43 comments posted · 0 followers · following 0

80 weeks ago @ Equality on Trial - Open thread · 1 reply · +2 points

Thanks for the information, and for the reminder. I think I knew that once about the proposition process; that the legislature could place it on the ballot, but forgot. Thanks also for reminder about general changes in opinions on marriage equality, and thus a bit more hope for repeal.

Your response spurred me to investigate a little further, and it appears that two separate propositions would have to be put on the ballot to effect a reversal. I did a quick google search, coming up with this link:

Still wondering if marriage equality could be repealed in one that one fell swoop, given that marriage equality is a single subject, I followed the link regarding the single subject rule. Per the California Constitution, Article II, Section 8 (b), it appears to me that we would need two separate propositions, because apparently each proposition can only address a statute or an amendment to the Constitution.,_California_Co...

Edit: Whoops, it appears I forgot that Prop 22 was invalidated by the CA Supreme Court in May 2008. Please forgive my Swiss Cheese memory!

80 weeks ago @ Equality on Trial - Open thread · 3 replies · +4 points

As an addition to the above, and has been observed already, California is a different bird with regard to Obergefell. I don't know if it is also with regard to its Constitution. As a native Californian, I do hope I understand the situation here correctly. I believe that because it was put into the Constitution by Prop H8, it can only be taken out by the vote - by another proposition.

This would be subject to getting enough signatures to put it on the ballot, so someone or some organization would likely have to put up the cash to hire a firm to get enough signatures. I believe that's how it has to be handled anyway, if we want a prayer of getting enough signatures to get it on the ballot in the first place.

Further, if I'm correct that it needs to be taken out by proposition, I'm not sure if enough people would realize that this is necessary. I wonder how many people think that Hollingsworth v. Perry not only invalidated it but also removed it, when it only invalidated it. I also wonder if people may think that the legislature has the power to remove it from the Constitution. So I'm not sure if some amount of education would need to be done also. Heck, I followed the trial, almost from day one on this site, and even to me, the above post and comments were a reminder that it's still in our Constitution. Perhaps others consider Prop H8 to be a distant memory and don't recall that it's still there also.

Then I wonder how many people would actually believe this to be the case, given the new (?) proclivity of a certain population that seems to believe that facts don't matter. Or perhaps those who would leave it there either because they fervently believe that it needs to be in there, or who would leave it there simply out of spite. CA may be a blue state, but the citizenry did vote in the majority for both Prop 22 and Prop H8.

Of course, none of the above addresses the above mentioned Proposition 22, which preceded Prop H8 by a few years, and which created a statute forbidding state recognition and licensing of marriage equality. It would have to be removed by the same mechanism, and while I hope that they could be both removed in one fell swoop with a single proposition, I'm not sure that this is the case. Someone who knows better would have to comment on whether this is possible or not. Frankly, I hope they can both be taken out, like, yesterday.

Please forgive me if any of this is incorrect, and any of it is, could you please post a correction? Thanks.

138 weeks ago @ Equality on Trial - Round up and open thread · 0 replies · +1 points

Rick, Thanks for the info. While looking for documentation (in general) of the many people, businesses, cities and states boycotting NC, I happened across this article that backs the info you posted above, not that I ever doubted you, lol:

147 weeks ago @ Equality on Trial - Open Thread 2/8/2016 · 0 replies · +1 points

I have an addition to your post: there are actually four potty panic bills before the WA legislature. And if a "companion bill" counts as a separate bill (I don't know enough about such things), that would be five. HB 2935 was/is a companion bill to SB 6443 - so does that meant that HB 2935 is dead along with SB 6443? Can anyone who knows explain this?

Here is a list of bills before the WA legislature during this session. Please forgive me if I've summarized incorrectly or don't truly understand all this. Corrections/Additions are always welcome.

HB 2589 01/15/16 Referred to Judiciary for first reading
HB 2782 01/20/16 Referred to Judiciary for first reading
HB 2935 01/28/16 Referred to Judiciary for first reading
SB 6443 02/10/16 FAILED (Failed in Rules Committee?
Third reading, 24 Aye, 25 Nay, 0 Absent, 0 Excused Companion Bill: HB 2935
SB 6548 02/05/16 PASSED (Law and Justice Committee)Moves to Rules Committee
for 2nd reading

168 weeks ago @ Equality on Trial - Equality news round-up... · 0 replies · +1 points

I was seeing that earlier today also, only the counter said 4 and there was only 1. I left the site for the day when it said 6 and there were 3 comments. Strange.

168 weeks ago @ Equality on Trial - News round up and open... · 0 replies · +5 points

You're not alone. A lot of us in the U.S. are just as upset and offended as you are.

170 weeks ago @ Equality on Trial - Friday open thread · 0 replies · +6 points

I try to counter such ignorance, lest it spread. I can't help the willfully ignorant, but maybe I can help the person who isn't. I point out that despite the meme that these courts are *writing* laws, no new laws are actually written by the courts - they simply overturn unconstitutional ones.

There's a big difference between the two. If someone ignorantly responds that laws are actually being written, I demand show me the new statute. If they're so sure, they can point it out. But of course they never can since there is never a new statute - there's only an unconstitutional one, which is as if it never existed.

170 weeks ago @ Equality on Trial - Friday open thread · 0 replies · +1 points

Glad to see you back!

I don't know if this is what you're asking or not, but here's my answer. I wanted to know (this) answer for myself, so I did a few searches and determined that Kim Davis was sworn in on Jan 5, 2015, and is office for a term of four years. If anyone knows any different, please correct me!

I did note that Matt Staver of Liberty Counsel, in statements he made that I saw on TV (I don't remember where I saw them or when he made them) said something to the effect that the citizens of TN wanted Davis in office.

While this can be asserted because Davis won an election, Staver made it sound like the citizens of TN had chosen her to be in office for the past 26 (27?) years or so. Of course, for the vast majority of that time, she was not an elected official but an employee who could be fired, and she was employed at the behest of her mother (or whomever had the hire/fire capability for her county), not the citizens of TN.

171 weeks ago @ Equality on Trial - Open thread · 1 reply · +2 points

If their divorce is, in their opinion, because gay marriage is legal, then their marriage wasn't on very solid footing to begin with.

If they just decided to throw in the towel because they have to share the big tent of marriage with us, that's childish. They'd be deciding not to play with anyone else because they don't get their way. Only they don't get to take the ball home with them, so the game in this analogy will still go on without them. And it's their problem, not anyone else's.

171 weeks ago @ Equality on Trial - Open thread UPDATE · 0 replies · +5 points

As someone who is transgender, I was quite surprised to see the use of the word "transvestite" in this article. Rick posted the original link which shows that this is an AP article.

I looked up their style book to see why this term is still in use. As per a GLAAD page that lists both the NYT and AP style books on the subject, the 2013 NYT style book says: "Transvestite is outdated and often viewed as offensive. Use cross-dresser instead to describe someone of either sex who sometimes dresses in clothing associated with the opposite sex. Note that cross-dressing does not necessarily indicate that someone is gay or transgender."

The 2013 AP style book has no entry for transvestite. Amazon has a listing for the 2015 AP Style Book, and it appears to be available online also, but behind a paywall.

Beyond that, I found the article to be informative, once I got over the surprise and shock.

And Rick, I'm glad that you didn't have to go back into the closet and that you're safe. As for those chocolate cookie crumbs... nah, I won't get into the apparent vs. evident debate. But I'm glad you got through it even if some of your cookies seem to have disappeared during the storm.