L.A. Times: Oh, Yeah . . . And the Legislature Also Voted to Legalize Gay Marriage
(It’s also an illegal statute, but we won’t even mention that.)
Here in California, the legislature just (for the second time) passed a law authorizing gay marriage. A previous version was vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and both sides expect him to veto this version.
The L.A. Times considers it such non-news that the state legislature voted for gay marriage that they relegate it to a “by the way” second paragraph in a story that is primarily about the rejection of an unrelated sentencing guidelines bill:
With federal judges pondering a cap on California’s prison population, a measure that experts say could ease overcrowding fell to defeat Friday in the Legislature.
But lawmakers voted to legalize gay marriage by passing a bill that is almost certainly headed for a veto.
Another thing the story neglects to mention: the statute is illegal if it purports to change the law without submitting the issue to the consent of the voters of the state.
Longtime readers know that I am a supporter of legalizing gay marriage, but only when it is done legally. I want it to be done by legislatures and not by courts. And I want it to be done by legislatures only when it’s legal for them to do so under the state constitution.
But in this state, it is not possible for the legislature to legally pass a law authorizing gay marriage, unless the matter is submitted to the voters for their consent. That is because Proposition 22 — which I voted against, but which is the law in California — states:
Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
That language is quite clear — and so is the method for changing any statutory change made by initiative. As Dafydd ab Hugh explained here in 2005, the California Constitution states that statutes purporting to change initiative statutes (like Proposition 22) become valid only when submitted to the voters for their approval:
The Legislature may amend or repeal referendum statutes. It may amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their approval.
Proposition 22 contains no such provision.
The L.A. Times story doesn’t mention anything about the argument that the statute is illegal. Heck, the fact that one of the largest states in the union passes a bill authorizing gay marriage isn’t even worth its own story — where are they going to find the space to tell readers that the bill is illegal?
UPDATE: Changed “referendum” to “initiative” in the phrase “the California Constitution states that statutes purporting to change initiative statutes . . .” That was the point of the sentence, but due to a brain glitch I wrote “referendum” when I meant “initiative.”
well, as far as i can tell, theres only one reason why gay couples want the term ” marriage”, it conveys the moral message that gay unions are ” normal” family unions. england has recently seen the folly of this thinking as a male gay couple there has been charged with multiple counts of sexual assault in their foster home for boys. what was the UK thinking? geez, whats wrong with the term “civil unions”? it basically gives gay couples the same rights as hetro couples but avoids simple minded PC actions down the road.
james conrad (7cd809) — 9/9/2007 @ 8:17 amHi –
A few minor points, if I’m not picking too many nits.
Unless the history is wrong, I believe the bill, AB 43, has not yet “passed” the Legislature, but rather was approved by the Senate and sent back to the Assembly for concurrence. Maybe that’s why it didn’t get much play in the news yet?
AB 43 history
And while I think this bill would most certainly be read to amend Section 308.5 Fam. C. – which was added by Prop 22 – by implication, it does not actually amend the statute.
AB 43
So the question of whether and to what extent the bill amends Section 308.5 Fam C by implication and is thus in violation of the requirement for voter approval, would have to be decided by a court.
While there may be an argument to be made that Prop 22 only addressed recognition of same-sex marriages performed outside the state, I don’t think anyone seriously thinks the court would read it that narrowly. Rather, it seems that the intent is to force the court to consider the constitutionality of Prop 22.
AB 43 Senate Floor Analysis
(See arguments in support and opposition)
Arnold acknowledged this in his veto of the 2005 bill as well.
AB 849 veto
No doubt he will veto this one too if it does get to him.
But as there is a same sex marriage case (actually a consolidation of several cases) before the state supreme court right now, this may become a moot point.
In re Marriage Cases
And PS, not to be too picky, but Prop 22 was an initiave measure, not a referendum measure.
Itsme (1efa4c) — 9/9/2007 @ 9:03 amMy mistake.
I see that AB 43 was not amended in the Senate but in the Assembly. So it looks like it’s being returned to the Assembly for enrollment, not concurrence.
Meaning it should end up on Arnold’s desk pretty soon.
Sorry for not reading more closely.
But I think the result would be the same, that is, a court would have to make the ultimate determination if Arnold signs it.
Itsme (1efa4c) — 9/9/2007 @ 9:14 amI’m more interested in the defeated sentencing bill. Nothing wrong with building more prisons. It certainly had a dramatic effect in reducing crime. Complain about three strikes all you want but it works. Build the prisons!
sam (a335b1) — 9/9/2007 @ 9:22 amJames,
Of course Prop. 22 was an initiative measure. I knew that — in fact, that was the whole point of the quote that followed — but I wrote “referendum” for some bizarre reason. Thanks for catching the mistake.
Patterico (2a8eaa) — 9/9/2007 @ 10:19 amAnd that should make the ACKU happy
krazy kagu (24cfa2) — 9/9/2007 @ 11:42 amPatterico you should really give up on this. Same sex marriage is going to go nationwide a whole lot sooner than in your worst nightmare.
We’re here, we’re queer and we’re registered at Barney’s.
David Ehrenstein (070665) — 9/9/2007 @ 11:45 ampatterico supports gay marriage.
assistant devil's advocate (94841c) — 9/9/2007 @ 12:01 pmhe wants the legislature, not a court, to do it.
when the legislature acts, he says it’s illegal.
that’s because the constitution prohibits the action.
the same constitution which guarantees equal rights for all californians.
when a court interprets the constitution for gays, that’s bad.
when the legislature ignores the constitution for gays, that’s bad.
with support like this, who needs opposition?
ADA:
Your comments don’t even pass the laugh test. This deamnds the Rigoberto Menchu award for accuracy and truth.
Thomas Jackson (bf83e0) — 9/9/2007 @ 12:09 pmPatterico # 5:
Sorry for being so anal.
Itsme (1efa4c) — 9/9/2007 @ 1:33 pmada – Clearly it is asking too much of you to comprehend an idea that requires proper procedure in order to change the Constitution. IOW, one can be in favor of gay marriage, and also be in favor of instituting said institution in such a manner so as to avoid running afoul of the Constitution.
JD (f6a000) — 9/9/2007 @ 3:07 pmlegalizing gay marriage
Pedantry perhaps (but not really): Don’t you mean recognizing gay marriage. Gay marriage isn’t illegal (or not legal) anywhere. Two (or more) people of the same sex can get married in lots of place. There are a number of churches, if they wish to take that avenue, who will marry them.
Or they can tell everyone that they’re married.
The issue is whether the state should recognize same sex marriage as being equal to opposite sex marriage and, if so, forcing or coercing or other citizens to make that same recognition.
To use Berlin’s distinction, recognizing same sex marriage is a positive liberty and not a negative one. For it extends the power of the state.
SMG
SteveMG (5e3905) — 9/9/2007 @ 3:41 pmjames:
well, as far as i can tell, theres only one reason why gay couples want the term ” marriage”, it conveys the moral message that gay unions are ” normal” family unions. […] geez, whats wrong with the term “civil unions”? it basically gives gay couples the same rights as hetro couples but avoids simple minded PC actions down the road.
If you’ve read any civil union legislation, you’d see the issue with this. Civil unions are a “separate but equal” construct, whose equivalence with hetero matrimony is supported usually only by one sentence, external to the definition of civil union. All it takes is for that sentence to be “amended” (read: removed) by a later bill, and members of civil unions no longer enjoy the same rights as married couples.
Rick Wilcox (a8f501) — 9/9/2007 @ 5:23 pmhello jd. the constitution means what the courts say it means, and if they say equal protection means gays get to marry, what’s the prob?
i’m imagining this issue with a different minority: blacks. are you one of those folks who would have said, in the 1950’s and 1960’s, “hey, i support civil rights for blacks, but we have to amend the constitution properly to make it happen, until then, i support separate-but-equal?”
assistant devil's advocate (9f6fd9) — 9/9/2007 @ 5:53 pmThe problem ADA is that when the courts say that the Constitution means something that its authors and the voters who approved it clearly never intended, then we no longer have a democratic system of law, we have a oligarchy of judges.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 9/9/2007 @ 5:59 pmRobin – ADA does not actually care about that. He/she/it is more concerned with what their broker has to say, and being rudely contrarian.
JD (f6a000) — 9/9/2007 @ 6:02 pmada is a “he”.
ada #7,
Is a constitution just a limitation on the will of the people or the fundamental expression of the will of the people? Get out of that cabin and hang out with some babe even if she has a bad hairdo and missing teeth. You’re getting too centripetal in your thinking.
nk (a6ecc6) — 9/9/2007 @ 6:13 pmAB 43 has explicit language that declares Prop 22 to apply only to out of state marriages, and makes obeisance to it in that form–rather bizarrely, given the longwinded explanations of discrimination that make up the greater part of the bill. I think the legislature was trying to give any future court the necessary direction on how to find this law compatible with Prop 22, or in the alternative, direction on how to declare Prop 22 unconstitutional (presumably on federal grounds). It’s not disregarding Prop 22, however. It’s not even pretending to amend (or perhaps I should say it’s pretending not to amend) Prop 22.
kishnevi (e700c6) — 9/9/2007 @ 6:56 pmSo I would call your criticism of it a bit harsh.
jd: please cite a specific instance of rudeness on my part in this thread. also, what my broker has to say? wtf?? if my broker really knew how to make money in the market, wouldn’t he be doing it himself instead of just talking about it? a broker, as woody allen observed, is someone who invests your money until it’s all gone.
assistant devil's advocate (9f6fd9) — 9/9/2007 @ 7:01 pmada – Sorry, the broker jab was improperly directed at you.
Supposing that I might have supported seperate but equal on procedural grounds was kind of rude, no? Actually, rude is probably not the best word, though I am struggling to find the proper adjective.
JD (f6a000) — 9/9/2007 @ 7:05 pmkishnevi #17:
#
AB 43 has explicit language that declares Prop 22 to apply only to out of state marriages, and makes obeisance to it in that form–rather bizarrely, given the longwinded explanations of discrimination that make up the greater part of the bill. I think the legislature was trying to give any future court the necessary direction on how to find this law compatible with Prop 22, or in the alternative, direction on how to declare Prop 22 unconstitutional (presumably on federal grounds). It’s not disregarding Prop 22, however. It’s not even pretending to amend (or perhaps I should say it’s pretending not to amend) Prop 22.
So I would call your criticism of it a bit harsh.
It’s possible that they may find Prop 22 unconstitutional under the state constitution if they choose, as the initiative only enacted a statute, not a constitutional provision.
Itsme (1efa4c) — 9/9/2007 @ 7:09 pmAlthough if it’s found to violate the state constitution, it only needs a subsequent initiative amending the constitution to put everything back.
Itsme (1efa4c) — 9/9/2007 @ 7:33 pmWhat always strikes me as ironic is that while the Mayor of SF was off with his PR stunt to marry all of teh gheys, it was rarely reported that he was doing that in spite of the statewide initiative stating that marriage is between a man and a woman. The People’s Republic of California could not even come up with a majority in favor of same sex marriage? No wonder the interest groups fight like hell to keep these issues in the Courts.
JD (f6a000) — 9/9/2007 @ 8:04 pmAnd as far away from the ballot boxes as possible.
JD (f6a000) — 9/9/2007 @ 8:05 pmItsme–thanks for the correction. I’m used to the Florida system, with initiatives being constitutional amendments (which results in some things that ought to be statutes turning out to be enshrined in the state constitution, like the one that placed limits on the practice of caging pregnant pigs (or something close to it–my memory of the details is fortunately hazy)).
kishnevi (e700c6) — 9/9/2007 @ 8:28 pmPlenty of California initiatives do amend the constitution, so it’s understandable anyway. We don’t have anything about caged pigs, but there’s plenty of other marginal stuff in there.
Itsme (1efa4c) — 9/9/2007 @ 8:34 pmI dunno JD, it was pretty widely reported in California.
Itsme (1efa4c) — 9/9/2007 @ 8:36 pmPatterico you should really give up on this. Same sex marriage is going to go nationwide a whole lot sooner than in your worst nightmare.
David, you appear never to have understood that I voted against Proposition 22, and would vote for gay marriage if it were submitted to the voters in the proper way.
ada, I don’t believe the Equal Protection Clause applies here. If I’m right, the matter needs to be submitted to the voters.
Patterico (2a8eaa) — 9/9/2007 @ 8:43 pmjd, i forgive you for the broker jab – i know how to work the schwab.com interface and lose money in the market all by myself, thank you.
while you’re struggling to find the proper adjective, consider that you’re supporting separate-but-equal (civil unions versus marriage) in the sexual orientation context on procedural grounds (along with patterico) right now. i find your arguments to be very…nuanced, same thing for which john kerry has been mocked so many times in this space.
assistant devil's advocate (156df7) — 9/9/2007 @ 8:44 pmada, i don’t believe the equal protection clause applies here. if i’m right, the matter needs to be submitted to the voters.
you didn’t say why equal protection applies to racial but not sexual distinctions, other than that, i don’t disagree with this statement. unless you’re a member of the highest court interpreting a constitution (both the u.s. and california constitutions are in play here), your opinion (and mine) weigh equal to the rest mass of a photon (zero, for you non-physics people).
the entire essence of lawyering is captured in the dialogue between alice and humpty dumpty in through the looking glass; “when i use a word, it means anything i want it to mean” and “that isn’t the issue, it’s who is to be master, that’s all.” you and i won’t know what “equal protection” means until the respective supremes weigh in. with the current federal lineup, i apprehend that you may be right. the state lineup is a whole ‘nother thang, my record of predicting their decisions is so bad, all i can do is shrug while i acknowledge that in a constitutional democracy, a supreme court has the final chop on what words mean, and as long as i’m not averse to a specific change in the law, i don’t care which branch changes it. imho, you seem to be overly process-oriented. i’m outcome-oriented. someday a supreme court may be asked to decide if equal protection applies to this difference too.
assistant devil's advocate (156df7) — 9/9/2007 @ 9:13 pmADA # 30:
Well, I believe the Mass. Supreme Court found that the Mass prohibition on same-sex marriage was violative of “the basic premises of individual liberty and equality under law” of the commonwealth constitution.
Goodridge
In 1999, the Hawaii Supreme Court held that the state’s anti-gay marriage law violated the equal protection guarantees of the state constitution (on gender grounds, and maybe sexual orientation too). However, the voters subsequently amended the ban into the state constitution.
Hawaii
Itsme (1efa4c) — 9/10/2007 @ 12:24 amRE: rick wilcox….i dont think this “separate but equal” argument will wash. first of all, how is a man and and woman who produce children and a couple of the same gender who dont considered “equal” ? to me they are two different things entirely.
james conrad (7cd809) — 9/10/2007 @ 12:24 amADA: the same constitution which guarantees equal rights for all californians.
Nebulous language is hard to pin down and could have a lot of meanings.
An initiative saying “no gay marriage” is pretty easy to understand.
When the legislators say it only applies to out of state gay marriages, they are LYING. And liars are scum.
Our Constitution–CONSTITUTION–says we have to respect the will of the voters when it comes to initiatives.
I’m with Patterico. I would like to see gay marriage legal in California. And like Patterico, I think the word “legal” means not only “permitted” but also “comporting with our Constitution.”
Arnold took an OATH TO DEFEND our Constitution. And he should uphold that oath. Breaking that oath is at least ten times as worse as breaking an promise like “Read my lips, No New Taxes.” Remember: this is a Constitution we are defending.
Daryl Herbert (4ecd4c) — 9/10/2007 @ 1:01 amNo, it’s heterosexual provilegeyou’re defending.
To get back to a comment Patterico made —
Ge thanks. How would yopu vote for slavery if it were “submitted to the voters in the proper way”?
We all know what a slam dunk that would be — don’t we now Patterico. And rather than carving out a career as an ink-stained wretch I could be serving you Mai Tais on the patio, pulled by a dog leash.
After all it would be “constitutional,” right?
of course you add —
And I believe it does.
But what do I know? I’m actually affected by all of this. My lover and I have been together for 36 years, and as far as the state is concerned that means absolutely nothing.
Now be a nice little Conservative and point me in the direction of all the contracts I need to whip up with a good lawyer for goodness knows how much mobney as opposed to the price of a marriage license granted to the privileged heterosexual likes of y’all.
I wrote about all of this several years back, BTW.
I wouldn’t change a word.
David Ehrenstein (070665) — 9/10/2007 @ 5:09 amClearly the best result for the law, and for gays, would be an initiative establishing gender-neutral marriage.
One could argue that it is “right” for a court to identify the inherent right of gay couples to marry, but down that path lies Roe v Wade-like hostility for decades, and a lack of certainty that these new-found rights will hold up.
And not only do you have opponents of gay rights opposing such a ruling, but you have erstwhile supporters who can’t abide judicial overreach.
Much better to do it the old fashioned way and vote, because that way the war is over.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 9/10/2007 @ 6:15 amEqual protection should not be involved here, but of course I’m a bit more old fashioned on that score. Marriage has a definition, and that definition involved males and females. Same sex marriage is a contradiction in terms. A gay man is free to marry a woman.
legislation can change the definition, or (in the case of California, voter approval because of Prop 22). But under the current definition, there is no discrimination.
As I said, I’m a bit old fashioned. Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to finish dressing. I’ve forgotten where I put my tricorne hat.
kishnevi (4aaf1e) — 9/10/2007 @ 6:55 amGays already have the same right to marry as heteros do:
They can marry anyone of the opposite sex who is at least 18, not currently married, and nonconsanquinous.
What gay marriage proposes is not to extend equal rights to gays, but rather to change the meaning of marriage to something that it has never been in recorded history.
Steverino (337414) — 9/10/2007 @ 10:13 amRE: steverino….” what gay marriage proposes is not to extend equal rights to gays,but rather to change the meaning of marriage to something that it has never been in recorded history”…..EXACTLY, the question then becomes, why do gays WANT to change the definition of marriage?
james conrad (7cd809) — 9/10/2007 @ 12:17 pmjames conrad, to include themselves in the new, broader definition.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 9/10/2007 @ 1:09 pmnew?
james conrad (7cd809) — 9/10/2007 @ 1:24 pmPersonally, I’m opposed to the state recognition of gay marriage, but I think it will happen eventually. It’s gonna take a lot longer, though, if the courts impose gay marriage by fiat. And, let’s face it, stretching the equal protection clause that far puts you well off into fiat territory. It’s not quite a Roe v Wade stretch, but it’s still an abuse of judicial power.
If the courts actually do that I predict voters will enact a change to the California constitution essentially appending prop 22 to it. Then it’ll be another generation before gay marriage proponents can get it taken out again.
Eric (09e4ab) — 9/10/2007 @ 1:59 pmYes, James, new. The idea that the definition of marriage always included gay couples, but for our prejudice against homosexuality, is not a real argument but a rather brazen fiction.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 9/10/2007 @ 2:53 pmGe thanks. How would yopu vote for slavery if it were “submitted to the voters in the proper way”?
We all know what a slam dunk that would be — don’t we now Patterico.
(For those of you unfamiliar with Ehrenstein’s previous rants against me on this topic, you may not understand why I am about to get angry. The rest of you will easily understand.)
David,
Those of us who are familiar with the Constitution know that the procedure I advocate — namely, passing a constitutional amendment when it’s legally required — is exactly what we did do in this country.
I find it a little shocking that a black man, of all people, doesn’t seem to know black history well enough to know that we outlawed slavery through a constitutional amendment.
Especially since I have patiently explained this to you before.
David, you sound like a fool every time you try to lecture me on this topic. Grab a copy of the Constitution and read through the amendments to it. I’ll give you a hint: somewhere between the 12th amendment and the 14th amendment is the amendment you’re looking for.
Patterico (2a8eaa) — 9/10/2007 @ 7:13 pmPatterico,
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 9/10/2007 @ 7:16 pmYou forgot to add to the hint that our Constitution does not omit some numbers, like an elevator control panel occasionally does.
Kishnevi:
Why? No one in his right mind thinks the Legislature has the power to interpret an initiative out of existence. I’d have more respect for them if they had the cojones to say “yup, we’re trashing the constitution and flouting Prop 22 outright” rather than pretending Prop 22 means anything less than it says. It’s bad enough when courts play that game.
Rick Wilcox:
Yeah, but the same could be said of a gay marriage statute, or for that matter, any other statute. Your point?
idiot who can’t find the shift key:
Separate but equal has never been a problem for anything but race, and that only after a long and ugly history of separate and who are we kidding about equal. Everyone knows equal protection counts for the sexes, too, to a greater extent than sexual preference, so come back after you convince the courts to abolish separate but equal bathrooms for men vs. women.
Robin:
Don’t know about that. On the one hand, the only number I’ve heard of elevator control panels omitting is 13, the same number I punch on the way up to work every day. Then again, my company may be a special case since Legal and HR are both located on that floor, and the building manager may have thought that assigning the number 13 to both was an opportunity too good to pass up. On the flip side, I’m pretty sure our federal Constitution does skip the numbers 2, 9, 10, 18 and 22.
Xrlq (6c2116) — 9/10/2007 @ 7:52 pmXrlq writes “On the flip side, I’m pretty sure our federal Constitution does skip the numbers 2, 9, 10, 18 and 22.”
Been hanging around the ACLU website again, haven’t you? tsk tsk
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 9/10/2007 @ 7:57 pmYou’re so cute when you’re patronizing.
David Ehrenstein (070665) — 9/11/2007 @ 4:56 amBet you’re still steamed about Brown v. Board of Ed — like all “Conservatives.”
Note David E.’s lack of response to my substantive point: he cites slavery as an example of an ill that couldn’t be addressed in the legally proper way, seemingly unaware that it was, through an amendment to the Constitution.
Patterico (4d9df5) — 9/11/2007 @ 7:14 amNote Patterico’s inability to take the filtering device off of my e-mails thus making posting in this forum next to impossible for yours truly.
Your “substantive point” is piffle. The end of slavery did not result in the end of racism — though slavery is always thrown in may face whenever I bring it up. Do you have any information on how interracial marriage would do if it were put to a vote?
How about the banning of all religions save for Christianity?
We are “a Christian nation” after all, aren’t we Patterico?
According to your other poster I am “free” to marry a woman. Were I as an African-American to attempt to marry a white woman in a great many regions of this country I would be “discouraged” from doing so by upright white Christian citizens.
These same Chruistians see my obliteration as a gay man — and want it in the contstitution. They have been extremely active in creating ballot initiatives all acorss the coutnry against such as I not only in relation to marraige but basic civil rights.
Your trust in “the vote” is telling.
David Ehrenstein (070665) — 9/11/2007 @ 1:17 pmNote Patterico’s inability to take the filtering device off of my e-mails thus making posting in this forum next to impossible for yours truly.
Ditto Beldar, JD, and numerous other commenters. If you have a solution for me, lemme know — I’m all ears. Otherwise, you can take your paranoia and stuff it.
I have contacted my tech guy and asked if this frustrating spam filter has a whitelist feature. It doesn’t. I spend a lot of time going through and approving comments like yours, and if you think I like taking the time, you’re insane.
Your “substantive point” is piffle. The end of slavery did not result in the end of racism — though slavery is always thrown in may face whenever I bring it up.
Slavery is always thrown in *your* face??
Who brought up slavery in this thread, David? Control, F, slavery. Do it. I’ll wait.
OK, now that you see that YOU are the one who brought it up, maybe you can understand that arguing with you is like arguing with a wall because you don’t respond to the point. My point is that changes like this must be made in the legal way. You respond by asserting that if we followed the legal way, we’d still have slavery. I respond by noting that you have apparently never heard of the 13th Amendment. Then you say I am throwing slavery in *your* face.
Amazing.
And when did I ever claim that we have reached the end of racism? Find such a quote and I’ll PayPal you $10 instantly.
According to your other poster I am “free” to marry a woman.
I don’t give a shit what my poster says, David. We’re talking about *my* view here, and that is not my view.
These same Chruistians see my obliteration as a gay man — and want it in the contstitution. They have been extremely active in creating ballot initiatives all acorss the coutnry against such as I not only in relation to marraige but basic civil rights.
Your trust in “the vote” is telling.
Yes, they have created ballot initiative like Proposition 22 — which, I will remind you yet again, I VOTED AGAINST.
The ONLY roadblock to this legislation being illegal is a proposition that I voted against. Now if I were truly against gay marriage, as you claim (suggesting in the process that I am a liar), why on God’s Green Earth did I vote against Proposition 22?
Answer me that. I deserve an answer, with all the disparagement you have thrown my way. No matter what other crap of yours you throw my way, I want an answer to that question.
David, I’m starting to think people like you are the reason we don’t have gay marriage. Because if this is how you treat your ALLIES on this issue — people who want the same thing as you, but want it done legally — you are bound to alienate such a large segment of the public that you won’t get what you want.
Why did I vote against Proposition 22, David? Why?
Or are you going to call me a liar about that as well?
Patterico (2a8eaa) — 9/11/2007 @ 4:26 pmHavn’t the vaguest. Nothing in any of the posts you’ve made or topics you’ve put up for comment suggests anything but antipathy to the Gay rights movement — of which I’ve been a part since 1969.
David Ehrenstein (070665) — 9/11/2007 @ 5:02 pmSo you could lord it over Whinydavid. Surely you didn’t think that Prop 22 would be decided by a single vote, did you? By voting no (or actually voting yes and exploiting the secret ballot to lie and tell us all you voted no), you got the best of both worlds: oppressing Whinydavid while simultaneously claiming credit for not trying to.
Xrlq (6c2116) — 9/11/2007 @ 5:27 pmWere I as an African-American to attempt to marry a white woman in a great many regions of this country I would be “discouraged” from doing so by upright white Christian citizens.
Where to start:
Which great many regions? List them please. I want to avoid them too.
“Discouraged”, how? Did your mother insist that you marry a nice Jewish girl?
Upright white Christian citizens? Name one.
Really, David. You are being, how you say in your country? … a nudge.
nk (0c0cd0) — 9/11/2007 @ 6:05 pmNothing in any of the posts you’ve made or topics you’ve put up for comment suggests anything but antipathy to the Gay rights movement . . .
Let’s roll the tape. How about this:
Or this post in which I take apart the arguments by Dafydd ab Hugh against gay marriage. Why did I bother if I have nothing but antipathy for the idea, and for the gay rights movement.
Or there’s this post in which I declare my opposition to a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
Just to take a few examples.
David, it’s time to admit that you have no idea what my feelings are on this issue, and haven’t bothered to research my views. You have just taken my concern for the rule of law and have mischaracterized it as antipathy towards gays and gay rights — and now, as I have just shown, my writings are proving your little unresearched and ignorant stereotype wrong.
I’m your ally in this battle. I have fought with people over these issues. And you call me a liar and dismiss my support.
Personally, I’m not going to change my views because one angry and ignorant gay man acts like I am bigoted. But if there are enough David Ehrensteins out there taking similarly (and unnecessarily) antagonistic stances towards philosophical allies, then you folks in the gay rights movement are doing yourselves tremendous damage.
You are among your movement’s own worst enemies.
Patterico (2a8eaa) — 9/11/2007 @ 7:27 pmSo you imagine my country to be Israel?
Typical.
My father was Jewish (not by any stretch of the imagination a religious Jew) whose ancestry (white) is too complicated to go into for the sake of someone such as youself.
My mother was black.
I am black. And not like “Julie Laverne” in Showboat either.
Add to that the fact that I’m gay and you’ve got yourself one-stop “multicultural” shopping.
David Ehrenstein (070665) — 9/11/2007 @ 7:27 pmGoodness, Patterico — what too you so long!
Your response to Dafydd is (as the saying goes) interesting. Yet I cannot help but come away the impression that the only glbt people you’ve come in contact with were in a petri dish.
Your concern for “the rule of law” goes withotu saying. After all it’s your profession. But speakign as someone who has spent the better part of his life as an outlaw by definition I can do nothing other than mistrust you.
My life depends upon it.
David Ehrenstein (070665) — 9/11/2007 @ 7:36 pmDavid #55,
The “how you say in your country” was a joke, an allusion to some Russian expatriate from both our youths, Yakov ? …. A hint to lighten up.
nk (0c0cd0) — 9/11/2007 @ 7:53 pmYet I cannot help but come away the impression that the only glbt people you’ve come in contact with were in a petri dish.
Wrong and wrong. Of course, had I volunteered this, I would have been criticized as one of those people who says “some of my best friends are . . .” But since you have accused me of knowing no gay people, let me assure you that you are wrong. I live in L.A., my friend. I know plenty of gay people — and I suspect that this has had an effect on my views on this issue.
Your concern for “the rule of law” goes withotu saying. After all it’s your profession. But speakign as someone who has spent the better part of his life as an outlaw by definition I can do nothing other than mistrust you.
My life depends upon it.
Well, that’s just foolish. Gays won’t get anywhere on these issues without doing so the right way. Passing laws that are illegal is not the right way. You need the support of people like me. You have mine. Why reject it?
It makes absolutely no sense. You are more loyal to your stereotypes, your preconceptions, your sense of pride, and your perceived petty grievances than you are to the goal you claim to support. Were it otherwise, you would understand that I am an ally, and treat me as such.
Patterico (2a8eaa) — 9/11/2007 @ 7:53 pmIOW, your way.
My grievances are not petty, nor are they merely “perceived.”
I expect I should congratulate you for not going all the way to “imagined.”
You have no idea of what my goals are.
David Ehrenstein (070665) — 9/11/2007 @ 7:58 pmP.S.
My father was Jewish (not by any stretch of the imagination a religious Jew) whose ancestry (white) is too complicated to go into for the sake of someone such as youself.
The only part of my ancestry I will admit to is my direct descent from Helen of Troy from my mother’s side. My teeth are not set on edge because my ancestors ate sour grapes.
nk (0c0cd0) — 9/11/2007 @ 8:00 pmNo, a way that fits the rule of law.
And here I thought that you supported legalized gay marriage.
As do I.
You have no answer as to why someone against the gay rights movement would vote against Proposition 22. That’s because there is no rational reason.
Patterico (2a8eaa) — 9/11/2007 @ 8:17 pmNot tying in to your above conversation, just a comment:
I support equal rights for gays and lesbians. I believe marriage is a special institution that is, at least theoretically, for procreation and bonding of the natural family unit, should be limited to a man and a woman.
If gay people want to commit to some type of monogamous contract substantially similar to marriage that is okay with me, but I think the state has a supreme interest in procreation and the family unit.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 9/11/2007 @ 8:31 pmPatterico,
I’m going to embarrass David Ehrenstein mightily here.
Last Saturday at our Festering Swamp meetup, our enfant terrible praised your knowledge of the law. (Link is to a YouTube video, taken by moi.)
I hope you and/or other Patteristas can attend our next meetup.
Bradley J. Fikes (1c6fc4) — 9/12/2007 @ 6:42 amAll Together Now!
“O Canada!
David Ehrenstein (070665) — 9/12/2007 @ 7:40 amOur home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!
From far and wide, O Canada,
We stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
Ô Canada!
Terre de nos aïeux,
Ton front est ceint de fleurons glorieux!
Car ton bras sait porter l’épée,
Il sait porter la croix!
Ton histoire est une épopée
Des plus brillants exploits.
Et ta valeur, de foi trempée,
Protégera nos foyers et nos droits,
Protégera nos foyers et nos droits”
Patterico – One must admire your desire, and ability, to put people like the multi-culti David Ehrenstein in his place. I could not agree with you more that people like David are their own worst enemies when it comes to these issues. Essentially, they would have you believe that you are not an authentic supporter because you actually care about the rule of law, and are not as militant in your belief as him.
David – How will that little piece of paper change your love for your partner, or his love for you? And, while you are at it, how does your life depend on this issue?
JD (f6a000) — 9/12/2007 @ 8:03 amIf you’re not aware of the legal privileges grated by that “ittle piece of papr,” JD, I really can’t help you.
Perhaps Patterico would be willing inform you of just how many of them there are and how they figure in the lives of the married.
What my life depends upon is my ability to love and be loved — something that until the overthrow of the sodomy laws in Lawrence vs. Texas was explicitly proscribed.
David Ehrenstein (070665) — 9/12/2007 @ 8:14 amBradley,
Fascinating clip. Who is talking off-screen?
Two things about it interest me:
1) David and the mystery speaker both seem to assume that I have deliberately placed David into a moderation queue where he must write me to get his comments published. Not so. I must constantly go into this wretched spam filter and retrieve legitimate comments from all sorts of commenters, including ones who disagree with me. If anyone has a solution, please tell me.
2) I’d love to know what the mystery speaker was going to say next; it sounded like he was going to criticize me, and I’m very interested in that. Any chance you could privately e-mail me the whole video (or, narcissist that I am, at least the part where people are talking about me)? I won’t take offense at whatever the criticism was, and in fact would love to hear it.
Patterico (2a8eaa) — 9/12/2007 @ 4:59 pmNever mind. qdpsteve, and he was calling me predictable: a knee-jerk Republican.
I don’t think the criticism is accurate.
Patterico (2a8eaa) — 9/12/2007 @ 5:01 pmIf they can’t pigeonhole you, Patterico, then how would they know how to respond?
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 9/12/2007 @ 5:35 pmSo that’s David? He’s much younger looking and acting than I had thought from his descriptions of himself. I had pictured him kind of like John Carradine in “Stagecoach”. Ok, now he’ll accuse me of lookism.
nk (474afa) — 9/12/2007 @ 6:16 pmThanks again, Patterico. To those who care and especially David who thinks he’s been banned, my comment #70 went into limbo for about half an hour and I believe Patterico had to manually redeem it.
nk (474afa) — 9/12/2007 @ 6:55 pmI wonder if it’s a B___spot address which is triggering the spam filter. I’ll sign in without a URL from now on.
nk (474afa) — 9/12/2007 @ 7:00 pmO-kay. So in Ehrenstein-land, anyone who can’t legally sodomize somebody in Texas is certain to die in California. Not sure I follow the reasoning there, but let’s assume for argument’s sake that it’s correct. WTF does any of that have to do with Patterico’s refusal to support an unconstitutional gay marriage law in a state where neither your de facto right to marry nor your de jure right to sodomize was ever in question?
Xrlq (6c2116) — 9/12/2007 @ 7:21 pmPatterico,
Next time, I’ll try to get more of the clip. And I keep telling David E. you’re not a lockstep conservative. I think you’re more of a libertarian conservative.
It’s difficult to tell from this clip linkedd below, but I think qdpsteve is talking about Hugh Hewitt being predictable,not you. (And of course, then L’Affaire Chemerinsky came around, and Hugh defended Chemerinsky, both professionally and as a friend.)
David E. then talks about Firedoglake’s role in the Libby trial.
I’m looking for the clip that shows Jane Hamsher walking on water.
Bradley J. Fikes (1c6fc4) — 9/12/2007 @ 8:48 pmnk,
David E. does indeed look younger than his age. In person, you’d never guess he’s 87. (Kidding, David!)
David is also rather overwhelming in his knowledge of film and Broadway. Encyclopedic doesn’t do him justice.
Bradley J. Fikes (1c6fc4) — 9/12/2007 @ 8:54 pmSo then what is qdpsteve’s beef with my blog?
I want to see that clip.
Patterico (2a8eaa) — 9/12/2007 @ 9:02 pmPatterico, Bradley’s defense is accurate. I don’t think you’re a knee-jerk partisan for the Republicans. I *do* personally think you blog is a little predictable from a subject-choice perspective. But that’s just me. Obviously others don’t or they wouldn’t read and comment as often as they do.
Please note that I have the highest respect for you, and was hoping you could make the recent meetup at Hof’s Hut in Los Alamitos so I could meet you in person. No doubt I’d find you as personally warm and engaging as I found David E.(!) there. 🙂
I was speaking of Hugh Hewitt, whom I consider to be not only predictable, but also in the most partisan (i.e., pro-GOP, pro-Bush Admin, pro-Romney) way possible. (I was literally shocked about his defense of Erwin Chemerinsky today; it’s the first time after listening to him for six years that he’s surprised me.) And even for Hewitt, I have no personal animosity; I just don’t feel a particular need to read his blog or listen to his radio show anymore to have a good feel for his reaction to whatever political story is hot.
qdpsteve (cd214a) — 9/12/2007 @ 9:04 pmI suppose my subject matter choices are rather predictable — it’s just what interests me. DRJ, luckily, is helping the blog branch out a bit.
Patterico (2a8eaa) — 9/12/2007 @ 9:16 pmI can’t think of why it would be shocking that Hugh Hewitt would defend Erwin Chemerinsky, Chemerinsky is a regular guest on his program and Hewitt is a man with personal integrity.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 9/12/2007 @ 9:17 pmHere Patterico, here’s how you can win back short-attention-span readers like me so that we won’t consider your blog so predicable anymore. Do more posts on:
1. Delicious new fast food restaurants (particular those specializing in hot-and-spicy cuisine)
2. One-hit-wonder rock bands from the 1960s and 70s
3. Glenn Greenwald’s mystery Brazilian boyfriend
4. The legality of internet gaming/gambling/poker
5. Hot live shemale action on YouTube
🙂
qdpsteve (cd214a) — 9/12/2007 @ 9:18 pmRobin: make no mistake, Hewitt surprised me in the
qdpsteve (cd214a) — 9/12/2007 @ 9:21 pmrightcorrect way today.(There should be a strike through ‘right’ above, btw.)
qdpsteve (cd214a) — 9/12/2007 @ 9:22 pmI have a post about Chemerinsky coming up in a couple of hours.
It’s . . . nuanced.
Patterico (2a8eaa) — 9/12/2007 @ 9:28 pmAn update for anyone who cares:
AB 43 went to enrollment today. Meaning it’s landing on Arnold’s desk most likely awaiting his veto.
AB 43 history
Of course he’s saving the trouble and expense of a legal challenge by vetoing the bill, but if it were allowed to take effect …
In all likelihood the Cal. Supreme Court will have decided the consolidated same-sex marriage cases by the time any AB 43 lawsuit gets rolling …
If the same-sex marriage prohibition were struck down by the court, the gender-neutral marriage language would already be on the books.
I’m not saying he should let it take effect. Just one of those interesting scenarios to roll out ….
Itsme (dc52c5) — 9/12/2007 @ 10:29 pmIf the CASC were goofy enough to strike down traditional marriage, does anyone really doubt that Prop 22 would pass all over again, this time in the form of a constitutional amendment?
Xrlq (6c2116) — 9/13/2007 @ 3:00 amBlack is white. Up is down. Tom is Jerry.
Brilliant.
Pablo (99243e) — 9/13/2007 @ 3:53 amI’m 60 years-old, nk. Black Don’t Crack.
Uh, no. You haven’t followed my reasoning at all. Sodomy Laws held gays and lesbians in check for years as a Criminally Suspect Class by definition.
It’s the main reason so many stayed in “the closet” and why being “out” was an avant-garde position back when Stonewall kick-started the major phase of the movement in 1969 — back when you no doubt were in short pants. (Whereas I was into short pants.)
I too am longing for a pic of Glenn Greenwald’s boyfriend cause like the song says “There’s an awful lot of coffee in Brazil.”
David Ehrenstein (070665) — 9/13/2007 @ 10:19 amXrlq #85:
If the CASC were goofy enough to strike down traditional marriage, does anyone really doubt that Prop 22 would pass all over again, this time in the form of a constitutional amendment?
—————————-
I take it you mean if the court struck down the same sex marriage prohibition.
Well, if they struck it down on the basis of state constitutional requirements, then yep, the same folks who brought you Prop 22 could just try to put it on the ballot as an amendment to the state constitution.
If there were federal constitutional questions involved, I suppose they could appeal it to the federal courts and have it decided that way. (Depends on what basis the plaintiffs brought suit.)
If AB 43 were to be enacted and challenged, the court would probably be limited to the question of whether it improperly amended an initiative statute. In other words, I don’t think it would be the occasion for considering the merits of the prohibition itself.
Itsme (3af88e) — 9/13/2007 @ 6:55 pmgee wiz, i missed alotta drama on this thread, meanwhile heres an interesting, sane, calm debate on gay marriage
james conrad (7cd809) — 9/14/2007 @ 2:14 amoops, that didnt work, i’ll just copy n paste url http://bloggingheads.tv/video.php?id=386
james conrad (7cd809) — 9/14/2007 @ 2:22 amUpdate:
Arnold did indeed veto AB 43.
Veto message
Totally expected.
However, the more I look at the actual language of the bill, the more I suspect it could have been narrowly implemented without impinging on Prop 22 requirements.
A moot question now, obviously.
Itsme (f1b2da) — 10/14/2007 @ 12:19 am