states.  Get the government out of the marriage business and leave that to the biblicans and the churches.  Why does it have to be any thing more than a civil union as far as the state is concerned?  I think most people would vote for such an initiative and save a lot of time, money and energy.  Informally people can call their unions what they want just like they always have.</p>
<p>The court was preserving a very important democratic process of lawmaking directly by the voters.  Like every good thing, the initiative process can be misused and abused but there are still many good reasons that it should remain as a way for a direct voice especially at times when the elected officials are corrupt or bought off by special interests.</p>
<p>Civil unions for everyone!  Ban all marriages for legal purposes.  That will fix it.  Just pass an initiative replacing ‘marriage’ by ‘civil unions’ in the California code.  Poof!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: whyknot</title>
		<link>http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/05/26/breaking-ca-high-court-upholds-prop-8-marriages-valid/#comment-26644</link>
		<dc:creator>whyknot</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2009 20:28:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/05/26/breaking-ca-high-court-upholds-prop-8-marriages-valid/#comment-26644</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Thank you for the explanation, I would dearly love to see judges here in IL recalled for not making any damn sense at all!  More power to the recall effort then. Also, just my opinion, Obama is pretty liberal socially, he is just slow walking his way toward gay marriage.  Overtime I believe he (and lots of others) will see it as a civil rights issue and find it increasingly difficult to be anti.  The ‘I support civil unions and not gay marriage’ line is a convenient cop-out for dems that can’t quite go there.  Somehow, it always reminds me of the ’some of my best friends are black’ bromide.  My preferred solution to the marriage issue is to deny all partners, regardless of sexual orientation, a marriage by the state, all unions will be civil and if you want to get married go to church.  Oh, the wailing and gnashing of teeth a law like that would cause!  People would get behind gay marriage in a hurray if ‘opposite marriage’ were on the chopping block too.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you for the explanation, I would dearly love to see judges here in IL recalled for not making any damn sense at all!  More power to the recall effort then. Also, just my opinion, Obama is pretty liberal socially, he is just slow walking his way toward gay marriage.  Overtime I believe he (and lots of others) will see it as a civil rights issue and find it increasingly difficult to be anti.  The ‘I support civil unions and not gay marriage’ line is a convenient cop-out for dems that can’t quite go there.  Somehow, it always reminds me of the ’some of my best friends are black’ bromide.  My preferred solution to the marriage issue is to deny all partners, regardless of sexual orientation, a marriage by the state, all unions will be civil and if you want to get married go to church.  Oh, the wailing and gnashing of teeth a law like that would cause!  People would get behind gay marriage in a hurray if ‘opposite marriage’ were on the chopping block too.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BargainCountertenor</title>
		<link>http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/05/26/breaking-ca-high-court-upholds-prop-8-marriages-valid/#comment-26643</link>
		<dc:creator>BargainCountertenor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2009 20:04:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/05/26/breaking-ca-high-court-upholds-prop-8-marriages-valid/#comment-26643</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I agree.  Overturning 8 is probably the fastest course of action at this point, unless there is an expedited appeal possible to USSC.  I don’t know if that’s the case, and I would not care to place a bet saying that Roberts and Company would do the right thing.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As far as what they found, apparently (I have not been able to get the text of the decision yet)they found that Prop 8 was indeed a permissible amendment (as opposed to an impermissible revision) of the State’s Constitution.  The fact that this creates contradictions in the Constitution is apparently neither here nor there for them.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Recalling judges for ruling is tough love.  In this case, I’m advocating removing them for &lt;em&gt;failure&lt;/em&gt; to rule.  This ruling tries to split the difference in a situation where there are irreconcilable differences in the positions.  Part of being a judge is recognizing those situations and picking the ruling you believe in greatest harmony with the law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The fact is that California appellate judges (state level, not federal) have been running scared of the Right for 20 years.  It’s time to teach them that they have to fear the Left, too.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree.  Overturning 8 is probably the fastest course of action at this point, unless there is an expedited appeal possible to USSC.  I don’t know if that’s the case, and I would not care to place a bet saying that Roberts and Company would do the right thing.</p>
<p>As far as what they found, apparently (I have not been able to get the text of the decision yet)they found that Prop 8 was indeed a permissible amendment (as opposed to an impermissible revision) of the State’s Constitution.  The fact that this creates contradictions in the Constitution is apparently neither here nor there for them.</p>
<p>Recalling judges for ruling is tough love.  In this case, I’m advocating removing them for <em>failure</em> to rule.  This ruling tries to split the difference in a situation where there are irreconcilable differences in the positions.  Part of being a judge is recognizing those situations and picking the ruling you believe in greatest harmony with the law.</p>
<p>The fact is that California appellate judges (state level, not federal) have been running scared of the Right for 20 years.  It’s time to teach them that they have to fear the Left, too.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: whyknot</title>
		<link>http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/05/26/breaking-ca-high-court-upholds-prop-8-marriages-valid/#comment-26642</link>
		<dc:creator>whyknot</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2009 19:53:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/05/26/breaking-ca-high-court-upholds-prop-8-marriages-valid/#comment-26642</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Or possibly I’m not making sense…  it sounds to me like they were ruling on the ability of the State to amend the constitution via Proposition and decided it was ok, then decided to not undo previous actions that went against the Prop.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Or possibly I’m not making sense…  it sounds to me like they were ruling on the ability of the State to amend the constitution via Proposition and decided it was ok, then decided to not undo previous actions that went against the Prop.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: whyknot</title>
		<link>http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/05/26/breaking-ca-high-court-upholds-prop-8-marriages-valid/#comment-26641</link>
		<dc:creator>whyknot</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2009 19:46:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/05/26/breaking-ca-high-court-upholds-prop-8-marriages-valid/#comment-26641</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Impeaching judges for overturning a court ruling affirming a law that won majority sounds tough to me, but I am a Chicago moderate (if you’ve been to Chicago, you know how funny that is - we are v. urban liberal here).  Still we are just getting around to considering gay marriage, although it should pass easily once it’s gets on a ballot.  It’s the getting to the ballot bit that’s hard (damn those conservative downstaters).  Anyway, wouldn’t repealing the law itself be a hell of a lot easier for CA?  Or just arguing the against the logic of having one lucky group of marrieds that squeezed through the window and turning away all others as having created two classes of citizen rights?  Obv. I’m no lawyer but this sounds Supreme Court bound to me.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Impeaching judges for overturning a court ruling affirming a law that won majority sounds tough to me, but I am a Chicago moderate (if you’ve been to Chicago, you know how funny that is &#8211; we are v. urban liberal here).  Still we are just getting around to considering gay marriage, although it should pass easily once it’s gets on a ballot.  It’s the getting to the ballot bit that’s hard (damn those conservative downstaters).  Anyway, wouldn’t repealing the law itself be a hell of a lot easier for CA?  Or just arguing the against the logic of having one lucky group of marrieds that squeezed through the window and turning away all others as having created two classes of citizen rights?  Obv. I’m no lawyer but this sounds Supreme Court bound to me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BargainCountertenor</title>
		<link>http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/05/26/breaking-ca-high-court-upholds-prop-8-marriages-valid/#comment-26640</link>
		<dc:creator>BargainCountertenor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2009 19:37:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/05/26/breaking-ca-high-court-upholds-prop-8-marriages-valid/#comment-26640</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;In a word, Petro, no.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;DOMA says that no state has to recognize same-sex marriages that it didn’t license.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In a word, Petro, no.</p>
<p>DOMA says that no state has to recognize same-sex marriages that it didn’t license.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BargainCountertenor</title>
		<link>http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/05/26/breaking-ca-high-court-upholds-prop-8-marriages-valid/#comment-26639</link>
		<dc:creator>BargainCountertenor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2009 19:35:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/05/26/breaking-ca-high-court-upholds-prop-8-marriages-valid/#comment-26639</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Dear Margaret,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;You are misunderstanding Barack Obama.  He is not (and has never been) a liberal, much less a radical liberal.  He is (and apparently has always been) a moderate.  It says a lot about how far this country has been pushed towards authoritarianism that President Obama can be labeled a liberal and the label be believed by anyone aware of the record.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;All of Obama’s acts to this point (and I think throughout his presidency this will be true) are the actions of a moderate.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I also believe that Obama is probably as liberal a candidate as we could have elected last year.  That’s a real shame, but that’s the nature of the beast.  Quitting is exactly the wrong thing to do.  Obama will do what we force on him.  On the Federal level, I think that we need to kill Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell and DOMA.  In California, repealing Proposition 8 &lt;strong&gt;and&lt;/strong&gt; arranging the recall of the six judicial cowards who refused to rule should be the next things on the progressive agenda.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Prop 8 was upheld because the CASC is afraid of being Birded (see Rose Bird) by the Right.  The Left now has to show them that they are also worthy of fear, if not respect.  Recall the spineless weasels!&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear Margaret,</p>
<p>You are misunderstanding Barack Obama.  He is not (and has never been) a liberal, much less a radical liberal.  He is (and apparently has always been) a moderate.  It says a lot about how far this country has been pushed towards authoritarianism that President Obama can be labeled a liberal and the label be believed by anyone aware of the record.</p>
<p>All of Obama’s acts to this point (and I think throughout his presidency this will be true) are the actions of a moderate.</p>
<p>I also believe that Obama is probably as liberal a candidate as we could have elected last year.  That’s a real shame, but that’s the nature of the beast.  Quitting is exactly the wrong thing to do.  Obama will do what we force on him.  On the Federal level, I think that we need to kill Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell and DOMA.  In California, repealing Proposition 8 <strong>and</strong> arranging the recall of the six judicial cowards who refused to rule should be the next things on the progressive agenda.</p>
<p>Prop 8 was upheld because the CASC is afraid of being Birded (see Rose Bird) by the Right.  The Left now has to show them that they are also worthy of fear, if not respect.  Recall the spineless weasels!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic page generated in 0.271 seconds. -->
<!-- Cached page generated by WP-Super-Cache on 2012-02-17 17:26:00 -->

