Trans Ladyboy Forum

Go Back Trans Ladyboy Forum > General Discussion
Register Forum Rules Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Bookmark & Share

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-26-2009
The Conquistador's Avatar
The Conquistador The Conquistador is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: United Socialist State of California (U.S.S.C)
Posts: 1,307
The Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to behold
Send a message via MSN to The Conquistador
Default Another Disappointment Brought To You By The State Of California...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gay_marriage

The California courts uphled the Prop.8 decision.
__________________
*More posts than Bionca*
[QUOTE=God(from Futurama)]Right and wrong are just words; what matters is what you do... If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope... When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-26-2009
CreativeMind's Avatar
CreativeMind CreativeMind is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: A place that's sunny & warm
Posts: 371
CreativeMind is a jewel in the roughCreativeMind is a jewel in the roughCreativeMind is a jewel in the roughCreativeMind is a jewel in the rough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman View Post
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gay_marriage

The California courts uphled the Prop.8 decision.
Yes, but it's also incredibly ironic that on a day when Obama named Sonia Sotomayor to be his choice for the Supreme Court -- where the debate over her selection is clearly going to center on how much of an "activist" judge she really is at heart -- that in California (of all places) the judges there DID do exactly what judges are charged to do: they passed a ruling that is based entirely ON the law rather than abusing their power and trying to legislate FROM the bench, which an overwhelming number of people clearly oppose.

As the article itself notes...

The justices said the 136-page majority ruling does not speak to whether they agree with the voter-approved Proposition 8 or "believe it should be a part of the California Constitution." They said they were "limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values."

That said, plain and simple and to avoid any charges of judicial advocacy...

The court said the Californians have a right, through the ballot box, to change their constitution.


Truth be told, this was the expected ruling. Maybe there's anger in some parts, but no one should actually be surprised. Even as oral arguments were presented before the court, same sex marriage advocates realized they were on thin ice. They knew they had taken a bullet when Prop 8 passed, which likewise caught them totally off guard. Even the gay community realized the lawsuit was a stretch, but they had to try. So, now it's on to the next election, where we'll see how people will vote then.

All the same, it's still incredibly ironic that California -- which is constantly seen by the rest of the country as being the very epitome of liberal politics and beliefs -- turned out to be the state that voted down same sex marriage, and now a Federal Court has upheld the ban. I mean who would've ever predicted that same sex couples in Iowa would be able to get married before those in San Francisco?

Last edited by CreativeMind; 05-26-2009 at 05:03 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-26-2009
Bionca's Avatar
Bionca Bionca is offline
Ms Tranny Manners
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Here and There, USA
Posts: 1,117
Bionca is a splendid one to beholdBionca is a splendid one to beholdBionca is a splendid one to beholdBionca is a splendid one to beholdBionca is a splendid one to beholdBionca is a splendid one to beholdBionca is a splendid one to behold
Default

The judges were very clear in making their ruling as limited and narrow as they could. They essentially (as CM said) ruled that prop 8 was implimented fairly and that no Constitutional procedures were broken. The court DID fairly allow the existing marriages to be grandfathered into state marriage laws - ruling that at that at that time, the contracts were legal and binding.

The actual debate is if the majority really has the right to vote on the contractual rights of tax-paying adult citizens. We do after all live in a Democracy that understands "Tyranny of the Majority" - thus some things MUST be implemented without popular vote (one of the reasons that SSM should NOT be a "states' rights" issue.
__________________
- I hate being braver than the guys I date.
- Yes, it's me in the avatar
Blog: http://laughriotgirl.wordpress.com/
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-26-2009
The Conquistador's Avatar
The Conquistador The Conquistador is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: United Socialist State of California (U.S.S.C)
Posts: 1,307
The Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to behold
Send a message via MSN to The Conquistador
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bionca View Post
The judges were very clear in making their ruling as limited and narrow as they could. They essentially (as CM said) ruled that prop 8 was implimented fairly and that no Constitutional procedures were broken. The court DID fairly allow the existing marriages to be grandfathered into state marriage laws - ruling that at that at that time, the contracts were legal and binding.

The actual debate is if the majority really has the right to vote on the contractual rights of tax-paying adult citizens. We do after all live in a Republic that understands "Tyranny of the Majority" - thus some things MUST be implemented without popular vote (one of the reasons that SSM should NOT be a "states' rights" issue.
I know. I realize that the rulings were lawful but it is still kind of a bummer that "the pursuit of happiness" only applies to hetero couples. Oh yeah, I was not advocating it be a states right issue. I was just pointing out that it seemed like more of a direction that this issue will go is all.

Fixed it for ya. :P
__________________
*More posts than Bionca*
[QUOTE=God(from Futurama)]Right and wrong are just words; what matters is what you do... If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope... When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-26-2009
transjen's Avatar
transjen transjen is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,772
transjen has much to be proud oftransjen has much to be proud oftransjen has much to be proud oftransjen has much to be proud oftransjen has much to be proud oftransjen has much to be proud oftransjen has much to be proud oftransjen has much to be proud oftransjen has much to be proud of
Default

Well so much for LIFE,LIBERTY AND THE PURSURT OF HAPPYNESS, Jennifer
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-26-2009
CreativeMind's Avatar
CreativeMind CreativeMind is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: A place that's sunny & warm
Posts: 371
CreativeMind is a jewel in the roughCreativeMind is a jewel in the roughCreativeMind is a jewel in the roughCreativeMind is a jewel in the rough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bionca View Post
The judges were very clear in making their ruling as limited and narrow as they could. They essentially (as CM said) ruled that prop 8 was implemented fairly and that no Constitutional procedures were broken.
Bionca's nailed it and this is what everyone should remember before getting too upset, especially since THIS particular case was about legal semantics more than anything else. To echo Bionca's post, omebody doing an analysis on TV said it best and simplest: The Court was NOT deciding whether same sex marriage was constitutional. The Court was deciding was whether the WAY that Prop 8 was passed was constitutional.

And that's what they did. They ruled that the people who created Prop 8 and those that voted for it followed all the rules and -- regardless of what you think of the outcome -- California voters DO have the right to amend the state constitution. End of story.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bionca View Post
The court DID fairly allow the existing marriages to be grandfathered into state marriage laws - ruling that at that at that time, the contracts were legal and binding.
Which is the interesting part since THAT will now open an all-new can of worms. Because now, with today's ruling, the California court really has created a separate class of citizens -- namely, same sex couples who are married where the state will honor their paperwork versus other same sex couples who CANNOT marry AT ALL and thus join the club. Or as someone phrased it on TV, it's as if California held a "limited time offer" sale and if you didn't take advantage of it, you're screwed. So, that's going to spur a whole new wave of discrimination lawsuits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bionca View Post
The actual debate is if the majority really has the right to vote on the contractual rights of tax-paying adult citizens. We do after all live in a Democracy that understands "Tyranny of the Majority" - thus some things MUST be implemented without popular vote (one of the reasons that SSM should NOT be a "states' rights" issue.
True -- unless you're on the opposing side. In which case taking this to a national level (and NOT letting it be settled on a case by case basis as a "states right" issue) means you feel that a Tyranny of the Minority is in effect. Which the Constitution ALSO protects against. Personally, I see this as one giant mess. I can see Bionca's argument for taking it national and saying "Look, we just have to make this fair and equal across all 50 states at once"...and yet, on the other hand, I do believe in a strict observance of our actual Constitution, drafted by our Founders, which recognized that we are not a true democracy -- we are actually a Republic, held together state by state, where elected representatives set the law so that the will of the people is enacted.

Frankly, when you stop and think about the freedoms that we have in America overall...but ALSO think about the way that our country is actually set up legislatively...and THEN factor in the sheer amount of people that live here now (all the different groups, each of whom have their own beliefs or wants)...it's sort of a miracle that in its history America has only had one civil war. I mean, seriously, it's amazing and a tribute to our Founding Fathers that the system has worked (and held together) for as long as it has.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-27-2009
smc's Avatar
smc smc is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Boston area, U.S.A.
Posts: 18,169
smc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant future
Send a message via Yahoo to smc
Default tactics

As soon as the decision to challenge the Prop 8 vote in court was announced, I expected this outcome, because the court case was based exclusively on the "merits" of California's system of having citizen ballot propositions, and not on the "merits" of a civil rights issue. I'm sure the plaintiffs knew what they were up against, and in some ways I think it might have been better not to pursue remedy in the courts but rather to seek a referendum repeal of Prop 8.

I say this because the court ruling -- although it absolutely does not decide on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage -- will be seen as a feather in the cap of those who want to limit marriage rights. In the face of what is happening here in New England, where I live, those forces are looking for any positive news they can use to rally their hateful troops.

Had the anti-Prop 8 forces organized immediately to overturn Prop 8 via referendum, through a signature campaign that had them speaking with people all throughout California, it might well have been a better expenditure of energy and campaign funds.

According to newspaper reports I have read here in Boston, one of the things that convinced legislators in Maine to approve same-sex marriage was that they met lots of same-sex married couples from Massachusetts who, in their very "ordinariness," put to rest the notion in these legislators' heads that passing such a law would topple hetero marriage as an institution. This is a story that is repeated throughout the country. In Massachusetts, we have devout Catholic legislators who changed their mind on same-sex marriage because they met neighbor couples against whose civil rights they could then not bring themselves to vote. At the state level, legislators are typically just like regular people. Imagine the 18,000 same-sex married couples in California fanning out around the state to talk to people, calmly and rationally, while gathering signatures for a new proposition. In concert with other efforts, it could have quite an effect.

Just my two cents ... on a sad day when good friends of mine who live in California are feeling very, very low.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-27-2009
megawatty101's Avatar
megawatty101 megawatty101 is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: D.C. metro
Posts: 114
megawatty101 will become famous soon enough
Default

Anyone here from California? I'm surprised that this stuff passes.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-28-2009
smc's Avatar
smc smc is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Boston area, U.S.A.
Posts: 18,169
smc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant future
Send a message via Yahoo to smc
Default a better approach to the courts

Many of you are probably already aware that in the wake of the California Supreme Court's ruling, two of the leading constitutional lawyers in the United States have filed a suit at the federal level to challenge the legal validity of Proposition 8. What's most noteworthy may well be that it is the duo of Ted Olsen and David Boies -- who represented Bush and Gore, respectively, before the Supreme Court in the 2000 presidential election debacle!

They are seeking an injunction, on behalf of two gay California couples, to stay the law while arguing it is a violation of the equal-protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Olson, who was the Solicitor General of the United States under George W. Bush, said at a press conference that the case "is not about liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. This case is about the equal rights guaranteed to every American under the United States Constitution."

This puts Olson ahead of Obama on this question. Obama has never publicly supported same-sex marriage.

And, without a doubt, this will push the case of same-sex marriage all the way to the Supreme Court.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-28-2009
new believer's Avatar
new believer new believer is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 223
new believer will become famous soon enoughnew believer will become famous soon enough
Default

What should be a target is not to be hell bent on the term marriage.
I know of many people,straights and even a couple of gays, who are all for the 'pursuit of happiness'.
What the objection is about , is the term 'marriage'.
It has been written,ruled over and lived accordingly for centuries by just about every conceivable country that marriage is between a man and a woman.
My point being all those people I know,without a single no, have no problem with a term such as a 'civil union', made to carry all rights and privilages as 'married' couples.
So why is it so important to 'some' to demand with an in your face attitude to insist on a terminology. A FREAKIN word. If all that is wanted is to live in peace as a couple, I know of no other nation with as many laws already protecting gays. If rights and privilages are the key factor, settle for the term civil union and be happy and gay as you please. The ONLY reason I can see no compromise to terminology is to alienate those who would openly accept gays already, as long as those arrogant,I want because I want, idiots believe THEY won.
What ever happened to sticks and stones may....?
I say this with all respect to gays and their lifestyle. And I would say this to all in any lifestyle save harmful acts or against minors.
One final comment, If my wife were to pass on before I do, I would probably share a home with either or both, my brother or my best friend(male). And yes ,I would like to have them cared for as my reciprients to my estate without predudice.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-28-2009
The Conquistador's Avatar
The Conquistador The Conquistador is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: United Socialist State of California (U.S.S.C)
Posts: 1,307
The Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to behold
Send a message via MSN to The Conquistador
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by new believer View Post
What should be a target is not to be hell bent on the term marriage.
I know of many people,straights and even a couple of gays, who are all for the 'pursuit of happiness'.
What the objection is about , is the term 'marriage'.
It has been written,ruled over and lived accordingly for centuries by just about every conceivable country that marriage is between a man and a woman.
My point being all those people I know,without a single no, have no problem with a term such as a 'civil union', made to carry all rights and privilages as 'married' couples.
So why is it so important to 'some' to demand with an in your face attitude to insist on a terminology. A FREAKIN word. If all that is wanted is to live in peace as a couple, I know of no other nation with as many laws already protecting gays. If rights and privilages are the key factor, settle for the term civil union and be happy and gay as you please. The ONLY reason I can see no compromise to terminology is to alienate those who would openly accept gays already, as long as those arrogant,I want because I want, idiots believe THEY won.
What ever happened to sticks and stones may....?
I say this with all respect to gays and their lifestyle. And I would say this to all in any lifestyle save harmful acts or against minors.
One final comment, If my wife were to pass on before I do, I would probably share a home with either or both, my brother or my best friend(male). And yes ,I would like to have them cared for as my reciprients to my estate without predudice.
The reason why they are so adamant about it being a "marriage" and not a "civil union" is that the civil union does not provide for the same benefits and protections that would be awarded if it were a marriage. It's not just about terminology.
__________________
*More posts than Bionca*
[QUOTE=God(from Futurama)]Right and wrong are just words; what matters is what you do... If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope... When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-28-2009
Bionca's Avatar
Bionca Bionca is offline
Ms Tranny Manners
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Here and There, USA
Posts: 1,117
Bionca is a splendid one to beholdBionca is a splendid one to beholdBionca is a splendid one to beholdBionca is a splendid one to beholdBionca is a splendid one to beholdBionca is a splendid one to beholdBionca is a splendid one to behold
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by new believer View Post
What should be a target is not to be hell bent on the term marriage.
I know of many people,straights and even a couple of gays, who are all for the 'pursuit of happiness'.
What the objection is about , is the term 'marriage'.
It has been written,ruled over and lived accordingly for centuries by just about every conceivable country that marriage is between a man and a woman.
My point being all those people I know,without a single no, have no problem with a term such as a 'civil union', made to carry all rights and privilages as 'married' couples.
So why is it so important to 'some' to demand with an in your face attitude to insist on a terminology. A FREAKIN word. If all that is wanted is to live in peace as a couple, I know of no other nation with as many laws already protecting gays. If rights and privilages are the key factor, settle for the term civil union and be happy and gay as you please. The ONLY reason I can see no compromise to terminology is to alienate those who would openly accept gays already, as long as those arrogant,I want because I want, idiots believe THEY won.
What ever happened to sticks and stones may....?
I say this with all respect to gays and their lifestyle. And I would say this to all in any lifestyle save harmful acts or against minors.
One final comment, If my wife were to pass on before I do, I would probably share a home with either or both, my brother or my best friend(male). And yes ,I would like to have them cared for as my reciprients to my estate without predudice.
Civil Unions were only brought up as a solution after gay marriage became a realistic goal. At this point the idea of a CU isn't and hasn't been fleshed out enough to constitute anything more than diversionary tactic. Much like the tired meme that gays will sue churches for not performing a ceremony.

The word "marriage" is not monolithic, and has changed quite substantially over the centuries. In fact the early Catholic church would not allow the ceremony to be performed within a church. I don't need to get into the tried and true comparison on inter-racial relationships, women as property of their husbands, multiple-wife marriages, arranged marriages and on and on to show that the institution of marriage is not static.
__________________
- I hate being braver than the guys I date.
- Yes, it's me in the avatar
Blog: http://laughriotgirl.wordpress.com/
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-28-2009
smc's Avatar
smc smc is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Boston area, U.S.A.
Posts: 18,169
smc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant future
Send a message via Yahoo to smc
Default marriage vs. civil unions

Remember "separate but equal" as a proposed solution, embraced even by racists, who saw it as a way to resolve the legitimate demands of Black folks for their civil rights without having to relinquish white privilege?!

There's no difference between that and "civil unions but not marriage."
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-29-2009
new believer's Avatar
new believer new believer is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 223
new believer will become famous soon enoughnew believer will become famous soon enough
Default

a respectful reply to mine. Although I had thought I mentioned that with careful legislation, a civil union would be able to grant the same rights and benifits as a marriage. Unfortunately, I think faster than I type and omitted it. I did however lean into the matter a little with one of my final comments...

"One final comment, If my wife were to pass on before I do, I would probably share a home with either or both, my brother or my best friend(male). And yes ,I would like to have them cared for as my reciprients to my estate "without predudice.

Another comment I should correct is the sticks and stones, it would better be described as 'a rose by any other name would smell as sweet'

And about seperate but equal...please explain to me WHAT white privilages? The only white privilages that do exist are the ones that allow white males to shut up. And even that has limitations. I am white as most my peers, we have none, never have nor ever expect to. Some 'white privilages may have existed(as tody) but they have expanded to include ALL wealthy persons. They are the true elitist. What's good for them but not for you,Hollywood leading the pack. But now that you bring it up, does the term reverse discrimination ring a bell? Trust me it's not the Avon lady, but that's another topic for another thread,and I doubt I'll comment to that if it appears.
IF I appear a little po'd, it might be because I am also discriminated against in ways you do not or wish not to understand. But I struggle on without putting demands against innocent people minding their own business.
Yes I am a Libertarian and a Constitutionalist, but I also believe in laws, traditions and respect for others of theirs. NB
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-29-2009
smc's Avatar
smc smc is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Boston area, U.S.A.
Posts: 18,169
smc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant future
Send a message via Yahoo to smc
Default privilege

Quote:
Originally Posted by new believer View Post
And about seperate but equal...please explain to me WHAT white privilages? The only white privilages that do exist are the ones that allow white males to shut up. And even that has limitations. I am white as most my peers, we have none, never have nor ever expect to. Some 'white privilages may have existed(as tody) but they have expanded to include ALL wealthy persons. They are the true elitist. What's good for them but not for you,Hollywood leading the pack. But now that you bring it up, does the term reverse discrimination ring a bell? Trust me it's not the Avon lady, but that's another topic for another thread,and I doubt I'll comment to that if it appears.

IF I appear a little po'd, it might be because I am also discriminated against in ways you do not or wish not to understand.
A history lesson is in order here, although I suspect that any white man who so readily buys the "reverse discrimination" argument will not be of a mindset to deal with facts. (I am, by the way, a white man.)

"Separate but equal" comes from a Louisiana law, dating back to before the turn of the 20th century, that established separate public facilities and institutions for Black and white people. It was an important component of keeping non-whites "in their place" in the post-Civil War era. The "equal" part was never really adhered to, because resources were under white control and were allocated to white facilities. One need only to see a typical photograph of something as mundane as a "whites only" drinking foundation next to the fountain for "colored" to see how the allocation went. Now imagine that writ large, as in a school. Most public schools for Black students received far less per-capita funding than did their nearby white counterpart schools. And almost without exception, all other facilities and social services for Blacks were of lower quality than those for whites.

"Separate but equal" was also used in social contexts to forbid interracial marriage and underpinned every effort to keep Blacks from exercising the right to vote, by creating "equality" in the right to register to vote, but keeping things "separate" by establishing all sorts of ridiculous hurdles for "colored" registration.

Hence, white privilege. And I haven't even mentioned housing, jobs, or many other things I could bring up.

I would be happy to take on the "reverse discrimination" argument, but I agree that it is not appropriate in this thread. However, using the "separate but equal" argument, as I first raised, absolutely is appropriate. The federal lawsuit filed by Boice and Olson (see an earlier post of mine) is predicated on Proposition 8 representing a violation of the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause. Many scholars of legal history have discussed how various courts, ruling on same-sex marriage, have employed some of the same arguments as when they were asked to rule on marriage between people of different races. Much of the current debate regarding domestic partnerships and civil unions versus marriage are precisely about the "separate but equal" issue.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-30-2009
new believer's Avatar
new believer new believer is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 223
new believer will become famous soon enoughnew believer will become famous soon enough
Default

I hope this does not carry on too much longer ,we're boring the heck out if many.
Your quote...Now imagine that writ large, as in a school. Most public schools for Black students received far less per-capita funding than did their nearby white counterpart schools. And almost without exception, all other facilities and social services for Blacks were of lower quality than those for whites.

"Separate but equal" was also used in social contexts to forbid interracial marriage and underpinned every effort to keep Blacks from exercising the right to vote, by creating "equality" in the right to register to vote, but keeping things "separate" by establishing all sorts of ridiculous hurdles for "colored" registration.

Hence, white privilege. And I haven't even mentioned housing, jobs, or many other things I could bring up.

You may have been right for 1955,about 100 years ago now, but if you read stats from public records,You will find your argument over schools , benifits etc. are outdated.(that's maybe why you used past tense) I work were I come in contact at times with both 'classes' and from personal knowledge, todays social graces bend further toward 'minorities' in every aspect. Maybe that's why more 'whites' which includes gays and transgenders having to work for their wants rather than just saying "I'm not white,so you owe me" and getting more than I have to work for. Please do not try to say it's not so because in my line of work, I travel through various cities and it's the same. One more thing on school funding, All schools get truckloads of money with as much waste and disappearing goods as gov. agencies. The difference you might notice is when more 'things' are wanted in white districts,(I don't want this as a racial debate,but these are facts) then they have loads of drives/fundraisers. This is very rarely or never seen in non white districts.
The few gays I know see and live the same troubles as I. I won't harass the forum talking about reverse discrimination other than it has and does affect myself and others I know in various ways.
My apologies to the readers for this topic and it's emotional touchings. I agree 100% with SMC this is not the place to bring this up.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-30-2009
smc's Avatar
smc smc is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Boston area, U.S.A.
Posts: 18,169
smc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant future
Send a message via Yahoo to smc
Default facts vs. perception

This thread is supposed to be about Prop 8, so I won't continue this other discussion much longer. I'd like to see more discussion about the Boise/Olson federal lawsuit I wrote about earlier, how to organize the fightback against Prop 8, and so on. But you wrote something that I can't let pass without comment:

Quote:
Originally Posted by new believer View Post
I work were I come in contact at times with both 'classes' and from personal knowledge, todays social graces bend further toward 'minorities' in every aspect. Maybe that's why more 'whites' which includes gays and transgenders having to work for their wants rather than just saying "I'm not white,so you owe me" and getting more than I have to work for. Please do not try to say it's not so because in my line of work, I travel through various cities and it's the same.
I don't know what work you do, but most people in this country are discriminated against -- irrespective of their race -- by virtue of having to sell their labor for a wage. Perhaps you are part of that "class," and if so you most surely suffer at the hands of those who control the wealth.

Facts, though, have a nasty way of getting in the way of perceptions, and they are particularly pesky when they get in the way of people who, because they suffer in this society, perceive incorrectly who is to blame for that suffering. If you think it is minorities who are responsible for your station in life, you are so off base. You have no idea the discrimination they face in every aspect of their lives, every day, that you will never feel. You have no idea how many more opportunities you have to get out of your situation that they do not have, for no reason other than their skin color.

I would stand on a stage before any audience in this country, with you by my side, and debate this with facts at hand and crush your argument. You should rethink your position, my friend, and focus your wrath on the system that oppresses you as a worker, not your fellow workers -- no matter their color -- who are your natural allies in a fight against the misery our system imposes on far too many of us.

And now, let's get back to the California discussion!

Last edited by smc; 05-30-2009 at 02:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-01-2009
new believer's Avatar
new believer new believer is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 223
new believer will become famous soon enoughnew believer will become famous soon enough
Default

don't know what work you do, but most people in this country are discriminated against -- irrespective of their race -- by virtue of having to sell their labor for a wage. Perhaps you are part of that "class," and if so you most surely suffer at the hands of those who control the wealth.

Facts, though, have a nasty way of getting in the way of perceptions, and they are particularly pesky when they get in the way of people who, because they suffer in this society, perceive incorrectly who is to blame for that suffering. If you think it is minorities who are responsible for your station in life, you are so off base. You have no idea the discrimination they face in every aspect of their lives, every day, that you will never feel. You have no idea how many more opportunities you have to get out of your situation that they do not have, for no reason other than their skin color.

I would stand on a stage before any audience in this country, with you by my side, and debate this with facts at hand and crush your argument. You should rethink your position, my friend, and focus your wrath on the system that oppresses you as a worker, not your fellow workers -- no matter their color -- who are your natural allies in a fight against the misery our system imposes on far too many of us.

And now, let's get back to the California discussion!

Now your showing either ignorance or political correctness. I am not alone with having seen first hand the 'system' at work.
And with those close minded close minded statements or ideas, it's not worth my time to respond any further.
PS No I do not blame the black race at large but rather those that abuse the system and those that run the system. The ones that run it, secure their 'power' position by playing up to the ignorant and to those with their hands out for free living. The blacks who 'run' the 'community' do so with their own 'power' ,wealth and importance in mind. If you do not see that,my friend, I suggest you remove your rose coloured glasses or grow up.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-01-2009
cheersm8's Avatar
cheersm8 cheersm8 is offline
Junior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: The fens, UK
Posts: 24
cheersm8 is on a distinguished road
Default

Going on the assumption that this is a 'free' forum, where members are not bound by any rules relating to race,colour,creed, or sexual orientation, I feel that I am elegible to post a reply to the topic.

Who cares about proposition 8?

Oh dear! What a statement! Full of bigotry? Nah, not really.

Unless you,as an individual are feeling short changed in life by statutory restrictions on your desire for a same sex marriage then whether ss marriages are 'legal' or not is irrelevant. If it is not, then using this matter as an excuse to whinge and moan about 'another restriction on civil liberties' is just another statute 'picked out of a hat' to vent your spleen upon and you could do that with thousands.
I'm not a kid, and I'm not special, and I can honestly say that during the 50 plus years of my time on this planet, not one social statute or reform, good or bad, has ever had any effect on my life or how I desire to live it. However, financial related statutes and reforms, have.
Ask youself this, what difference will it make to your life, whether Bill and Fred, the gay guys next door, or Suzie and Jane, the lesbians accross the road, are married or not?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-01-2009
smc's Avatar
smc smc is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Boston area, U.S.A.
Posts: 18,169
smc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant future
Send a message via Yahoo to smc
Default precisely the point

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheersm8 View Post
Ask youself this, what difference will it make to your life, whether Bill and Fred, the gay guys next door, or Suzie and Jane, the lesbians accross the road, are married or not?
It should make only a difference to them!
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 06-01-2009
Bionca's Avatar
Bionca Bionca is offline
Ms Tranny Manners
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Here and There, USA
Posts: 1,117
Bionca is a splendid one to beholdBionca is a splendid one to beholdBionca is a splendid one to beholdBionca is a splendid one to beholdBionca is a splendid one to beholdBionca is a splendid one to beholdBionca is a splendid one to behold
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheersm8 View Post
Going on the assumption that this is a 'free' forum, where members are not bound by any rules relating to race,colour,creed, or sexual orientation, I feel that I am elegible to post a reply to the topic.

Who cares about proposition 8?

Oh dear! What a statement! Full of bigotry? Nah, not really.

Unless you,as an individual are feeling short changed in life by statutory restrictions on your desire for a same sex marriage then whether ss marriages are 'legal' or not is irrelevant. If it is not, then using this matter as an excuse to whinge and moan about 'another restriction on civil liberties' is just another statute 'picked out of a hat' to vent your spleen upon and you could do that with thousands.
I'm not a kid, and I'm not special, and I can honestly say that during the 50 plus years of my time on this planet, not one social statute or reform, good or bad, has ever had any effect on my life or how I desire to live it. However, financial related statutes and reforms, have.
Ask youself this, what difference will it make to your life, whether Bill and Fred, the gay guys next door, or Suzie and Jane, the lesbians accross the road, are married or not?
How refreshingly navel-gazingly myopic of you. Here is a new flash - Trans*women in most states are LEGALLY MALE before surgery. In some states even after. Guess what this means for those inconsequential shemales?

You know what I don't give two pints of piss about? Married (hetero) whore-mongers doin' the dirty with gals like me and then treating us like shit come voting time. Some of us would like to settle down and not have to file scads of paperwork to simulate the protections afforded by a 30 minute $30 trip to the courthouse. Those same simulations that are routinely dismissed in courts when the real bad stuff comes down.

Also, the gay guys and the lesbians are part of my greater community. Even if I could be married legally, it's a simple matter of fairness that they have the same recourse I do.

Do I think you are a bigot? Probably not. I am surprised that someone who oggles bodies like mine would be so damn clueless and/or plain flat out self-centered (I gots mine - and I'm not bothered if you gets yours).

Oh and what's up with "Unless you,as an individual are feeling short changed in life by statutory restrictions on your desire for a same sex marriage..."??? You do realize that to the general population, YOU my good man, are the faggiest fag that ever fagged in Faggsville.
__________________
- I hate being braver than the guys I date.
- Yes, it's me in the avatar
Blog: http://laughriotgirl.wordpress.com/
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-01-2009
cheersm8's Avatar
cheersm8 cheersm8 is offline
Junior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: The fens, UK
Posts: 24
cheersm8 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bionca View Post
You know what I don't give two pints of piss about? Married (hetero) whore-mongers doin' the dirty with gals like me and then treating us like shit come voting time.

You do realize that to the general population, YOU my good man, are the faggiest fag that ever fagged in Faggsville.
Thanks for the response Bionca.
I would like to take this opportunity to reflect upon two of the points that you so eloquently made.
1. a 'Married (hetero) whore monger has never in the history of mankind, ever 'done the dirty' with a 'gal like you', at least, not an honest heterosexual, maybe some that hide behind a hetrosexual facade have, but thats their problem.

2. In the UK we don't have faggots, we only have queers, benders, poofs, shirt-lifters, fudge-packers, nancies and homo's but you never really hear the expressions used because nobody in the UK gives a toss about any body elses sexual predilictions. Ok I admit that a few years ago, in the UK, the upper middle classes did used to like having a pet queer as a friend to show off to their social circle, ( well, to be honest, they liked to choose between a pet queer, a pet disabled person or a pet black person ) but even that doesn't happen any more.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-03-2009
GRH's Avatar
GRH GRH is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: New England
Posts: 532
GRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to behold
Default

I think it's an unwise course of action to push this issue towards the Supreme Court. The Court, as it now stands, is too conservative to reverse policy regarding same-sex marriage. As plausible as 14th Amendment equal protection arguments sound, they do not necessarily hold water based on legal precedence. Homosexuality does not fall under strict scrutiny as a protected status, therefore, the unequal application of the law between different classes of citizenry is not illegal. I'm not suggesting that I like things this way, but that's how the Constitution would be interpretted by the current court.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-03-2009
Kimmy_t Kimmy_t is offline
Junior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 27
Kimmy_t is on a distinguished road
Default

'Normal' people scare me.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-03-2009
CreativeMind's Avatar
CreativeMind CreativeMind is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: A place that's sunny & warm
Posts: 371
CreativeMind is a jewel in the roughCreativeMind is a jewel in the roughCreativeMind is a jewel in the roughCreativeMind is a jewel in the rough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GRH View Post
I think it's an unwise course of action to push this issue towards the Supreme Court. The Court, as it now stands, is too conservative to reverse policy regarding same-sex marriage. As plausible as 14th Amendment equal protection arguments sound, they do not necessarily hold water based on legal precedence. Homosexuality does not fall under strict scrutiny as a protected status, therefore, the unequal application of the law between different classes of citizenry is not illegal. I'm not suggesting that I like things this way, but that's how the Constitution would be interpretted by the current court.
I actually agree -- I think if this is pushed to the Supreme Court, they'll rule against it and bounce it back as a State's right issue. They'll basically NOT see this as a civil rights issue and say -- much like the California Federal Court did -- that state residents should have every legal right to amend their state constitutions as they see fit. So, for those that want to see same-sex marriage passed as much as possible, they really should let it be a state's right issue, that is continually put up to ballot initiatives, since there's a nice little momentum going in favor OF same-sex marriage right now. There's a little bit of a bounce out there. However, I think if the GLBT community tries to take this to the Federal level, it's going to backfire on them and you're going to suddenly throw a giant monkey wrench into that momentum -- not to mention, you'll now give same-sex opponents all-new legal ammunition to block things, by way of a ruling from no less than the Supreme Court itself.

Oddly enough, the OTHER problem here -- politically speaking -- is that the economy is now going to play a big part in this. Right now, far too many people feel that Obama is spending waaaaay too much in Washington and is making the government TOO big and TOO intrusive into our lives. In fact, the latest Gallup numbers show that while people basically still like Obama personally (he's at about 60%), a whopping 67% of the country -- essentially 7 out of 10 people -- now feel we're now going in the wrong direction, and 57% think things are actually getting WORSE. In short, Obama's spending too much, moving too fast, trying to take over and change too many things at once, and it's now making people a bit nervous as they stop and say "Uh, you know, I wanted change, but not THIS much change. I kind of liked some things just the way there were."

The result of this is that more and more States have now begun to adopt a new, populist, anti-big government revolt ideology, which centers on State legislatures declaring that -- since the United States is technically a Republic -- that their inherent State's rights SUPERSEDE the rights or mandates of the Federal government. In short, more and more States are starting to declare that the suits back in Washington have no right to dictate to them. After all, that's NOT how the United States was created or set up.

So again, I think if the GLBT community pushes this to the Supreme Court as a civil rights issue...and the Court then leans to the right in its ruling (which frankly is the way the court does lean) and it says, "No, this is a matter of sexuality and personal choice, so states can decide for themselves"... like I said, you're going to empower the States more than ever before and this will really drag on for another few decades, given how much time the GLBT community would have to deal with between election cycles and the requirements to put initiatives up for a vote, etc. On the other hand, if the GLBT community really gets their act together and makes a massive push for state by state constitutional changes, I think same-sex marriage will ultimately be established much quicker...
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-03-2009
CreativeMind's Avatar
CreativeMind CreativeMind is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: A place that's sunny & warm
Posts: 371
CreativeMind is a jewel in the roughCreativeMind is a jewel in the roughCreativeMind is a jewel in the roughCreativeMind is a jewel in the rough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by megawatty101 View Post
Anyone here from California? I'm surprised that this stuff passes.
Unless you live here, people don't really understand how wacky California can be politically. For example, most people see California as a die-hard "blue state" and being ultra liberal...but don't realize that up until Clinton it voted Republican continually in all Presidential elections. It went for Obama heavily in this last election, but when it was Bush versus Kerry, for example, Kerry actually struggled here. And don't forget the long line of Republican governors we've had out here...from Ronald Reagan, Pete Wilson, and now Arnold.

The state basically breaks down this way...

The north, where you have San Francisco -- very liberal.
The south, where you have San Diego -- very conservative.
So those two offset.

In the middle, you have Los Angeles -- which leans Left, but is actually moderate in terms of other voting initiatives.
So it usually goes Left, but it could go Right depending on the issue.

So that's north, middle, south -- going top to bottom.
Then, going side to side...

The coastline is Left leaning, so think of those Democratic Malibu/Hollywood voters...but then as you move inland, it starts to shift to the hot housewives of Orange county and their business-minded hubbies, so it starts to turn moderate...and then as you head even more inland and towards the Nevada border, things become very Right leaning and Republican again.

So, when you ask how could something like Prop 8 pass, it really is because California is a mixed bag that often votes emotionally and spur of the moment, depending on the issue or person. Heck, I even know gay couples that voted FOR Prop 8 -- that's right, they voting AGAINST gay marriage themselves -- simply because the issue was so emotionally charged relative to "what" gay marriage was ultimately going to mean in the state. For example, could a gay couple now sue a church for discrimination if the church said it didn't want to perform the ceremony, etc.

Frankly, same-sex marriage advocates in California -- despite having things like the Hollywood community behind them, which should have given the issue plenty of air time and "friendly faces" that people could have gotten behind -- have continually done a TERRIBLE job of selling same-sex marriage out here. So it was no big shock to me that Prop 8 actually passed the way that it did...
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06-03-2009
Bionca's Avatar
Bionca Bionca is offline
Ms Tranny Manners
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Here and There, USA
Posts: 1,117
Bionca is a splendid one to beholdBionca is a splendid one to beholdBionca is a splendid one to beholdBionca is a splendid one to beholdBionca is a splendid one to beholdBionca is a splendid one to beholdBionca is a splendid one to behold
Default

While I can agree with you that from a strategic perspective a state-by-state progression could work better. However, it fully complicates things from a contractual law point of view. States honor contracts made in a different state, otherwise interstate commerce could not happen for example. So you'd have a legally wed couple in one state suddenly not wed if they move.

There is also the issue that folks simply don't get to vote on the rights of other people. That is what "Tyranny of the Majority" is all about. Talk about breaking long-standing American Traditions.

I do agree 100% that the Anti-8 groups did an amazingly bad job of doing anything more than preach to the choir, blame blacks and Latin@s, and get (understandably) angry with Mormons.
__________________
- I hate being braver than the guys I date.
- Yes, it's me in the avatar
Blog: http://laughriotgirl.wordpress.com/
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 06-04-2009
GRH's Avatar
GRH GRH is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: New England
Posts: 532
GRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to behold
Default

It's funny that you mention interstate commerce Bionca, because I was contemplating the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. If (and only if) it could be shown that the diverse marital contracts in state to state somehow affected an interstate business' ability to successfully conduct commerce, I feel THAT would be a more effective way of attacking the marriage issue. The courts would be more prone to legislate on this cause than from an equal protection standpoint.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 06-04-2009
smc's Avatar
smc smc is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Boston area, U.S.A.
Posts: 18,169
smc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant futuresmc has a brilliant future
Send a message via Yahoo to smc
Default

All of those who doubt that the Supreme Court will see this as an Equal Protection and civil rights issue could well be right. I would simply point out a couple of things. One is that the Court could be a different one by the time the case gets there. Another is that to send it back to the states the Court would have to state explicitly that it is not a civil rights issue. Given how quickly public opinion seems to be shifting (Iowa being a good example, and leaving California aside, where the ballot proposition process was terribly manipulated by money), a Court ruling of this sort could help galvanize a new civil rights movement with wider appeal than we can imagine at present.

I can dream, right?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
California Guy Seeking A Shemale TluverCaliguy TS Dating and Cam-to-Cam 1 08-18-2012 03:33 AM
TG, Shemales in the central vally California? fbnuser TS Dating and Cam-to-Cam 3 01-03-2010 04:56 PM
Any TS or CD in southern california? masterkris1003 TS Dating and Cam-to-Cam 1 08-31-2009 06:08 PM
looking for t-girl in southern california joeurgod TS Dating and Cam-to-Cam 0 04-14-2009 10:12 PM
Guy from tri state area looking for TG date. rick_2686 TS Dating and Cam-to-Cam 2 01-03-2009 06:53 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright © Trans Ladyboy