?

Log in

pride

the avalanche has started; it's too late for the pebbles to vote

Posted on 2008.15.05 at 17:33
where am I: one of the two coolest states in the union
How I feel about it all: ecstaticecstatic
Soundtrack: As It Happens
Tags: ,
Dear Supreme Court of California,

WAY TO GO, DUDES!.

LOVELOVELOVE,

Me.

P.S. Massachusetts thinks you ROCK.

Comments:


Amy H. Sturgis
eldritchhobbit at 2008-05-15 22:38 (UTC) ()
Go California!
try to catch the deluge in a paper cup
primroseburrows at 2008-05-15 22:48 (UTC) ()
The coasts are doing it, now let's see the middle of the country do its part!
Greeking the Text
lipsum at 2008-05-16 01:36 (UTC) ()
I got to break the news to my (lesbian) mom. \o/
Ten O'Clock Medievalist
tarimanveri at 2008-05-16 01:49 (UTC) ()
That's AWESOME. I'm feeling pretty disillusioned about Canada and Canadians and the way they're going right now (the CBC messageboards, for instance, are making me crazy AND depressed, although they're not the only cause), but I'm glad to see Americans starting to wake up and reclaim their ideals of justice and equality.
try to catch the deluge in a paper cup
primroseburrows at 2008-05-16 03:44 (UTC) ()
I'm feeling pretty disillusioned about Canada and Canadians and the way they're going right now (the CBC messageboards, for instance, are making me crazy AND depressed, although they're not the only cause)

I haven't looked at the CBC messageboards. *wince* They can't be worse than the CNN ones (which I also avoid). Besides, *points to current LJ name* ;) There will be a new PM. Eventually. Also a new president. Thankfully.

I'm glad to see Americans starting to wake up and reclaim their ideals of justice and equality.

Teenytiny baby steps, but steps nonetheless.

Edited at 2008-05-16 03:44 (UTC)
peacey at 2008-05-16 22:22 (UTC) ()
My big issue with this isn't the subject of the decision, but that the justices overrode the will of the majority of California's electorate. Yes, yes, even a majority decision must fall in line with the Constitution, but when nine people override millions, it gives me all kinds of pause.

As for the middle of the country, it'll come, but it'll take a looooong time. As I've said before, people react violently when faced with radical change, especially when it challenges long-held beliefs and comfortable thought patterns. Those wishing the change must strive for it gently. Patiently. A step-by-step process is required, one that introduces the overall change in bite-sized nuggets. One has to be somewhat stealthy in these things. In instances that fly in the teeth of widely-held religious beliefs, one would do well to target a younger generation and ride out the older one. It's not a sure-fire recipe for success, but it promises a much better chance of it.
try to catch the deluge in a paper cup
primroseburrows at 2008-05-17 11:06 (UTC) ()
My big issue with this isn't the subject of the decision, but that the justices overrode the will of the majority of California's electorate

Decisions like Brown vs. Board of Education and Loving vs. Virginia also overrode the will of the majority. IMO, civil rights cases shouldn't be decided by referendum, because there are too many people who don't want to change the status quo.
peacey at 2008-05-17 12:51 (UTC) ()
There is no other way to decide but by referendum, for in a representative system of government, a gathered Congress voting on a bill might be construed as a form of referendum (ideally, anyway, if the Representatives/Senators vote the will of the majority of their constituency. Clearly, that wasn't the case here). I wonder how you would suggest civil rights issues be decided.

As I see it, because this particular issue is rooted in religious beliefs (i.e. bedrock core values), it will take nothing less than a Constitutional amendment (the country's Constitution, not each individual state's) to see it done. In which case, proponents must win the hearts and minds of the people to it. In which case, I refer back to my original thoughts.
try to catch the deluge in a paper cup
primroseburrows at 2008-05-17 22:14 (UTC) ()
*edits a million times for way too many typos*

There is no other way to decide but by referendum, for in a representative system of government, a gathered Congress voting on a bill might be construed as a form of referendum (ideally, anyway, if the Representatives/Senators vote the will of the majority of their constituency. Clearly, that wasn't the case here).

Most civil rights cases weren't decided by referendum (or congressional vote). Loving vs Virginia, for example, decided on a national level that the prohibition of interracial marriage is unconstitutional. Lawrence vs. Texas declared the prohibition of consentual homosexual sex to be unconstitutional. Brown vs. Board of Education declared that segregation on the basis of race (and therefore the earlier Plessy vs Ferguson decision) was unconstitutional. None of those decisions involved a referendum of any kind, nor was the Constitution amended in any of the cases (and there are a lot more like these).

Supreme Court (federal and state) decisions are made all the time without either Congressional approval or public referendum. I have my issues with the US Supreme Court (i.e. how the members are chosen, no matter which side of the aisle they may come from), but a giant chunk of the major civil rights victories have been made through their decisions, and I think that progress would be slowed dramatically without them.

How would I suggest civil rights issues be decided? Hmm. I could probably write pages on that, after I thought about it for a long time. Being on my break at work kind of prevents me from doing it. But you've given me food for thought, m'dear. :)

Also, I'm finally reading John Adams. If I can make any progress before our Great Canadian Adventure (Part the Second), we can discuss it then, yaaay! *kermitflails*

Edited at 2008-05-17 22:16 (UTC)
Smelly
topaz7 at 2008-05-17 06:33 (UTC) ()
Indeed. It's really so simple, when you take the mean people out of the equation.

peacey at 2008-05-17 13:20 (UTC) ()
Exactly my point. There have always been, and will always be, "mean people," (i.e. people who believe contrary to proponents of change) and usually, they constitute the majority until they are reduced to incidental, backwards-appearing onlookers. Rendering them thus is what proponents should aim for, and again, I refer to my original thoughts .
angeliita841 at 2008-05-17 20:19 (UTC) ()
Well
jaasmyn71 at 2008-05-18 08:58 (UTC) ()
You totally should.
Previous Entry  Next Entry