Susan's Place Transgender Resources

QuoteWednesday morning at 10am Eastern may be the most important day in gay civil rights history, perhaps on a par with the Stonewall Riots of 1969.

On Wednesday, June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court may rule on the constitutionality of both the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA prohibits the federal government from providing benefits to legally married gay couples, among  other things) and California's Proposition 8 (which repealed the state's gay marriage law).

theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/06/supreme-court-rule-doma-prop-8/66573/

CSpan will be covering this LIVE

"" Governments have notoriously written laws that segregated people whether by race, gender or sexual orientation. This practice was common from the time of slavery until the policy was replaced with affirmative action and forced association in private affairs, thus substituting one set of violations of individual rights with another. Voluntary associations are better "".

source: quotes from "Liberty Defined" (http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/Liberty_Defined_Civil_Rights.htm) ( the implications for TS relationship should be obvious )

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/news/supreme-court-strikes-down-doma-140330141.html (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/news/supreme-court-strikes-down-doma-140330141.html)

Yea!! It's OFFICIAL !! Traditional notions of marriage is DEAD, federal DOMA has been struck down as unconstitutional !!! California will legalize same-sex marriage which means it will be a lot easier for everybody!!

In my opinion divorce law and it's abuses, VAWA and feminism have already effectively destroyed 'one-man' 'one-woman' conventional marriage so a new, more healthy 're-definition' is long overdue and Welcome!!

If same-sex marriage increases foster and child adoption perhaps, just maybe, we can cut down on all the issues associated with 'one-man one-woman' abortion as well.

This is very good news! :)

And state-based legalization - or illegalization - of same-sex marriage remains. At least until the next Court decides it's a federal right and that states' decisions on this only matter if they're the right decisions...


I am curious what kind of precedent this sets - if any state may make things - any sort of things? - a right, and the Federal Gov't has no right to overturn that state-based legalization... Well, it opens the door to some interesting ideas. Could a state establish a communist economy? A right to medical care? A right to keep all money earned without paying taxes?

Hooray! 

Quote from: ZoeM on June 26, 2013, 10:03:14 AM
And state-based legalization - or illegalization - of same-sex marriage remains. At least until the next Court decides it's a federal right and that states' decisions on this only matter if they're the right decisions...


I am curious what kind of precedent this sets - if any state may make things - any sort of things? - a right, and the Federal Gov't has no right to overturn that state-based legalization... Well, it opens the door to some interesting ideas. Could a state establish a communist economy? A right to medical care? A right to keep all money earned without paying taxes?

If a state passes unconstitutional legislation, yes the Supreme Court has the right to overturn it.  Remember Popular Sovereignty?  States would have their citizens choose the direction of their path by voting whether to be a slave state or not.  Just because it's voted on by the public doesn't make it right.  A communist economy would not be upheld because it takes away the rights of their citizens and could be easily argued.  Doma and prop 8 did the opposite.  Allowing gay people to get married will not destroy your world.  Relax.  Continue your moral obligation against this, it's your right, but don't make others follow the same standard.  We are a nation of laws, not religious dictates and personal morality.

Quote from: learningtolive on June 26, 2013, 10:22:21 AM
Allowing gay people to get married will not destroy your world.  Relax.  Continue your moral obligation against this, it's your right, but don't make others follow the same standard.  We are a nation of laws, not religious dictates and personal morality.

I'm going to agree with learningtolive.  It's not like gay marriages are now mandatory :P

Tis a good day. Yay!  ;D

The times they are a'changing! Hooray Hooray Hooray. First the repeal of DADT now this! And yesterday the Pentagon said gays openly serving helps national security. I was in the army, though not for very long for medical reasons, and I love this country and it's great to know the brass supports this. Tangent sorry.

YAY!!!!

I'm torn between if I want to jump up and down and cheer like a maniac out of how happy I am about today's decisions . . . or if I want to scream in frustration that they don't do enough. It's a turning point, but I'm well aware there's still work to do.

I hope this means that this turning point brings about the end of discrimination in all states who don't allow marriage equality.

I hope this means soon it will be illegal for people to discriminate when highering and firing people based on sexuality and gender expression.

I hope this means housing equality will soon be adressed.

I hope soon that society changes so that it becomes taboo for people to judge others for being themselves or snicker at people for who they love.

The work isn't done, and there's still so much to do.

But at the same time . . . this is really good news!

Quote from: AmyBosch on June 26, 2013, 02:22:36 PM
I'm torn between if I want to jump up and down and cheer like a maniac out of how happy I am about today's decisions . . . or if I want to scream in frustration that they don't do enough. It's a turning point, but I'm well aware there's still work to do.

I hope this means that this turning point brings about the end of discrimination in all states who don't allow marriage equality.

I hope this means soon it will be illegal for people to discriminate when highering and firing people based on sexuality and gender expression.

I hope this means housing equality will soon be adressed.

I hope soon that society changes so that it becomes taboo for people to judge others for being themselves or snicker at people for who they love.

The work isn't done, and there's still so much to do.

But at the same time . . . this is really good news!

The Door has been cracked open now though and this will help push it farther open on the state level. 

We live in a Democratic REPUBLIC  .. NOT  a democracy.   simply what that means for some who think that majority rule thru voting is how it should work are misstaken.   In a Democratic Republic the rights of EACH individual are protected so that  no one group of people can take away from a smaller group.   99% of the people can wont or believe something but in this Rebublic they cannot take away the rights of that 1%.    Today is not the end of the war, it is a few battles won. 

Yay! I almost hit a tree when I heard the news on the radio  :D

Quote from: LearnedHand on June 26, 2013, 03:36:29 PM
Yay! I almost hit a tree when I heard the news on the radio  :D

LOL  I was screaming and jumping around so much my Mom thought my kid brought a snake into the house!! ...  they totally FrEaK me OUT!!!

This is a good day for equality.

Quote from: ZoeM on June 26, 2013, 10:03:14 AM
And state-based legalization - or illegalization - of same-sex marriage remains. At least until the next Court decides it's a federal right and that states' decisions on this only matter if they're the right decisions...


I am curious what kind of precedent this sets - if any state may make things - any sort of things? - a right, and the Federal Gov't has no right to overturn that state-based legalization... Well, it opens the door to some interesting ideas. Could a state establish a communist economy? A right to medical care? A right to keep all money earned without paying taxes?

That is the essence of federalism.  The federal government deals with issues in it limited responsibility; whereas the states, and the people have control (in theory) of everything else.

Communist economy - yes.  Medical care - yes.  No state taxes - yes.

The Supremacy Clause means the Federal laws trump State laws when there is a conflict.  The Framers of the Constitution envisioned the States as being semi-autonomous and laboratories for experimentation.

Quote from: ZoeM on June 26, 2013, 10:03:14 AM
And state-based legalization - or illegalization - of same-sex marriage remains. At least until the next Court decides it's a federal right and that states' decisions on this only matter if they're the right decisions...


I am curious what kind of precedent this sets - if any state may make things - any sort of things? - a right, and the Federal Gov't has no right to overturn that state-based legalization... Well, it opens the door to some interesting ideas. Could a state establish a communist economy? A right to medical care? A right to keep all money earned without paying taxes?

Quote from: Jamie D on June 26, 2013, 05:22:20 PM
That is the essence of federalism.  The federal government deals with issues in it limited responsibility; whereas the states, and the people have control (in theory) of everything else.

Communist economy - yes.  Medical care - yes.  No state taxes - yes.

The Supremacy Clause means the Federal laws trump State laws when there is a conflict.  The Framers of the Constitution envisioned the States as being semi-autonomous and laboratories for experimentation.

I agree with Jamie above. The prop 8 case didn't quite enshrine state-based discrimination, it just said there was no standing for some of the parties in that particular case. Usually, states follow (eventually) laws/standards set by the US Supreme Court. That's how it all really began with desegregation, then things started applying to the states via the 14th Amendment. I think it'll only be a matter of time before all US states have same-sex marriage, whether they come around on their own or there's another case that makes it apply to the states as well. Part of the way the US Supreme Court works is that there's only so much they can push in the way of progress without loosing the trust of the people (that's what seems to have been there theory since they were created at least), if the country doesn't seem ready for something, they'll often find a way to hold back or create some sort of compromise, they'll often be a well-written and passionate dissenting opinion which will often become the basis for the opinion when the majority opinion is eventually overruled.

I haven't read the opinions yet, but I plan to. (Remember our predictions Jamie? I need to see how close we came  :) )

Find the topic!

Quote from: Jamie D on June 26, 2013, 11:43:43 PM
Find the topic!

Here it is: https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,138070.msg1113112.html#msg1113112 (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,138070.msg1113112.html#msg1113112)

I plan on reading the decisions tonight when I get back from work, but so far Jamie was right about the standing issues, I was wrong about them not wiggling out of the prop 8 case.  :)

The issues surrounding the initiative process remain.  It was a progressive reform designed to let the people propose and enact laws through the ballot, bypassing intransigent legislators and state bureaucrats.  However, if someone challenges the validity of the Proposition in Court, and the State officials who were bypassed in the process refuse to defend it, who then represents the People?

Quote from: Jamie D on June 27, 2013, 02:00:16 PM
The issues surrounding the initiative process remain.  It was a progressive reform designed to let the people propose and enact laws through the ballot, bypassing intransigent legislators and state bureaucrats.  However, if someone challenges the validity of the Proposition in Court, and the State officials who were bypassed in the process refuse to defend it, who then represents the People?

Again.....  We live in a Democratic REPUBLIC  .. NOT  a democracy.   simply what that means for some who think that majority rule thru voting is how it should work are misstaken.   In a Democratic Republic the rights of EACH individual are protected so that  no one group of people can take away from a smaller group.   99% of the people can wont or believe something but in this Rebublic they cannot take away the rights of that 1%

The 'majority' cannot take away the rights of another.  Lower courts ruled that Prop 8 was unconstitutional, The US Supreme Court determined that the anti SSM group had no cause to appeal the lower court because they, themselves, were not harmed in anyway by the judgment against Prop 8.   California did not fight the lower court or take part in the Supreme Court challenge because they, agree that Prop 8 did violate peoples civil rights.     

Theology has no weight and should not have any in making laws.   One can believe what 'they' wont in reguards to morality or 'approved' actions, they do not however have any right to force that belief system on someone else.    Gay marriage does not cause any PHYSICAL or TANGIBLE harm to anyone.   

With what I've read spewing out of 'christians' mouths lately  I'm reminded of the absolute intolerance of another 'group'.      ..and before this goes down the ..  what next gods, cars, cat..

It's simple.

X=woman; Y=man

Human men and women are equal in the eyes of the law. X=Y.

X+Y = Marriage.

Transitive property: X+Y = Y+Y = X+X. If you disagree, then you believe that a man and a woman are not equal (X≠Y).

For those afraid that following this will allow people to marry animals:

C=a dog. D=a cat. Neither C nor D is treated as an equal to a human man or woman in the eyes of the law. C≠X. C≠Y. D≠X. D≠Y. Therefore, X+C≠Marriage. Y+C≠Marriage. X+D≠Marriage. D+C≠Marriage, etc.

Likewise, polygamy is also not allowed . X+X+Y≠X+Y. X+X+X≠X+X, etc.

This sets aside any arguments based on "religion" or "tradition." It only requires a belief in equality.

Quote from: ZoeM on June 26, 2013, 10:03:14 AM
And state-based legalization - or illegalization - of same-sex marriage remains. At least until the next Court decides it's a federal right and that states' decisions on this only matter if they're the right decisions...


I am curious what kind of precedent this sets - if any state may make things - any sort of things? - a right, and the Federal Gov't has no right to overturn that state-based legalization... Well, it opens the door to some interesting ideas. Could a state establish a communist economy? A right to medical care? A right to keep all money earned without paying taxes?

The IRS should be abolished. It wasn't always like this. Federal taxes were collected only in the event of war. In 1913, it became law. It's another way to fleece working folk.

Well, two days late but should 'ave guessed this was coming . . .

Quote from: Gay marriage truther? ( democraticunderground.com/10023113911#post1 )Long before the Supreme Court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act, conspiracy broadcaster Alex Jones was warning his viewers that the government was turning people gay by putting chemicals in their juice boxes, water bottles and potato chip bags that feminized men.

"The reason there are so many gay people now is because it's a chemical warfare operation," Jones said in a June 2010 clip that has gained renewed attention since the DOMA ruling.

lol read comments: 'Dip->-bleeped-<- doesn't understand BPA'

Alex Jones, my FAV Infowarrior, interviews pharmacist Ben Fuchs ( of Dr. Joel Wallach fame ) on Friday daily show which can be seen on youtube ( youtube.com/watch?v=iCwndBRNba4 ) starting about 01hr25min . . .

LOLROTFPMS


..Surprised they didn't blame HARP as well... sad  sad  sad....  LOL

Gotta see this!! LOL Alex is 'live doodling' with arrows while Fuchs is talking (i'm watching delayed) . . .

From ground -> vegetable -> 'stick pic of guy eating' -> "stick pic of dressed girl" (LOL to demonstrate 'natural progression' )

Gotta LOVE  the PRIDE HEART above it to the left ...snorts..  O.O  OMG.. blushes.

Quote from: Lorri Kat on June 27, 2013, 02:36:49 PM
Again.....  We live in a Democratic REPUBLIC  .. NOT  a democracy.   simply what that means for some who think that majority rule thru voting is how it should work are misstaken.   In a Democratic Republic the rights of EACH individual are protected so that  no one group of people can take away from a smaller group.   99% of the people can wont or believe something but in this Rebublic they cannot take away the rights of that 1%

The 'majority' cannot take away the rights of another.  Lower courts ruled that Prop 8 was unconstitutional, The US Supreme Court determined that the anti SSM group had no cause to appeal the lower court because they, themselves, were not harmed in anyway by the judgment against Prop 8.   California did not fight the lower court or take part in the Supreme Court challenge because they, agree that Prop 8 did violate peoples civil rights.     

Theology has no weight and should not have any in making laws.   One can believe what 'they' wont in reguards to morality or 'approved' actions, they do not however have any right to force that belief system on someone else.    Gay marriage does not cause any PHYSICAL or TANGIBLE harm to anyone.   

With what I've read spewing out of 'christians' mouths lately  I'm reminded of the absolute intolerance of another 'group'.      ..and before this goes down the ..  what next gods, cars, cat..

It's simple.

X=woman; Y=man

Human men and women are equal in the eyes of the law. X=Y.

X+Y = Marriage.

Transitive property: X+Y = Y+Y = X+X. If you disagree, then you believe that a man and a woman are not equal (X≠Y).

For those afraid that following this will allow people to marry animals:

C=a dog. D=a cat. Neither C nor D is treated as an equal to a human man or woman in the eyes of the law. C≠X. C≠Y. D≠X. D≠Y. Therefore, X+C≠Marriage. Y+C≠Marriage. X+D≠Marriage. D+C≠Marriage, etc.

Likewise, polygamy is also not allowed . X+X+Y≠X+Y. X+X+X≠X+X, etc.

This sets aside any arguments based on "religion" or "tradition." It only requires a belief in equality.

True Lorri, but the initiative is a permissible form of direct democracy.  It is, essentially, populism in action.  And political majorities can, have, and do limit the rights of political minorities; such rights that are not otherwise protected by constitutional guarantees.

In Federalist #10, Madison discussed the concept of majority rule versus minority rights.  Madison, and most of the other Framers of the Constitution, realized that an obstructionist minority nearly caused the collapse of the United States under the Articles of the Confederation.  Majoritarian rule is a bedrock principle of this country.

"James Madison, in Federalist No. 10 advocates a constitutional republic over direct democracy precisely to protect the individual from the will of the majority. He says,


Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.
[...]
[A] pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."



"it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction."



"A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking"

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm)

We shall disagree on majoritarian being the bedrock.   A Representative form of governance is what I see  most sought for.   

Direct democracy is a perversion of our system that started around the turn of the 20th century. 

As initiatives, propositions, and referenda exist only on a State and local level, there is no Federal question.  Virtually every state has provisions for putting initiatives to a popular vote of their citizens; the only differences being whether a proposition can be submitted from the people, by way of petition, or just from the state legislature.

Quote from: Jamie D on June 29, 2013, 01:34:37 AM
As initiatives, propositions, and referenda exist only on a State and local level, there is no Federal question.  Virtually every state has provisions for putting initiatives to a popular vote of their citizens; the only differences being whether a proposition can be submitted from the people, by way of petition, or just from the state legislature.

Correct.... sorta..   24 states allow direct initiatives.  Those initiatives must still not violate someones civil rights acording to Federal, State and Local laws.  Unconstitutional laws have no weight and cannot be enforced.  We are having more of a  Cortland vs. Paula Red then strictly an apple vs. orange issue.    I don't expect either one of us will change our position.   :)

Woot! Congrats on this achievement!

THis is great for us in general, but I don't think I can say that this is great on an individual level.
I don't understand much about politics, it was always something I refused to pay attention to.
However, it seels like a lot of people are getting upset about all of this...My state already legalized gay marriage, but now that the Supreme Court made it constitutional, we've been having nonstop murders.

Not to mention that my dad says that all the Gay and Transgender people being murdered deserve it, because we legalized sopmething so "evil."

I hope I'm making sense, I usually don't.

I'm just concerned for what's in store for us. Humankinds is not always nice, as you know. We can't really expect them to do good...

Quote from: VenomGaia on June 29, 2013, 11:58:04 PM
THis is great for us in general, but I don't think I can say that this is great on an individual level.
I don't understand much about politics, it was always something I refused to pay attention to.
However, it seems like a lot of people are getting upset about all of this...My state already legalized gay marriage, but now that the Supreme Court made it constitutional, we've been having nonstop murders.

Not to mention that my dad says that all the Gay and Transgender people being murdered deserve it, because we legalized something so "evil."

I hope I'm making sense, I usually don't.

I'm just concerned for what's in store for us. Humankind is not always nice, as you know. We can't really expect them to do good...

It is a shame that people like your dad hold those views.  It is nothing new though.  "Different" is scary to some people.

Quote from: Jamie D on June 27, 2013, 02:00:16 PM
However, if someone challenges the validity of the Proposition in Court, and the State officials who were bypassed in the process refuse to defend it, who then represents the People?

Weren't those state officials elected by the people?

"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)."

- Ayn Rand

Quote from: suzifrommd on June 30, 2013, 09:18:53 AM
Weren't those state officials elected by the people?

Yes they were.  And they failed in their responsibilities.  That is the purpose of the initiative process - to bypass the legislature and the bureaucracy when it is unable to govern.

Remember, I am talking about the process, rather than the issue.  Because what is good for the goose, is good for the gander.  And if legislating, or momentous decisions concerning public policy, was left to the courts, tyranny would be the result.

This is why US Supreme Court decisions such as Dred Scott, Plessy, and Roe v Wade are roundly criticized and viewed by many as significant mistakes.