Another Disappointment Brought To You By The State Of California...

[smc]

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."

[new believer]

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

[smc]

Originally Posted by new believer

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.

[new believer]

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.

[smc]

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:

Originally Posted by new believer

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!

[new believer]

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.

[cheersm8]

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?