The decision by Judge Walker, which has provoked very strong reaction on both sides of the political divide, struck down the proposition as a violation of federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process.
“Proposition 8 cannot survive any level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause,” wrote Mr. Walker. “Excluding same-sex couples from marriage is simply not rationally related to a legitimate state interest.”
The next question will be answered today, as we will find out whether gays can once again marry. Once again on the front line will be Yolo County Clerk Freddie Oakley, an outspoken proponent of same-sex marriage.
Ms. Oakley has for several years now had protests on Valentine’s Day, where she has offered certificates of inequality to same-sex couples who have sought to legally wed. She then performed dozens of marriages during the five month window of legality in 2008.
The Vanguard spoke to Freddie Oakley on Wednesday and she said she is ready to go if she gets the go-ahead.
“If we’re permitted to conduct weddings then I’ll do them just as soon as people ask me to do them. And it will be a pleasure,” said the County Clerk.
“We’re very fortunate that the attorney in the county counsel’s office has the same view about this kind of stuff that I do. So she’s been really on the ball checking with the Judicial Counsel and all of those kinds of people about what the situation is,” she continued.
Last Friday, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger filed a court request to allow same-sex marriages be allowed to resume immediately.
“The Administration believes the public interest is best served by permitting the Court’s judgment to go into effect, thereby restoring the right of same-sex couples to marry in California,” wrote Kenneth C. Mennemeier, an attorney representing Schwarzenegger, in the brief.
“Doing so is consistent with California’s long history of treating all people and their relationships with equal dignity and respect,” the brief says.
Attorney General and Democratic Party candidate for governor, Jerry Brown, filed a similar brief.
Freddie Oakley said Wednesday that the ruling did not surprise her, but the strength and clarity of it did. Because of the way the trial had gone, I wasn’t terribly surprised at the verdict,” she said.
“What I was surprised by were elements of the decision,” Ms. Oakley continued. “He was very careful to craft a decision that was really comprehensive and addresses the major issues in a very thoughtful and firm kind of way. He did not leave any wiggle room in his decision for alternate points of view.”
“For instance, he didn’t say ‘well though there’s a colorable interest in traditional marriage values, blah blah blah, still I find that…'” she explained. “What he said was, there’s no state interest in limiting marriages. I really appreciate that. He didn’t try to cover his own backside in any way.”
“He obviously stepped up and decided whatever flak he has to take, as a public servant, for his decision, he’s willing to take it in order to make it as strong and clear a decision as he could, and I really appreciate that,” she concluded.
The question now is how long it will take before it gets to the Supreme Court. Most analysts believe that, depending on the make up of the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy will have the ultimate decision on the legality of a ban on same-sex marriage.
For activists and those who believe they have a constitutional right to equal protection under the law, the waiting will be the most difficult party.
“It’s so hard, it’s my understanding that now it has to go to the Ninth Circuit which I think will uphold it just because it’s the Ninth Circuit and they are the way they are,” said Freddie Oakley. “But you know if it goes to this United States Supreme Court I don’t know what to think. Because really, conservatives like to belabor the point about judicial activism and say that every liberal judge is an activist judge. But I think this conservative court is just about as activist as it gets.”
Ms. Oakley continued, “So I’m not the least bit confident that this court isn’t capable of finding a way to overturn this thing.”
When asked if her office has gotten marriage inquiries already, Ms. Oakley replied, “Only a couple. Only a few. And none of them have been hostile. I mean, no one has called up and said, ‘why won’t you marry me today?!'”
“So I’m grateful for that, I’m grateful the community of interest, the folks who want to see equal rights in marriage, understand that I’m not a person to attack,” she continued.
“I think it’s going to be a long drawn-out process,” she said. “These things are just, once you get the court, you are in tomorrow -and for a long time. I would love to see it all resolved in a hurry and just get back to having equal rights and doing my job in a way that isn’t embarrassing.”
“I despise it,” she said passionately, “this idea that somehow I’m a bus driver in Birmingham in 1954 and I’m telling people to step to the rear of the bus. It’s a horrible, horrible thing to do. So I’ll be glad when I don’t have to do that anymore.”
For same-sex couple it has already been a long fight and that fight is far from over, even as it takes on a new venue in the court system. I still believe, regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision, it is only a matter of time and demographics before same-sex marriage becomes a fact. Opponents are simply running out of time. To the younger generations, my age and younger, this is a non-issue even among more conservative members of that generation.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
In all of my dealings with Freddie she has been incredibly professional and responsive.
Consider: IF (as Walker has ruled) ‘marriage’ is a civil right, AND ‘marriage’ is to be defined by an individual person, the 25 yr. old woman who seeks recognition of her special union with a married couple can now fle a similar cause of action. Records will show that polygamy has much more traditional or historical support than any notion of “homosexual marriage.”
The discriminee now finds herself similarly situated in a disadvantaged state. As a plaintiff she may say that her participation in her 3-way relationship offers her no legal status as a married person, affords her no tax benefits, and leaves her in an inferior state. Moreover, she can assert that she has no claims on the children, for whom she cares, in that ‘marriage’ relationship. In that in the minds of Ted Olsen, David Boies, and Walker, marriage and family have now become entirely about the rights of the adults, she can equally assert that she is a 2nd-class citizen.
She can also clain that she is not the only one to wish to define marriage in her own special way, for it’s all about ‘love.’ The petitioner will find support in Texas, Arizona, and Utah, where polygamist communities in various traditions should embrace her posture.
judge Vaughn Walker pounced on an individualistic theory of marriage rights (a career move — as 1 of 2 apparently openly homosexual federal judges). The female may prudently cite a specific part of Walker’s opinion. He in all capital letters, wrote: “A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW THAT SAME-SEX COUPLES ARE INFERIOR TO OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR LEGISLATION.”
Since marriage is a ‘civil right,’ and it is to be defined by each person, who is to say that polygamy is wrong? If Walker really means what he wrote about morals the plaintiff will cite his all caps statement.
“Since marriage is a ‘civil right,’ and it is to be defined by each person, who is to say that polygamy is wrong?”
You are worrying about something that will never happen – like worrying that Air will suddently turn into Fire.
Freddie Oakley doesn’t have a very firm grasp on the law. Judge Walker invalidated a proposition approved by the voters — that’s activist, right? Freddie Oakley said the 9th Circuit will probably uphold that invalidation — still activist, right?
But then Freddie Oakley said, “conservatives like to belabor the point about judicial activism and say that every liberal judge is an activist judge. But I think this conservative court is just about as activist as it gets, [so the conservative Supreme Court might overrule the 9th Circuit and restore Prop 8].”
That’s not activist. That’s the OPPOSITE of activism. But to Freddie Oakley, judicial “activism” apparently means “whatever Freddie Oakley hates.”
[i]”Consider: IF (as Walker has ruled) ‘marriage’ is a civil right, AND ‘marriage’ is to be defined by an individual person, the 25 yr. old woman who seeks recognition of her special union with a married couple can now fle a similar cause of action.”[/i]
[b]BUT[/b] that is [b]NOT[/b] what Judge Walker [b]RULED[/b].
Walker based his decision on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, whereby if adult Person A (Adam) is allowed to marry unrelated adult Person B (Betty), then adult Person C (Craig) would be denied equal protection under the Constitution if a law forbade him to marry unrelated adult Person D (Doug).
Your conclusion that Walker’s ruling invites bigamous marriage is false, because no one — Adam, Betty, Craig or Doug — has the lawful right now to engage in a plural marriage. As such, everyone with respect to polygamous unions is being treated equally under the law.
But with regard to monogamous marriage, only male-female partnerships are allowed by law. And Walker concluded that inherently fails to provide equal protection to male-male and female-female couples.
According to Conservapedia: [quote] Judicial activism is when courts do not confine themselves to reasonable interpretations of laws, but instead create law*. Alternatively, judicial activism is when courts do not limit their ruling to the dispute before them, but instead establish a new rule to apply broadly to issues not presented in the specific action. “Judicial activism” is when judges substitute their own political opinions for the applicable law, or when judges act like a legislature (legislating from the bench) rather than like a traditional court. In so doing, the court takes for itself the powers of Congress, rather than limiting itself to the powers traditionally given to the judiciary. [/quote] In that Judge Walker (who was a Republican appointee, for what it’s worth) struck down Prop 8 based on the 14th Amendment, it would seem to fail the Conservapedia definition of “judicial activism.”
DAN: [i]”Freddie Oakley doesn’t have a very firm grasp on the law. Judge Walker invalidated a proposition approved by the voters — that’s activist, right?”[/i]
Again, it is not activism according to the conservative view of activism. Rather, it is right in line with the Supreme Court’s recent ruling which struck down the federal campaign finance restrictions and regulations, deciding that the federal law (passed by Congress and signed into law by President GW Bush) violated constitutional guarantees of free speech.
As to Freddie’s quote, I think her usage of the term “judicial activism on the right” means just that she does not agree with the decisions. (I suspect many people on the right are equally imprecise with the term activism. That is, if they disagree with a decision, they will call it activism, whether it meets the definition or not.) I don’t think Freddie is concerned about activism, per se; she is concerned with the outcome of court decisions. But in this Walker case, where I’m sure Freddie is happy with the ruling, it is nonetheless not a case of activism.
*A good example of a judge creating law is the 1985 ruling in Missouri vs. Jenkins ([url]http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.html[/url]), where a judge decided that the Kansas City schools were segregated due to funding inequalities and his remedy was to take over the funding of all schools in the Kansas City district and essentially run the school system from the bench. Never mind that the millions of extra dollars poured into the inner-city school system failed to bring about the results that judge wanted. It’s hard to argue that his legislating from the bench was anything but judicial activism.
“But I think this conservative court is just about as activist as it gets.”
How so?
Ban Lifted
Marriages resume on August 18, subject to any appeals in the meantime.
Primoris: “(a career move — as 1 of 2 apparently openly homosexual federal judges).”
You realize there is no actual evidence one way or another that Judge Walker is “openly homosexual?”
[quote]You are worrying about something that will never happen – like worrying that Air will suddently turn into Fire. [/quote]
Ala Obama’s statements re: a brown family having to worry when getting ice cream, that kind of worry?
At any rate, Alphonso, what I’d like to suggest to you do is think about the applicable legal arguments and principles. There’s no attempt to prognosticate that this would happen on 8-13-10.
Walker says the only motivations behind Prop 8 had been “biases” and “moral disapproval,” and that “moral disapproval… has never been a rational basis for legislation.”
Alphonso, legally speaking, in your opinion, what is the foundation for laws against polygamy and incest? What about the Mann Act [prevented a man from taking his girlfriend across the state line to a motel]? What of prohibiting prostitution (an exchange of $ for sexual favors) if NOT “moral disapproval?”
What the judge said in the opinion is that the majority cannot define morality, and, even if it does, it cannot impose it. Does that render the majority as defenseless against what it believes to be “moral decadence?”
Sorry, but not even a ‘judge’ can change the meaning of words. In every language known to man, marriage is defined as a union of a man and a woman.
Don, this is what the SF Chron reported last February ([url]http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-02-07/bay-area/17848482_1_same-sex-marriage-sexual-orientation-judge-walker[/url]): [quote]The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, [b]Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay.[/b]
Many gay politicians in San Francisco and lawyers who have had dealings with Walker say the 65-year-old jurist, appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush in 1989, has never taken pains to disguise – or advertise – his orientation.
[/quote]
Don Shor: http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-02-07/bay-area/17848482_1_same-sex-marriage-sexual-orientation-judge-walker
You make the call…
What the judge said in the opinion is that the majority cannot define morality, and, even if it does, it cannot impose it. Does that render the majority as defenseless against what it believes to be “moral decadence?”
Do you think the majority has the right to define morality?
It seems that what is more clearly accepted as racism today was morally acceptable 100 years ago.
Primoris and Rich: I am aware that many news stories have reported second-hand comments by people who believe Judge Walker is gay. He has never confirmed or denied it. Thus he is not “openly homosexual,” to use Primoris’es phrase.
“Sorry, but not even a ‘judge’ can change the meaning of words. In every language known to man, marriage is defined as a union of a man and a woman.”
I have a number of dictionaries. I have to admit the oldest one does include Man and Woman in the definition.
However, my 2002 Webster’s Coolegiate Dictionary says this about Marriage
1. The act of marrying or state of being married
2. A wedding
3. Any close union
There is nothing about Man and Woman. So obviously you need a more modern dictionary!
RR: Walker’s ruling does not indicate that “marriage is a civil right?”
Oh, my bad…
At least some believe that Vaughn Walker is a true visionary. He peered at the 14th Amendment, and found something there the authors of the amendment never knew they put there, and even the Warren Court never found there: The states of the Union must recognize same-sex marriages as equal to traditional marriage.
I see, Walker simply replaced one moral view with his own (insisting that CA’s is mandated to treat its citizens equally, not to “mandate [its] own moral code.”
What do you believe?
[quote]But with regard to monogamous marriage, only male-female partnerships are allowed by law. And Walker concluded that inherently fails to provide equal protection to male-male and female-female couples. [/quote]
Actually Walker opined that gender does not matter…
Primoris: “But not even a judge can change the meaning of words. In every language known to man, marriage is defined as a union of a man and a woman.”
Pat Buchanan: “But not even a judge can change the meaning of words. In every language known to man, marriage is defined as a union of a man and a woman.”
Probably if you’re going to lift things verbatim, you ought to give credit.
[url]http://www.theamericancause.org/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=670&cntnt01returnid=15[/url]
Primoris: “He peered at the 14th Amendment, Walker found something there the authors of the amendment never knew they put there, and even the Warren Court never found there: The states of the Union must recognize same-sex marriages as equal to traditional marriage.”
Pat Buchanan: “Peering at the 14th Amendment, Walker found something there the authors of the amendment never knew they put there, and even the Warren Court never found there: The states of the Union must recognize same-sex marriages as equal to traditional marriage.”
Again.
I believe another part of this case was that the anti-gay marriage side failed to provide any compelling evidence that gay marriage was harmful. However in the case of polygamy I do not think it would be difficult to find reasonable experts who could testify that polygamy has a number of potential harmful impacts on society. For example, its often claimed women in polygamous relations are essentially exploited.
In addition, while polygamy benefits some men (assuming polygamy not polygyny, though the argument works in either case) it clearly reduces the number of wives for other men. This is a recipe for social instability in my opinion. In contrast, gay marriage should promote social stability.
So, in addition to the point Rich makes above, I don’t think this case opens the door for polygamy at all. Its just another bogus argument, similar to arguing that this ruling opens the door for bestiality.
[b]PRIM:[/b] [i]Walker says the only motivations behind Prop 8 had been “biases” and “moral disapproval,” and that “moral disapproval… has never been a rational basis for legislation.” [/i]
The key word is “only.” Walker did not say that “moral disapproval” could not be a basis for legislation. Rather, he said it is not rational if there is no other basis. And because the proponents of Prop 8 made no persuasive arguments that they had any other rationale to oppose gay marriage, it was in effect their only basis for favoring that law. That said, he did not overturn Prop 8 because it was based solely on ‘moral disapproval.’ He overturned it because it violates the 14th Amendment in his opinion.
[b]PRIM:[/b] [i]”What of prohibiting prostitution (an exchange of $ for sexual favors) if NOT ‘moral disapproval?'”[/i]
Certainly ‘moral disapproval’ is one basis for such laws. But there are others, including the creation of a public nuissance and the protection of public health by way of limiting the spread of venereal disease. Insofar as street-walking or even a brothel creates a public nuissance, a basis could also be to protect the property interests of neighbors who would be harmed by that usage. As such, the prohibition does not equate with the ban on gay marriage, which has no rational basis.
[b]PRIM:[/b] [i]”What is the foundation for laws against polygamy and incest?”[/i]
The basis for anti-incest laws stems from the creation of genetically effed up offspring.
As to polygamy, clearly moral disapproval is one basis. I frankly don’t know of any other basis, as long as all the parties to the ‘plural marriage’ are consenting adults.
But Walker’s reasoning would not lead to the overturning of anti-polygamy laws, unless one form of polygamy–say, one man and multiple women–were allowed, but another kind–say one woman and multiple men–were outlawed. That would violate the equal protection clause.
A realistic problem with polygamists–the so-called Mormon Fundamentalists in particular ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_the_Banner_of_Heaven:_A_Story_of_Violent_Faith[/url])–is that these ‘marriages’ are really less about free-willed adults entering into a compact for love and security than they are about older men exploiting young women who are either minors or who are brainwashed adults who know no better. The only way these geezers get away with their shams is by kicking all the young males who would be competing for the affections of the young females out of their tribes. The girls are married off to one of the old guys before they know any better. They are then brainwashed to believe that they cannot survive without the support of their old-man husbands. All in all, the reality of polygamy is quite awful for the females in it.
But if the question is just about a case where an adult of free will wants to enter into a marriage with other adults of free will, then I cannot think of any basis to object other than moral disapproval. That is just what the Supreme Court cited in Reynolds vs. the U.S. ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._US[/url])
primoris,
“What of prohibiting prostitution (an exchange of $ for sexual favors) if NOT ‘moral disapproval?'”
Is prostitution, as it stands outlawed and unregulated in CA, without its victims?
Don, good eye (or ear), lol…wow
[quote]Primoris: “He peered at the 14th Amendment, Walker found something there the authors of the amendment never knew they put there, and even the Warren Court never found there: The states of the Union must recognize same-sex marriages as equal to traditional marriage.”
Pat Buchanan: “Peering at the 14th Amendment, Walker found something there the authors of the amendment never knew they put there, and even the Warren Court never found there: The states of the Union must recognize same-sex marriages as equal to traditional marriage.”
[/quote]
Is this the real reason why some Republicans want to overturn the 14th ammendment? and not really so much over illegal immigrant families having babies born here?
[quote]Primoris: “But not even a judge can change the meaning of words. In every language known to man, marriage is defined as a union of a man and a woman.”
Pat Buchanan: “But not even a judge can change the meaning of words. In every language known to man, marriage is defined as a union of a man and a woman.”
Probably if you’re going to lift things verbatim, you ought to give credit.
[/quote]
Maybe Primoris is Pat Buchanan. What an honor that he would read this prestigious blog. 😉
PB
“Walker says the only motivations behind Proposition 8 had been ‘biases’ and “’moral disapproval,’ and ‘moral disapproval … has never been a rational basis for legislation.’”
Primoris
“Walker says the only motivations behind Prop 8 had been “biases” and ‘moral disapproval,’ and that ‘moral disapproval… has never been a rational basis for legislation.'”
PB
“What the judge is saying with this opinion is that the majority cannot define morality, and, even if it does, it cannot impose it. We are defenseless against what we believe to be moral decadence.”
Primoris
“What the judge said in the opinion is that the majority cannot define morality, and, even if it does, it cannot impose it. Does that render the majority as defenseless against what it believes to be ‘moral decadence?'”
Seriously, Primoris, what gives? You are using, nearly and, at times, precisely verbatim, the portions of Buchanan’s piece. That is, unless…you are Patrick J. Buchanan.
Since Don exposed his plagiarism, Primoris seems to have walked away with his coccyx* between his legs.
*Never mind that Bible thumpers don’t believe in biological evolution and hence don’t accept that they have vestigial tails.
FWIW, the word “coccyx” is not related to cock (meaning rooster). Coccyx was taken from the Greek word [i]kókkyx[/i] (meaning cuckoo) due to its similar shape of a cuckoo bird’s beak. Cock (probably) comes from Old Norse, where a similar sounding word was given to roosters for their “cocking” sound. So I want to make it clear that I am not implying that Primors fled with his cock between his legs.
Rich Rifkin-I always appreciate the keenness of your posts.
“Since Don exposed his plagiarism, Primoris seems to have walked away with his coccyx* between his legs.”
Or he/she ran out of relevant material to lift from Buchanan’s article.
All kidding aside, I appreciate your posts (Dr. Wu’s too) in response to Buchanan’s/Primoirs’ points.
As I explained on Saturday, Walker’s ruling actually precludes polygamy. The reason is that he did not rule just that same-sex marriage is an extension of the equal protection clause, but he said that the state could unequally apply the law IF it had a compelling state interest to do so. It does not have a compelling state interest to do so in the case of two consenting adults, however, it would in the case of polygamy, pedophilia, or bestiality where there is either an unequal or non-consenting relationship. That’s the beauty of his ruling is that he rendered the polygamy argument null and void.
Primoris: When I was a teacher, we had a word for that, plagarism. I’d rather you not admonish me anymore, you are intellectually dishonest.
dmg: “Primoris: When I was a teacher, we had a word for that, plagarism. I’d rather you not admonish me anymore, you are intellectually dishonest.”
I’m a bit perplexed at the attack on Primoris. Is there an anti-plagiarism section in the terms of agreement on this blog? I assumed the comment section of the blog was informal, and attribution was not necessary if another’s words were used. Please clarify for future reference…
Also, is the attack on Primoris because of “plagarism”, or more because the words chosen were from Pat Buchanan? The snide coccyx reference was totally unnecessary. I thought we were all supposed to be civil and discuss issues rather than go into attack mode, or did I miss something?
David, my 3:02 comment gives my view of polygamy. I am interested to know what you think the “compelling state interest” is with polygamy, if it involves say three truly consenting adults: [quote] (Judge Walker) said that the state could unequally apply the law IF it had a compelling state interest to do so. It does not have a compelling state interest to do so in the case of two consenting adults, however, it would in the case of polygamy … That’s the beauty of his ruling is that he rendered the polygamy argument null and void. [/quote] It seems like your statement here is circular. You declare that the state has a compelling interest in bigamous marriage (beyond moral disapproval) and thus you conclude that Judge Walker’s logic does not open that door. But you never show what the compelling state interest is with regard to consenting bigamy.
As I noted above, Walker based his reasoning on one-on-one marriage on the Equal Protection Clause, finding essentially that barring male-male or female-female marriages while allowing male-female unions denies equal protection. That would not apply to polygamous relationships because regardless of gender all are outlawed. Yet I still don’t see any compelling state interest to outlaw them.
One possible compelling state interest would be if it were shown that children raised in such families are harmed by it. That question was raised within the Walker ruling, where no compelling evidence was presented to show that children raised by gay parents are harmed by that. I don’t know the evidence with regard to polygamously raised kids. I think the fact that the only such relationships of this sort which are common are within religious cults might bias the outcome: that is, the harm done to kids is more likely from the cultus than from the coitus. But perhaps it does harm kids. I don’t know.
CORRECTION: [i]”The [s]snide[/s] [b]light-hearted, joking [/b] coccyx reference[b], a fun play on the expression ‘tail-between-your-legs[/b] was [s]totally unnecessary[/s] [b]harmless. It is great that everyone has a sense of humor and can laugh at wordplay.[/b]”[/i]
Thanks for your comment, Elaine.
rr: “”CORRECTION: “The snide light-hearted, joking coccyx reference, a fun play on the expression ‘tail-between-your-legs was totally unnecessary harmless. It is great that everyone has a sense of humor and can laugh at wordplay.”
Thanks for your comment, Elaine.”
The tail between the legs reference wouldn’t have been any better IMHO. My understanding of the new policy of this blog was to discuss the issues, not to allow folks to go into attack mode. This is the sort of thing (attack mode) that drives people AWAY from the blog, which runs counter to everything this blog stands for. My hope is PRIMORIS will return to the blog, as I have found this commenter gives very thoughtful and insightful commentary. I have especially enjoyed PRIMORIS’s comments in the Yolo Judicial Watch section, where discussions have been quite lively but very respectful.
ERM-As you know, my posts are frequently edgy and irreverent,but I hope never to the point of rudeness. A couple of days back I even went so far as to caution someone about the use of expletives. I do think that one shouldn’t serve what one can’t digest. The responses to Primoris seem appropriate in scale and tenor. And, like my sciatica, I’m betting Primoris will return. BTW Rifkin’s, perhaps sophomoric, wordplay cracked me up.
biddlin: “The responses to Primoris seem appropriate in scale and tenor. And, like my sciatica, I’m betting Primoris will return. BTW Rifkin’s, perhaps sophomoric, wordplay cracked me up.”
I didn’t find the comment appropriate, bc it tended to “attack” as opposed to discussing the issue. But we can agree to disagree 🙂 My hope is Primoris comes back to the discussion to give it balance, but my guess is on the Prop 8 issue s/he will not. At times I know I refrain from further discussion if commenters start to drift into “attack” mode and the discussion devolves into childish bullying. It’s not worth my time. Generally I find the commentary on this blog to be excellent, and I’ve learned a lot.
However, I would like the issue of “plagarism” better clarified for future reference…
[i]”And, like my sciatica, I’m betting Primoris will return.”[/i]
As one prone to lower back pains, including sciatica, might I suggest you try what I do: stretch your hamstrings a couple of times every day. Believe it or not, your tightness in your lower back will disappear if you have flexible hamstrings. It doesn’t hurt to stretch your quads, too.
[img]http://www.my-physical-therapy-coach.com/images/supinehamstringstretch.gif[/img]
This is the right way to stretch your hamstrings: lying on your back and holding your leg up in a steady position and pulling down on your foot.
What you should avoid is bending your back when you stretch your hamstrings. That only injures your back:
[img]http://www.eqlifestyles.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/rotators_hamstring_stretch.jpg[/img]
This won’t loosen your back. It will cause further injury.
[img]http://www.sparkpeople.com/assets/exercises/444.jpg[/img]
Thanks Rich, after a lifetime of healthful employment, including gigs in demolition, truck driving and hazmat clean-up and equally healthful recreation like motorcycling, surfing, boxing and mountain climbing, I am very familiar with most therapy modes. One that I find particularly relaxing is to lie flat on my back on the floor with my legs straight and have one of my kids raise each leg as far as I can take it. As I get older though it becomes hard to tell what’s caused by the sciatica as opposed to the arthritis, ruptured achille’s, blown knees…
Elaine: “I assumed the comment section of the blog was informal, and attribution was not necessary if another’s words were used…..I would like the issue of “plagarism” better clarified for future reference…”
Are you really ok with what Primoris did? I’m surprised.
I am unaware of any policy about plagiarism here. However, if you simply cut and paste from someone else’s work it should be acknowledged as a matter of courtesy and ethics. All Primoris had to do was type “As Pat Buchanan said….” Providing the link is even better. Or paraphrase it. Or — here’s an idea — use his or her own words to state the idea.
The best thing about this blog is the wide open exchange of ideas. More than just a place to vent , it gives each of us a window into the others’ thoughts and feelings. I am always amazed at the information and insights from the thoughtful posters. I appreciate the passion of some posters, even when I disagree with their view. The doctrinaire, talking points posters are not my cup of tea.(pun intended)I try to give attribution for stats and quotes when I use them. Most of the time, I try to make my point, with a little fun poked in good humor, and then find out why I’m wrong. I think we all do a pretty good job of self-policing, so Don and David don’t have to play cop. I call this a neighborhood and try to behave accordingly.
ERM, “I’m a bit perplexed at the attack on Primoris. Is there an anti-plagiarism section in the terms of agreement on this blog? I assumed the comment section of the blog was informal, and attribution was not necessary if another’s words were used. Please clarify for future reference…”
It’s perplexing why someone would do as primoris did. However, it’s hardly the most egregious offense, but I would expect a similar backlash had I blatantly plagiarized as he/she did. Some may be inclined to believe that plagiarism speaks to one’s character. It’s not that difficult to cite your source or, as Don mentioned, say “As Pat Buchanan said…”
All that said, I don’t think plagiarizing is ban-worthy. I also think primoris’ comments in the YJW bring an interesting perspective to the issues we discuss.
Elaine: No there is no formal rule against plagiarism, but it is dishonest. You and I may disagree on some things and agree on others, but at least I know it’s you I’m disagreeing with not Pat Buchanan. And if you site Pat Buchanan in a quote, that’s fine, but taking his language and passing it off as his own is a bit unsettling to me.
I’m certainly not going to ban Primoris for that. But he seems to have self-censored himself.
Rich: In my view, I think they would be able to argue that unlike gay marriage, polygamy usually involves non-consenting adults, coercion and an asymmetry of power that compels state interest. It does not inherently create those things, but in practice it seems to. That would probably be enough to establish a state interest. But of the other relationships I can see the strongest argument for polygamy and certainly not for bestiality or marrying children, neither of which involves consenting adults.
dmg: “Elaine: No there is no formal rule against plagiarism, but it is dishonest. You and I may disagree on some things and agree on others, but at least I know it’s you I’m disagreeing with not Pat Buchanan. And if you site Pat Buchanan in a quote, that’s fine, but taking his language and passing it off as his own is a bit unsettling to me.
I’m certainly not going to ban Primoris for that. But he seems to have self-censored himself.”
So the admission is that there is no formal rule about “plagiarism” on this blog. I have to wonder if the strictures expressed here vilifying “plagarism” on an informal blog would be so vehement if Primoris had taken an opposite position on Prop 8? Think about it – how many of you would have blasted Primoris had he attibuted the ideas he put forth to Pat Buchanan – a “repug” as Republicans are so often labled on this blog? I suspect there would have been bomb throwing had he given the source of the quote. And by the way, Primoris has not come back into this discussion, FWIW…
Don Shor: “Are you really ok with what Primoris did? I’m surprised.
I am unaware of any policy about plagiarism here. However, if you simply cut and paste from someone else’s work it should be acknowledged as a matter of courtesy and ethics.”
Can you really blame anyone commenting on this often uber liberal blog for not attributing a quote to Pat Buchanan? It would be dismissed out of hand as not worthy of consideration considering the source.
I can. Half of the people who post on here are conservatives, or so it seems. And if you like the idea and are afraid to quote him, change it into your own words. I have a big problem with taking someone else’s words and passing them off as your own.
ERM,
“I have to wonder if the strictures expressed here vilifying ‘plagarism’ on an informal blog would be so vehement if Primoris had taken an opposite position on Prop 8? Think about it – how many of you would have blasted Primoris had he attibuted the ideas he put forth to Pat Buchanan – a ‘repug’ as Republicans are so often labled on this blog?”
It makes no difference to me had the source been a democrat and the content supportive of same-sex marriage. It’s not a very honest thing to do and does say something about a person when they go to that length to pass someone else’s work off as their own. It’s not unforgivable or anything, but a strange thing to do, IMHO.
It’s also probably easier to criticize a person whose opinions and thoughts are opposite of your own, you probably are right. What’s more, because of Primoris’ perpetual condescension towards others that too might’ve caused more people to “throw bombs.” The guy once remarked, in an attempt to denigrate me or dismiss my comments, that (paraphrasing here) “I (SM) get all my information from the Internet…” I do get a lot of my info from the Internet btw and it would appear Primoris gets some of his there too. The difference being: I don’t pass off entire passages as my own when they are, in fact, not. Looking back, that seems like a pretty fun thing for him to say. It’s just hypocritical and laughable. I guess it’s a matter of not throwing stones in your big-ass glass house.
“And by the way, Primoris has not come back into this discussion, FWIW…”
What’s your point?
“Can you really blame anyone commenting on this often uber liberal blog for not attributing a quote to Pat Buchanan? It would be dismissed out of hand as not worthy of consideration considering the source.”
I don’t think that’s an excuse. Personally, I think PB is a pretty good political analyst, although I disagree with most of his political beliefs. I honestly think that had someone presented those points as PB’s, people would’ve responded much like they had when Primoris plagiarized his work.
Pundits whose work I would probably automatically dismiss: Glen Beck, but not PB.