I see that now and you are correct, my mistake.

As for the topic at hand I agree with this article-

Not another word...

For the record, I was the one who brought up the issue of legitimacy. I was arguing that the refusal to broaden the definition of marriage as "one man and one woman" to include "one man and another man" and "one woman and another woman" implies that these latter types of relationships are illegitimate (both legally and socially/sexually). It says, "You can't get married because you aren't a real couple." And since marriage is often viewed as a kind of social acceptance of a couple, barring gays and lesbians from marriage suggests a social denial of gay and lesbian couples as a legitimate unit suitable for long-term monogamy around which a family may be built.

Is it applicable to internet fora that if you don't have anything nice to say, you shouldn't say anything at all? Or is flaming of bigots tolerable?

We like to call it polite, if energetic, re-education, Jozrael.

You can flame on the internets... just not on this site.

This article is so blatantly wrong on so many topics, I don't even know where to begin.

I'll just start with this. Obviously, this guy never decided to bother to learn a lick about Christian theology, otherwise he would know that Levitical (Probably not a word, but whatever) law is divided into civic law, ceremonial law and moral law. Civic law applies only to Jews, ceremonial law is no longer applicable (That is, we don't have to offer up a ram and go to a Levi priest to atone for our sins) and moral law applies to, well, morals and is still valid today. If there are no propositions on eating shellfish and wearing different types of clothes, it's because there's no reason for there to be.

(Overly simplified, but you get the point.)

No, it's not. Apparently, he never read the NT.

Edit: And, no, David was not gay. That's eisegesis at it's worst to suggest as much. And I *think* he had something like 13 wives, though it was probably more. Not totally sure :P

Shellfish abomination: civic, ceremonial or moral? Now prove it.

Well since there's no props on shellfish why are there ones on homosexuality?

And how do you know whether or not David was gay?

I've heard David and Jonathan called the greatest human love story in the Bible. :)

That about sums up organized religion (if you by "worst" you mean "most extreme").

I'm not 100% certain, though I believe it's classified as a civic law. I'm not sure if the Jews still practice it, though. I'm sure someone who is Jewish can weigh in.

And, this is off-topic, but I'd like to know what you think about this. How long do you think it'll be until a gay couple tries to sue a church for refusing to marry them?

I, for one, and shocked and outraged that religious groups aren't allowed to commit unlawful discrimination in their capacity as landlords... I am fairly certain that the next logical step will be for satan to sue the church for being a bunch of meanyheads.

:rolleyes:

So, I'm willing to grant you a second chance at providing a non-stupid response. Care to take it?

The stupidity of my response was in direct proportion to the stupidity of your insinuation.

I"m just gonna let this one go..... but do me a favor filth - the whole conspiracy thing with liberals trying to be conservatives, because you can't see the point I made with that when I brought it up, there's no need to get all happy with it.

Though I can see why you did, nice execution. I'll bite my tongue on the rest.

You can't sue an exclusive club for not allowing you in for your believes, skin color or who you sleep with. See the Boy Scouts of America for proof, along with Shoal Creek Golf Club in Birmingham, AL. Churches most definitely fall into that catagory. They are under no duress to admit anyone as a member of the congregation.

So how long will it take? Never. There's plenty of precedence in the judicial system to prove that.

Next?

I'm with the board's status quo on Prop 8, and I'm far from shocked, but I'm about as outraged as I can be about something that probably won't ever affect me - unless it does so positively. The landlord should absolutely be able to discriminate against homosexuals. Or drug users. Or black people. Or cable news pundits. Or Carlos Mencia fans. It's his property. He's entitled to be an idiot with it. Most issues are pretty complex, with hidden and obvious nuances. This is not one of those issues.

(I do not mean to place homosexuals, black people, and drug users on the same level as those other two, by the way.)
-----Added 3/1/2009 at 03 : 15 : 34-----
And this would be sufficient if it were a simple process to become an 'exclusive club' and if no property owner were barred from the process.

In other words, if that part of civil rights dogma lost all its teeth.

FTA, laws against tenant discrimination came about as a direct result of the market's failure to control the distribution of rental units in a satisfactory way.

If private businesses want to operate in public, they need to behave in ways acceptable to the general public.

True, but the First Amendment provides a lot of protection for churches. They are under no obligation to admit anyone, which is why Mathew Hale and his ilk were able to practice their hatred under the sign of the cross with no worries about being shut down.

Read: because we didn't like the way other people used their property.

Childishness dressed up in language designed to assume a right to an apartment without forthrightly - and honestly - stating that assumption. It's a 'failure' because you wanted it to happen and it didn't. 'Failure' doesn't mean very much more than "something else happened" in that context.

Until, of course, you find yourself disagreeing with the general public. Hence, the lawsuits.

If a newspaper doesn't like a private business, it can refuse advertising space. Potential tenants can boycott. The general public can avoid and badmouth to its heart's content - and I'd normally be right there along with them. But if a tenant still wants to rent from the bigot down the street, that's none of the general public's business. Or yours.

I prefer a much less tyrannical majority.

No, it was a failure because entire neighborhoods were being segregated by racist landlords. That's not how a free market ought to operate. That's not how a free nation ought to operate. Everybody has a right to be a bigot. But, renting property is a responsibility, and part of that responsibility is not discriminating against people for being the wrong color or for wanting to bone the wrong gender of person.

People have collectively decided that their right to live somewhere regardless of the color of their skin trumps a landlord's right to deny someone a lease because of the color of their skin. It's a pretty simple choice.

Property rights don't exist in a vacuum.

It is the public's business. When the collective action of a bunch of racist landlords begins to affect people who have nothing to do with said racist landlords, then it becomes the public's business. Renter's rights laws came about because landlords were being douchebags, and that douchebaggery became such a huge problem that lawmakers were persuaded to act. In other words: landlords had the right to rent to whomever they wanted, but couldn't handle it, so that right got taken away. That's often what happens when people can't exercise their unenumerated rights in responsible ways; they lose those rights.

Perhaps the founders were a bit shortsighted in that they specifically failed to include the right to discriminate against entire classes of people when they drafted the bill of rights. Perhaps they believed that the ownership of property shouldn't guarantee the absolute right to do whatever one wants to do with that property.

I prefer much more realistic limitations on property rights.

Strawmanning my argument is a poor way of shrouding "we didn't like the way they used their property" without a real defense.

It's a dangerous definition of 'affect' that includes the withholding of privileges that you were never entitled to. Red Cross should totally sue me for not being generous with them.

Plainly false. People like you couldn't handle it. They handled it in a morally terrible way, but they handled it just fine. Others like you couldn't handle the way they handled it and had a legislative tantrum.

There are plenty of ways in which we are allowed to be irresponsible and SHOULD be allowed such. We draw the line - responsible people do, anyway - at where such irresponsibility deprives someone of something they are entitled to, and no further. We don't redraw the line simply when we don't get what we wanted.

They also failed to include gay marriage. Guess this thread is pointless.

Again, no one is arguing for an absolute right. Try switching out your easy one-liners for something relevant.

I think you chose 'realistic' because it looked pretty in that sentence. I can't fathom how it actually applies to your view in a way that excludes mine.

Says you. Run your own property differently.

FoolThemAll

Are we to understand that this:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3102/...ff1900.jpg?v=0

is an acceptable reality in your world view?

Where's it installed?

FTA, if you want to have this discussion I suggest you open it up in its own thread.

the fact you'd even ask the question tells me everything I need to know

Looks like there's no point for a new thread, filth. The debate's been settled already, with a well-reasoned and totally-NOT-lazy conclusion.

LOL

disagreeing with FTA = lazy and poorly reasoned. gotcha.

Is there a sale on straw this week?

#226 is lazy. Unreasoned, rather than poorly reasoned. Much like #228, except without the misrepresentation. Filth disagreed with me, but filth wasn't lazy. You were.

Well, I guess it took some effort to post the picture. Kudos.

I wasn't lazy or unreasoned. I posted a picture and and asked a question, and the answer you gave me gave me all the information I was looking for. I think it was rather efficient, actually

That's all it takes, eh?

I won't bother asking for clarification next time.

To give me an idea of where you're coming from, yes. Are you upset that I didn't pick your brain to find out why you have this point of view?

It's a bit late, but I'm a Californian who didn't agree with Prop 8. To me, the point of having a constitution is to protect the rights of citizens by spelling out the limitations on the government's power. Screwing with a constitution to ban something you find icky is inappropriate in my opinion, whether it's gays, guns, racism or junk food.
-----Added 7/1/2009 at 02 : 28 : 49-----
If the government recognized the right of landlords to rent to whomever they wanted, these anti-discrimination laws wouldn't exist in the first place.

And I would also argue that discriminating against potential tenants may not be nice, but I'm not sure it qualifies as irresponsible.

That's not what is being argued here. Nobody is saying that a property owner should be able to use his or her property to imprison sex slaves, for example. It is being argued that property owners have a right to decide who gets to use their property.

FWIW, I'm not quite sure how I feel about gay marriage because I haven't thought the issue through all the way, though I'm inclined to think it's probably harmless. What I do think is that it's probably inevitable, so all this wailing and gnashing of teeth about it will probably seem anachronistic in ten or 15 years. So my view is "stop fighting it, it's here and spreading, and all you're doing by fighting it is making a nuisance of yourself."

However, it's always better to have social change happen organically rather than have it imposed by judicial fiat. This country was well on the way to liberal abortion laws before the issue became a festering sore as a result of Roe v Wade. The fundies rode that hobby horse for thirty years, maybe more. Had Roe just kicked the issue back to the states, we would have ended up as a practical matter with a setup similar though not identical to what we have now (available, with restrictions), but without the social "issue." With any luck we can avoid that sort of "hot button" with gay marriage.

It's a shame that we'll have to wait 10-15 years for this matter to be cleared up. Pretending gay marriage is an ethical gray area and getting bogged down in fighting over it prevents us from dealing more actively with real ethical and political dilemmas.
The California Supreme Court's decision to allow same-sex marriage wasn't political or ethical, it was simply based on the law and precedence. This discussion seems familiar.... :expressionless:

oy, Will, do you have a lot of law to learn..............

If we're lucky it will only take 10-15 years. Do you know why? Because people are assholes.

Instead of minding their own business, a bunch of assholes are trying to regulate relationships between consenting adults. Eventually same-sex marriage will legal nationwide. Then there will probably be a bunch of assholes suing churches who refuse to perform same-sex marriages.

:shakehead:

By the way; how did you get that politico thingy next to your avatar?

The government recognized the right of landlords to rent to whomever they wanted by default. It turned out that there were some landlords who couldn't quite handle the responsibility, and so that right was taken away.

It isn't so much the discriminating that's irresponsible, it's the discriminating based on race and/or religion and/or sexual preference and/or etc that's irresponsible. Landlords are business people, and business people have certain responsibilities to the communities in which they do business.

I wish I knew what was being argued here, but alas, FTA won't start a new thread to outline his position, so I'm forced to attempt to reconstruct it via the smattering of statements he has made. As you can see, it's not a very efficient way to argue.

Care to elaborate? :confused:

I guess I just don't see how Person A has a responsibility for the housing needs/desires of Person B.

EDIT: The Hayek quote in my signature seems appropriate here.

I still don't see that any type of discrimination is irresponsible. It's bad for business, but being a dick to potential customers isn't something the government should be involved in, in my opinion.

They'd have no case. Churches have the right to marry whomever they want. And a no vote on Prop 8 had nothing to do with churches. Just FYI.
I won a Tilted Monthly (now quarterly, I believe) award for Tilted Politico.

I know that Prop 8 had nothing to do with churches. However, churches can and do perform marriages. I can easily see a "discrimination" lawsuit over a refusal to perform a same-sex marriage. Not having a valid case won't stop people from being assholes and trying to sue.

Cool. :thumbsup:

That's possible, but a few nutbar lawsuits don't seem to constitute a legitimate gripe with same-sex marriage. Unless you were just making a general statement that some people are assholes, which I would agree with. :thumbsup:

My point was that when the same-sex marriage debate is said and done (if it's ever said and done), assholes on both sides of the issue will probably have been exposed. It has nothing to do with my opinion on whether or not same-sex marriage should be legal, though. :thumbsup:

It should come as no shocker to you or Hayek that existence in any society necessarily requires a balance between individual and collective rights.

And in any case, it isn't nearly so simple as Person A and Person B. Imagine all of the landlords in an entire neighborhood won't rent to people of a certain skin color. At some point, individual effects become collective effects.

It isn't necessarily bad for business. I imagine in some places the right type of discrimination is very profitable.

The problem (for folk who share your perspective) is that most of your country folk seem to disagree with you about the extent to which the government should be involved with the practices of private businesspeople. The "shoulds" aren't really all that important to me. As far as I'm concerned, the issue here is that landlords failed to exercise their unenumerated rights with foresight, and in doing so, lost them.

It amazes me that certain people's blind ideal of "hands off government" leads them to actually strive for a society where a restaurant can refuse to serve you for being black or a movie theater can post "NO HOMOS" signs on their door. There's a serious "forest for the trees" problem in this line of thinking. I know it's fun to want chaos, but it's completely impractical.

I'll also venture a guess that the people who "have no problem with" landlords telling minorities to fuck off are not, in fact, minorities.

I think that type of worldview in part relies on very simplistic notions about the effectiveness of market self regulation.

What are some of these "collective rights"?

I'm more concerned with rights than effects.

Possibly so, but blatant discrimination against race/ethnicity/gender/etc. will burn business owners more often than it helps them.
-----Added 8/1/2009 at 06 : 06 : 57-----
I have no objection to self-regulation to whatever extent that it exists, but my motive here is property rights. I'm looking for ways to protect individual rights, not punish people who use their rights in ways that I dislike.

There are a lot of them. Look up The Bill of Rights if you want to see some.

No, you're just deluding yourself. Rights are meaningful because they have effects. To claim that you're just concerned about rights and not effects doesn't make any sense. Will you fight to preserve my right to shoot laser beams out of my eyes at invisible chocolate bears?

Perhaps in some contexts it will, but I bet you don't have any sort of solid data concerning the burn rate of discriminatory businesses.

That's convenient. All I'm saying is that by only focusing on rights guaranteed to individuals, you actually are missing out on a lot of important rights.

Oddly enough, I'd consider those to be individual rights.

I guess I should clarify. I'm more concerned with upholding rights than with protecting people from any annoying effects of those rights.

Nope. Is there data concerning potential benefits of discrimination that you alluded to?

Like what?

How would the right to assemble count as an individual right? Granted, it depends on the context...

And I'm more concerned with the ability of US citizen's to regulate detrimental, constitutionally unprotected behavior.

See Southern Slavery. Though admittedly, they did get a bit burned.

There's about a mile long stretch of Park avenue just outside of downtown Minneapolis where black people just weren't allowed in the early part of last century (I'm not sure exactly about the time range here). For many of the people who lived there that was part of its appeal. I don't have hard data about the amount of money made, but I'm pretty certain that a considerable amount of money was made in conjunction with keeping black people out of this area.

To get topical:

The right to not be discriminated against based on race/gender/ethnicity/ancestry/sexual orientation when one is trying to find an apartment.

The right to go to a restaurant without being exposed to cigarette smoke.

What, you've never heard of these rights? Well geez, they are just as valid as rights as the right of private businesspeople to decide what goes on in their private businesses.

Perhaps it is better to just consider them individual rights. In fact, pretend I never mentioned collective rights at all, they aren't really all that important to what I'm trying to say.

I think it stems from a myopic view of government from Reagan, Bush Senior, even Clinton that the problem was "too much government" or "the government is the problem" which seems to point towards pointless anarchy or de-regulation or allowances which defy common sense. The government is here for a REASON, one of them is to protect the rights of all citizens. Government can be a beneficial thing, and it's not always the problem. We really do have government for a reason.

how is this right 'collective'? Does this mean that I, as an individual, cannot organize, schedule, and then participate in a protest unless i'm part of an organization? That I can't paint myself a big sign and stand on a street corner by myself yelling 'the end is near'?

Can you assemble by yourself? Isn't that loitering?

Actually, I think you're right. If you read the end of that post you'd see that I admitted that the "collective right" thing was a boondoggle.

isn't law in itself social or collective?

It depends on how you look at it.

Collective rights are exercised by individuals. Or some shit. Perhaps one of our legal scholars can elucidate.

This just in: Supporters of Prop 8 are cowards and don't want anyone to know they supported it:

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingn...nclick_check=1

SACRAMENTO—Supporters of the November ballot measure that banned gay marriages in California have filed a lawsuit seeking to block their campaign finance records from public view, saying the reports have led to harassment of donors.

"No one should have to worry about getting a death threat because of the way he or she votes," said James Bopp Jr., an attorney representing two groups that supported Proposition 8, Protect Marriage.com and the National Organization for Marriage California.

"This lawsuit will protect the right of all people to help support causes they agree with, without having to worry about harassment or threats."

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in federal court in Sacramento, asks the court to order the secretary of state's office to remove all donations for the proposition from its Web site. The groups announced the lawsuit Thursday.

It also asks the court to relieve the two groups and "all similarly situated persons" from having to meet the state's campaign disclosure requirements. That would include having to file a final report on Proposition 8 contributions at the end of January, as well as reports for any future campaigns the groups undertake.

Proposition 8, approved by 52.3 percent of California voters on Nov. 4, overturned a state Supreme Court decision that declared the state's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. The measure's opponents have gone back to the Supreme Court, asking it to overturn the proposition.
Advertisement

The lawsuit by Bopp's clients cites a series of incidents in which those who gave money to support the ballot measure have received threatening phone calls, e-mails and postcards. One woman reported being told, "If I had a gun, I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter."

Another donor had a widow broken, one had a flier distributed around his hometown calling him a bigot and others have received envelopes containing suspicious white power, according to the lawsuit.

Businesses have been threatened with boycotts because people who worked there contributed to the Proposition 8 campaign, the suit said. In Sacramento, the artistic director of the musical theater company resigned after his $1,000 donation to the Proposition 8 campaign was made public, prompting threats to boycott the company's productions.

Supporters of the gay marriage ban fear the donor backlash will hurt their efforts to raise money in the future, perhaps to fight a ballot initiative seeking to overturn the constitutional amendment.

"Several donors have indicated that they will not contribute to committee plaintiffs or similar organizations in the future because of the threats and harassment directed at them as a result of their contributions ... and the public disclosure of that fact," the lawsuit said.

"Indeed, there is significant evidence that, because of the disclosure of their names, donations to groups supporting the passage of Proposition 8 led directly to those donors being singled out for threats, harassment and reprisals."

The lawsuit said courts have held that laws requiring disclosure of campaign contributions can be overturned or restricted if a group can make "an uncontroverted showing" that identifying its members can result in economic reprisals or threats of physical coercion.

California's current campaign finance laws date to the Political Reform Act of 1974, a voter-approved initiative that established disclosure requirements for candidates and campaign committees.

The secretary of state's office and another defendant, the state's Fair Political Practices Commission, had no immediate comment on the suit.

But Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, the gay-rights group that led the campaign against Proposition 8, called it hypocritical for supporters of the measure to try to overturn voter-approved campaign finance laws.

He said Proposition 8 supporters used campaign finance records during the campaign to threaten and attack gay-rights supporters.

"They've used these records to attack corporations, to attack individuals," Kors said. "The Yes on 8 campaign sent blackmail letters to No on 8 supporters.

"It's just amazing hypocrisy. But it's the kind of tactics we've seen from them throughout the campaign and time and time again since."

Peter Scheer, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, a group that supports public access to government records and meetings, said the lawsuit is likely to be unsuccessful. But he also said the plaintiffs' arguments are not trivial.

"The problem with their argument, of course, is that campaign finance laws, both at the state and federal level, have been litigated endlessly now since Watergate and the argument has, in one form or another, been rejected."

He said courts have consistently failed to agree that contributors have a right to donate directly and anonymously to a candidate or campaign. He said some states choose to have less restrictive reporting requirements, but they always include disclosure of donors.

"It loses in the end, but it's not as crazy an idea or an argument as it may first appear to some people," Scheer said.

---------------------------------------------

Oh the irony; these folks had no idea plundering the donor info of the "No on 8" campaign to harass those voting against it, but now that THEY are being harassed, it's suddenly an issue and they want special privileges.

Seriously, own up. Choices have consequences, and you shouldn't expect political protection because you acted on an unpopular opinion.

Um, it's way too late for that. The list is available online and has been copied and posted again and again. I even have a copy of it somewhere on my hard drive (Cambrian Animal Hospital, my old pet hospital, was on the list. I've since changed to a better vet).

well there's no way that the state will grant them this anyways (I'd think), so really this is more about trying to put some spin onto an ugly situation. Reading between the lines, this story boils down to: "Uh oh, we've pissed off a lot of people and they're not taking it lightly so let's play the victim card to buy some time"

Nice. So after threatening (PageOneQ | Anti-gay blackmailers demand protection money from gay marriage supporters) companies who donated to No on 8 to publish their names if they did not make a same size donation to Yes on 8, they now want to prevent names of proponents to be published. Just wow.

No, they really aren't. You don't have a right to that which you didn't earn or weren't gifted. There's nothing rational about a 'right' to a space that someone else bought/inherited, someone else maintained, a space for which someone else bears responsibility. That's not 'just as valid', that's confiscation of someone's hard work. Maybe not even the work of the mean bigot down the street, but then from the hard work of the mean bigot's mean bigot father. This even goes for those heathen smokers as well.

And there's a word for taking stuff from people who are mean to you, solely because they're mean to you - and it's far from my first usage, but it continues to be fitting - it's childish.

Good idea. If not "all imagined rights are equal", perhaps "let's talk about something else".

I think someone needs to stop and reflect upon the arbitrariness of his worldview before he goes around subjugating other folks arbitrarily defined rights beneath his arbitrarily defined rights.

The right to live somewhere without being unduly discriminated against is just as valid as the right to rent to whomever you want to. This is because neither of these things is actually a "right". They are just things that different folks think ought to be rights.

There's a word for this response, and it's "oversimplification".

Or someone needs to reflect upon the baseless application of the label 'arbitrary'.

I'm trying to figure out if you mean something other than "different people have different ideas, therefore all ideas are equal". Or "all is arbitrary, so let's do things my way".

I consider a right to be the moral ownership of a particular ability or object. That is what I mean when I say 'right'. When you say that people should be forced to rent to other people, why do you not then consider that a right? What do you mean when you say 'right'?

Try to make me understand how "neither of these are rights" isn't just a meaningless distraction.

Feel free to provide me with a counterexample.

Arbitrary, as in, the things you think are important aren't the same as the things other people think are important. The things you think are rights are just the things you think are rights, they aren't actually rights in the sense that they aren't behaviors allowed by people with more power than you.

If you want to distill it down, my position is that "rights" are determined by the folks with the power to give and take them, and that all this high minded talk of a person's "right" to decide specific things about his/her property doesn't amount to a whole lot more than pissing in the wind.

My "way" doesn't matter, because I don't have a particular way with respect to the moral high ground of landlord/tenant relations (well, actually I do, but it's a stupid thing to argue about, so I won't). All I have pointed out is that in the past, certain landlords have shown an inability to perform their jobs as landlords to the satisfaction of their fellow citizens, and that, in fact, they failed so miserably that the ensuing public outcry resulted in a significant reduction in the things they could do in their capacity as landlords. I neither endorsed nor denounced what happened.

Try to make me understand how "neither of these are rights" isn't just a meaningless distraction.[/quote]

I don't think that they're rights in a moral sense, if that's what you're asking.

A counterexample of what? Your thesis that was a complete misunderstanding of everything that I said?

Let the complete lack of any mention by me that *mean people should have their stuff taken from them for being mean* anywhere in this thread by the counterexample then.

In the sense that the right to life is only a right when others let you live. In the sense that all moral judgments are equally arbitrary. Sure. I'm okay with residing within that miles-wide definition of 'arbitrary'.

Why are you even slightly passionate about your own position, then? Sounds like the wind's blowing both ways in your world.

The hell you didn't. Terms like 'failed' and 'inability' are pretty obviously loaded. If you wanted to pretend neutrality about the issue, "certain landlords didn't satisfy the general public with their actions" would've shrouded your obvious endorsement at least a little better. 'Failed' and 'inability' clearly carry the implication that a job was not done as it should have been done.

Did you really imagine that I wasn't talking about rights in the moral sense? The legal sense is pretty clear-cut. There's not much to debate there.

Well, you'd be about as likely to phrase it that way as a neutral observer using "failed miserably". But is there some other unifying principle besides 'they're being mean to prospective tenants'? What separates this case from punishing meanness in general?

Good. Now, the next time you see fit to argue matters of morality, remember that arguing that a given thing should be simply because it is moral is a waste of time. It's as useful as getting all huffy about aesthetics. You know, like forming a passionate argument for why purple is the best color.

I know how I think things ought to be, but it isn't really relevant here. I'm not interested in arguing about what is right or wrong.

So wait... Are you trying to get all PC on me? Was my language too mean? Holy smokes. You're right. How's this: Those poor widdle wacist wandwodes got all mixed up in being wacist wandwodes and mean ode west of america towd dem dat dey coodnt be wacist wandwodes any mow.

Were you hoping to tap some hidden reservoir of debate? Because there isn't much to debate with respect to "moral" rights either. You either think something is a moral right or you don't-- there isn't a lot of wiggle room.

Broadly-scoped patterns of discrimination tend to have far reaching effects that overshadow any sort of quaint notion of meanness. When entire neighborhoods become segregated because it is profitable to segregate them then the situation has moved beyond meanness. Do you think the worst thing about racism is that it is mean?

You're not interested in arguing your viewpoint?

You don't read well. I wasn't pointing out that you were hurting their feelings, I was pointing out that your claim to neutrality was laughably and obviously false. So don't claim it.

Spoken like a man with an exceptionally shallow understanding of moral rights debates. Not that I'm a prodigy, but... damn. You can clarify why you consider something a moral right or not a moral right. That's more than enough to keep you busy for the rest of your life. Maybe it's because you have superficial reasons for your chosen rights and, thus, everyone else must be like you in this way.

Racism in general? Of course not. But we were talking about a specific kind of racism. Beyond meanness, in this context, lies what? What justifies your proposed right to integrated apartments?

Better yet, before you answer that, answer this: are you interested in defending your viewpoint or are you not?

If you're not, please stop half-pretending that you are.

I'm not interested in arguing the viewpoint you seem intent on attributing to me.

And you read too well. Apparently the way I stated the facts was too harsh, and so that means, well, I don't know what that means. I guess that I like taking away the rights of mean people? Or not. You seem rather incapable of offering much besides criticisms of the things I say. Perhaps if you would come out and state exactly what your position is on the matter, then I wouldn't have to hop around from one thing to another trying to figure out just exactly what the point of anything you're saying is.

Here's what happened: some landlords failed to behave in socially acceptable ways-- they showed an inability to behave in a way that society found acceptable. I'm sorry that the mere mention of these facts implies about me, well, whatever the hell you think it implies about me. Your attributions of me aren't my responsibility. I just thought it odd that you'd be so sensitive to language.

No, it's not. It's a waste of time-- at least as far as conversations with you have been. Hey FTA, why is abortion murder? Let me answer for you: because it is. That's all moral judgments boil down to: convoluted, self important rationalizations of "because it is".

I suggest you reread what I wrote. The part before the only part you responded to. This part:

And then think about the ramifications of segregation, and how chalking it up to "meanness" is a gross oversimplification.

I'm not interested in defending phantom viewpoints that you seem to be reading in between the lines of what I'm actually writing, if that's what you're asking. Besides, you ought to offer up some sort of viewpoint of your own before you criticize my ability to defend my viewpoint (regardless of whether it's actually my viewpoint or not). This sideways-socratic method thing you do is kind of annoying.

I must be seeing things, then.


Already done. You can always ask for clarification.

The general public failed to safeguard the property rights of landowners and abetted theft under cover of Civil Rights laws. There's some facts, too. Surely made by a neutral observer.

It takes no more than a very basic sensitivity to language to realize that you have a horse in this race. And that's even without referencing that second quote in this post. Stop being disingenuous.

No, don't answer for me. You do a poor job.

I thought about it. Now you tell me why you consider it a gross oversimplification. Why it's the kind of meanness that deserves government intervention. Not the 'is', the 'ought'. I'm well-aware of the 'is' already.

Well, seeing things or not, I'm not interested in arguing about those things here, so if that's what you want to argue about, I suggest you start your very own thread with a clearly defined subject concerning your beliefs about property rights.

Please clarify.

What's your point? If you want to argue with facts, argue with facts. Don't play some silly game about how the facts were presented in a mean way.

I have admitted to having a horse in this race. I have also stated that I though my horse in this race was irrelevant to the discussion because this isn't about whether I think racism is bad, it's about landlords being responsive to the communities in which they exist.

I've had that discussion with you. I didn't to a poor job of answering at all. I merely distilled the essence. It is the same essence that serves as the basis of every "moral" principle.

There are any number of threads here, as well as a lot of bits elsewhere that shed light on the continuing effects that institutional racism has had on our society. If you're really interested, look them shits up. I'm not going to, because frankly, I don't think it's all that important that I convince you of anything.

So you changed your mind and no longer wanted to argue the morality of it. That's all you had to say.

Which part is confusing you?

That when you claimed no endorsement on your part, you were lying. That's the point. It's not relevant to the debate - it's relevant to how you tiptoed out of the debate without admitting as much, which is fairly annoying.

I cleared up your misrepresentation - "you're being mean!" - and you repeat it here nonetheless. Also lying - unless you just skipped that part of my post - and also annoying.

I say I mean A, B, and C, but you say that I really just mean D. I guess I should just trust you instead of myself.

Nah. You answered poorly. Don't answer for me - ask me. Please stop persisting in inventing new arguments for me - I like my own just fine.

KRON 4 News, Ustream.TV: San Francisco Local News and Information. Travel&Nature,Traffic,Weather,News,Local News

Live Stream of today's California State Supreme Court hearings

Thanks, Derwood!

Ken Starr was representing the supporters of Prop 8, but it didn't seem to be going well for him. The justices kept saying (basically) "you want us (the court) to tell 18,000 couples that the marriage that we told them was legal and binding a year ago is no longer legal and binding?"

Then one of the lawyers who represented the opposition to Prop 8 opened by saying that "the will of the majority" in this case runs in direct opposition to the constitutional right to equal protection because there are built in prejudices in the voting body. Had you asked "the people" 50 years ago to vote on whether or not a black man could marry a white woman, what do you think the outcome would be? He also pointed out that if gender is a trait that can't be used to discriminate, then neither should homosexuality, especially with the separation of church and state.

It was very interesting to hear both sides. I'm not sure when a decision is expected.

The blonde female attorney for the side against Prop 8 was eloquent and thoughtful. I really enjoyed listening to her arguments.

I'm hoping there's a transcript available soon. I missed a good deal of the beginning

Congrats to Iowa, who got this right. And the best part is that it can't be overturned by a 51% popular vote.

Suck it, mormons

best part of that whole statement and needs to be seriously recognized for ALL constitutional rights.

California Supreme Court will give their ruling on Tuesday, May 26

Here's to progress.

It'd be a crime if the courts invalidated Prop 8. And, no, I don't say that because I don't agree with the idea of gay marriage, but because of the fact that the California state Constitution has been amended about a hundred times since it's creation, most-- If not all-- Through ballot initiatives. Prop 8 is just one in the long, long, long line of amendments. The only problem here is that California's Constitution is too easy to amend.

And existing marriages shouldn't be annulled. That'd just be cruel.

Just want to make sure I have it right, Derwood:


Not wanting to receive death threats for giving money to a cause is seeking "special privilege?"


Gonna be tough to support a 'hate crimes' law with that attitude.

but it was a ballot intitiative that was unconstitutional, and should never have been put to a vote. it trampled all over homosexuals' right to equal protection under the California Constitution.

I have no idea what you're talking about

How was it unconstitutional? Unlike the 2000 ballot initiative which created a law banning same-sex marriages, which was thusly decided to have violated California's equal protection clause, Prop 8 changed the constitution itself. How can a constitutional amendment be unconstitutional? Furthermore, California's own constitution allows for it to be amended through ballot initiatives and it's been amended numerous times just that way. Prop 8 is no different than any of those other amendments (And there are about a hundred of them). Indeed, this is a right afforded to the people of California by its state constitution. You can't decry "the will of the people" while claiming Prop 8 to be unconstitutional, since California's constitution allows itself to be amended by "the will of the people".

Anyway, I expect the courts to uphold Prop 8 yet allow those marriages which took place prior to Prop 8 to stand, as there's nothing in Prop 8's wording which would indicate that it's retroactive.

Let's say I want to pass a constitutional amendment to change the three branch government to a one branch government, thus negating checks and balances. Should that even appear on the ballot or does that breach one of the fundamental principles of our republic which is clearly spelled out in our Constitution?

Likewise, social equality is spelled out very clearly in the CalConstitution. If the SCOC deems this proposition as in breach of the CalConstitution, it doesn't matter if 90% of the people voted for it, we're not in a direct democracy and we don't allow the tyranny of the majority. We live in a republic with certain principles that should endure regardless of popular opinion.

"Oh the irony; these folks had no idea plundering the donor info of the "No on 8" campaign to harass those voting against it, but now that THEY are being harassed, it's suddenly an issue and they want special privileges." -- Derwood





-- Oh, please.
Please provide a link showing that these people physically threatened, phoned businesses threatening a boycott, etc. etc.

You can't. That's mandated by the U.S. Constitution, and the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Gay marriage, on the other hand, is an issue left up to the states to decide, which means that each state's constitution becomes supreme law of the land in each individual case.

But how can an amendment to the constitution be a breach of the constitution? That's what I'm not understanding here. It makes little sense at all.

And, again with the tyranny of the majority thing. If you don't like it, then maybe you should change the California state constitution so that the majority can't amend it through ballot initiatives and popular vote. Because, until you do, the "right" you're trying to take away from the people of California is explicitly granted by it's constitution.

California Constitution
Don't worry, the necessary quote is toward the beginning; Article 1, section 7.
Because it violates the foundation of the document. Like you say above (paraphrasing), if it's mandated already by the constitution in question, you can't. As the CalConstitution already allows for equal rights and equal protection, you cannot simply remove that by vote. Some things are beyond the reach of democracy, and for good reason.
Some amendments are lawful, some are not. It's up to the SCOC to determine which is which. So we'll find out tomorrow.

Also, as many of the TFP Constructionists on this board often remind us, the Constitution is a document whose purpose is to give rights to the citizens, not take them away. Amendments almost always provide clarity on the given rights of the citizenry. The notable exception to this was Prohibition, but we know how that turned out

It's also against the California Constitution to pass amendments as ballot measures that fundamentally alter the Constitution without legislative approval.

Ah, good point. I forgot about that.

I'm not going to lie. I didn't read it, mainly because the California constitution isn't what's in question here.

I'm feeling a sort of disconnect here. You seem to be ignoring why amendments exist in the first place or their purpose in existing. The courts initially said that, as per California's state constitution, that statutes denying the legal recognition of same-sex marriages was in violation of California's equal protection clause. Okay. So what do you do? You amend the constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. That involves no violation of California's equal protection clause, as it doesn't involve "discriminating" against gays, specifically (I believe we've been over this before). It merely limits the scope of marriages, which "discriminate" against anyone seeking to enter a marriage consisting of anything other than one man and one woman.

Anyway, as to your assertion that some things are beyond the democratic scope:

"Here we are dealing with the power of the people, the inalienable right to amend the Constitution."-- Joyce Kennard

Indeed, as I've said prior, this is a right explicitly guaranteed by the California constitution (Unlike the right to marry). What you, in essence, want is for an explicit right afforded to the general population to be discarded because you don't like it, in favor of a right never explicitly granted by the California state constitution. That makes little sense, and involves trampling on the rights of the many for the few.

The court's job is to make sure that laws are in-line with the Constitution. Amendments to the constitution, by their very nature, have to be lawful because it is upon the Constitution that laws are based.

You're asking specific questions about my state's constitution. I figure that the best place to start is to actually read it. It's a damn fine piece of writing. You'd likely find the section I specifically cited (it's really not a long read at all) to be relevant to the discussion.
So amendments can do anything regardless of existing law and legal precedent? I think it's time that we have an amendment that says all the federal funds only go to California, New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois, Pensylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Georgia, since we have controlling votes in the House. Or just 26 states in the Senate.
You seem to be under the impression that an amendment can do anything. It can't. There are limitations. And it has nothing to do with what I like and everything to do with the law and our enumerated principles.

InfiniteLoser,

If I got enough support in California to put an initiative on the ballot that would amend the constitution to define marriage as only between a white man and a white woman, would you think that would be legal (constitutionally speaking)?

If you can get it passed, more power to you.

As I've said twice (Or is it thrice?) prior, until you make it harder to amend the California state constitution, then you're bound to the "will of the majority" and the inalienable right to make changes to it via ballot initiative.

We're not, though. The process can be reviewed by the California Supreme Court and they can deem it unconstitutional. If they deem it so, it won't be added to the CalConstitution.

If they deem it unconstitutional the judges would, in effect, be placing themselves above the people in amending the state constitution based on their own personal opinions and not the law. Hell, they would be ignoring the constitution which explicitly grants the general populace this right.

If you want the ban gone, then vote it gone.

...Well, assuming the ban is still there after tomorrow lol

We don't live in a direct democracy, even via the amendment process. As I said, amendments can't do anything the voters want. IIRC, smooth is an attorney, and I'm 99% sure his post is correct:
I'm not an attorney, but I'm pretty sure smooth is.

How would you know that rights the constitution explicitly grants? You haven't read it. It sounds to me like rights granted by the constitution with respect to the ability of the people to amend via referendum are limited. If this is true, and the courts decide that prop 8 is unconstitutional, then it seems entirely possible that they will have done so in a constitutionally acceptable way.

In other words, you are mistaken.