Audio: Going to the Mat/Matt for Prop 8
:12 -- No, the issue will be about whether a bare majority can amend it in this way for this purpose. Big difference.
:28 - Yea, your arguments lost, Mat.
:35 -- No they're not saying you "can't amend it." They're saying that the initiative process was incorrectly and unfairly used in this instance.
:55 -- Okay, seriously, just this once -- stop the "defends traditional marriage" nonsense. For this purpose, that empty rhetoric holds absolutely no legal weight and is nothing but a silly, imaginative waste of grownup time. The reality is that this court has already found a right to same-sex marriage equality. They found that there was no compelling interest to deny same-sex couples. They found the bars that "traditionally" prevented gay couples are unfair. And even more than other courts, they found that sexual orientation is a suspect class like race or gender. So the issue now may be about whether you on the anti-marriage equality side can overrule them, for whatever reason you used to justify your votes. But "we just like it that way because it fits within our personal moral purview" is not going to do anyone any good.
1:03 -- No they aren't "determining if the constitution is constitutional." They had previously determined that marriage is a constitutional right -- now they are determining if the tyrannical use of a majority vote was kosher in this instance.
1:10-2:00 -- In many ways this matter, one that's very complex and holds such a major impact, is without precedent. And the revision argument is not the only tool in our arsenal. So this explanation about revisions vs. amendments is largely speculation. Especially coming from Mat, who obviously wants it to be as cut-and-dry as his oversimplified idea that every penis is meant for a vagina.
2:04 -2:25 -- A minor amendment?! One that simply "restored" marriage? No, no, Matthew. Prop 8 was a devastatingly major change that set a dangerous precedent not only for gay people, but also for any recognized suspect class who may next have their civil rights put up to a public vote. This major change flies in the face of equal protection under the law.
2:49 -- They ignored the history and the constitution in originally granting marriage equality? What history would that be -- California's history as a civil rights leader? And what constitution would that be -- the one under which they determined that gays deserve equal protection? Something tells us that they didn't ignore either, Mat -- they magnified them!
3:02 -- Justice Rose BIRD was actually her name. And it's pretty shitty to be casually tossing around recall talk (a) before you have any clue what's gonna happen and (b) because your moral beliefs say that certain civil concepts are out-of-line.
3:39 -- Oh yes, they do have the authority. You may not like it, and they may not even use it for the pro-gay side. But the court absolutely has the authority to step in and correct unfair, unreasonable, unjust, and/or unconstitutional misuses of public power. And if the public vote was against something like your chosen religious rights, you would surely be damn well glad that they do have such authority.
4:00 -- Stop deliberately confusing your listeners! A pro-equality ruling would not be about whether or not Californians can use their ballot initiative process in general. The ruling would be about them not being free to use their initiative process in any frickin' way they please!
4:25 -- Yea, Mat? You're threatening riots? That will be quite a sight after the months of belly-aching your side has done in regards to the supposed "riots" that we mean gay people have waged. And considering that on your side, in addition to the mainstream "pro-marriage" folks, there are also loads of extremist groups who are just waiting for a national anti-gay beatdown, we would actually be concerned about our movement's public relations if we were you!
4:33 -- Well at least it wouldn't yet be a "Judicio-dictato-whack-a-doodlio-activi-ocracy." Guess you all are saving that for the U.S. Supreme Court's inevitable pro-equality rulings.
4:36 -- Oh, you mean the legislature that did already pass a marriage bill? Twice? And the legislature that just this week passed a resolution opposing Prop 8? Oh, we will TOTALLY go down that road if you want, Matt.
4:41 -- Well maybe tomorrow, Matt, the "autocrats" will surprise you and wear Snuggies rather than black robes. We can surely all agree that that'd be fun.
Do these guys ever suggest that their minions actually tune in and listen to the oral arguments? Or do they suggest that they go to the court's website to read the briefs for themselves? Or, do they ever offer them any opinion other than their own filtered, purposefully deceptive and biased one? I suspect that the answers to all of those questions is NO!
I suspect that many of them wouldn't know the truth if it walked up and kissed them on the lips. They also are probably mentally incapable of comprehending the logical reasoning as well. So, for me, I happen to think that it really wouldn't change many minds if they did any research on their own. But the big question is, why don't these guys want the minions to do any independent research? What are they afraid of? Why is it that they don't believe that their opinions are substantial enough to withstand scrutiny?
And the reason, obviously, is because the truth has a tendency of destroying their lies.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Mar 4, 2009 8:36:32 PM
That's a very good point, Dick. They never encourage the pursuit of more and greater information gathering. They know that independent study is their movement's Achilles Heel.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Mar 4, 2009 8:42:27 PMcomments powered by Disqus