NationStates Jolt Archive

Please tell me that Proposition 8 is going down in flames, and didn't wind up passing due to California liberals' complacency about the presidential race results for the state or nation. I want to sleep well tonight.

Sadly, its at 53/47 in favor last I heard, but its not all counted yet.

Complacency? Everything I've seen says we broke a record for voter turnout.

It's nearly 50% reported and 8 is still in the lead. I voted no, told everyone I knew to vote no, and put a sign in the read window of my car that has, amazingly, not gotten it keyed yet. If I wake up and this shit has passed, I'm going to be really pissed off.

But I'm bracing myself for the worst. :/

Sadly, its at 53/37 in favor last I heard, but its not all counted yet.

L.A. Times site has it at 52.5/47.5 with 50% in.

Complacency? Everything I've seen says we broke a record for voter turnout.

It's nearly 50% reported and 8 is still in the lead. I voted no, told everyone I knew to vote no, and put a sign in the read window of my car that has, amazingly, not gotten it keyed yet. If I wake up and this shit has passed, I'm going to be really pissed off.

But I'm bracing myself for the worst. :/

Well, couldn't the Supreme Court shoot it down? By the time a case resulting from this got their, we might have an Obama apointee or two on the Court.

It's 52/47 for with 49 reporting in, but I'm told that the larger cities haven't reported in yet so hopefully there's enough folks in SF, LA, and SD who will vote against.

A few other states have outright same-sex-marriage bans passing handily. True, some are very red states, but I'm surprised more has not been made of the plethora of anti-gay-marriage initiatives out there in other states.

L.A. Times site has it at 52.5/47.5 with 50% in.

That's disappointing. I didn't think the people of California were so narrow-minded.

On the plus side, Prop. 48 in Colorado went down in resounding defeat - which means that they have no legal basis for restricting birth control or first trimester abortions.

That's disappointing. I didn't think the people of California were so narrow-minded.

On the plus side, Prop. 48 in Colorado went down in resounding defeat - which means that they have no legal basis for restricting birth control or first trimester abortions.

I'm glad to say my state gave a good account of itself. Stopped Prop. 48, put a Democrat in the Senate, and went to Obama. And Colorado's usually a red state.

Time will tell. I did the best I could.

I don't think voter complacency will be a problem. It was just a very successful, nasty little campaign in favor of Prop 8. I hardly saw any 'no' advertising at all. Even here on the web. You had the most common ads which were all about redefining marriage. Then you had the ads that implied, no, outright stated that if we don't ban gay marriage, homosexuality will be taught in schools.

I mean, whether or not the thing actually passes, or gets later reversed, or whatever. The mere fact that I see so many signs around town is not gonna help me sleep at night, cuz it means a disturbingly large amount of disturbingly close people honestly believe that stripping away other people's rights is somehow just defending your own and is OK as long as the Bible is involved.

my god...this place is full of liberals....i'm glad prop 8 is passing -- the majority of voters in california do not support same-sex marrigae...get over it....cry...cry...cry

my god...this place is full of liberals...no wonder i never come to NA forums...don't you have better theings to do?

My question to you is did you know you typed that, and didn't just think it? Because it totally sounds like a stream-of-consciousness more than anything to do with me.

my god...this place is full of liberals...no wonder i never come to NA forums...don't you have better theings to do?
Just barely enough time to reply to inane posts, yes. Why do you ask? Some deeper thought on your part we should be hanging on, bated breath, stars in our eyes?

My question to you is did you know you typed that, and didn't just think it? Because it totally sounds like a stream-of-consciousness more than anything to do with me.
Stream of something, yes .... "consciousness"? Debatable.

my god...this place is full of liberals...no wonder i never come to NA forums...don't you have better theings to do?
You mean like... getting both the name of the forum/game right and using the correct spelling of 'things'?

64% reporting in, these are the current numbers:
Yes 3,632,879 52.4%
No 3,295,615 47.6%
http://www.sfgate.com/election/races/2008/11/04/CA/c/i_proposition/i_1_8_same_sex_marriage_ban/g_ballot_issue/c/california.shtml

They've been holding pretty steady too. :(

Welp, so much for Obama. My hope for America becoming a little more socially progressive just died a little.

sounds like you people are "flaming" conservatives...like i said...the majority of voters in California do not support your views.....and then you attack me for misspelling? Boy, I'm glad i am not as smart as you

I was looking at the exit polling breakdown of prop 8 and it looks like a large African American turn out might actually be what pushed prop 8 over as they broke for it 70% to 30% (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#CAI01p1).

I'm still holding out hope, but I'm going to sleep a little depressed.

Boy, I'm glad i am not as smart as youIronic that you would call yourself "pissedoff" in that case ... *shrug*
Must be one of those really funny elitist jokes or something.
Well, one can only hope for your refinement. Keep being the shining bastion.

sounds like you people are "flaming" conservatives...like i said...the majority of voters in California do not support your views.....and then you attack me for misspelling? Boy, I'm glad i am not as smart as you
Uh... no, you DIDN'T say that, you said something else entirely different and you are VERY close to trolling.

BTW, it might interest you to know, but the NS forums don't change quoted text and do show when a post has been edited so we can see your attempts to try and change what you did say to make yourself look better.

No one has flamed conservatives, but if you really do feel that we did... well, Moderation's right over there. You can report whatever post you'd like there for the judgment of the Mods.

what did i say? what did i change? a few misspelled words? Did I say something about "I wish I was smarter than you?" I believe that is what you are talking about. But you keep dragging this on. You are trolling Now..

My point (and stop trolling off me): THE MAJORITY OF CALIFORNIA VOTERS DO NOT SUPPORT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND NEVER HAVE...GET OVER IT!

Goodbye, GOD BLESS, and may you haved a nice life. No hard feelings...it's not worth the time...

Uh... no, you DIDN'T say that, you said something else entirely different and you are VERY close to trolling.
Freedom of re-speech? :confused:

Goodbye, GOD BLESS, and may you haved a nice life.Did i say your name was ironic? I'll have to rethink that. It's been that kinda day, paradigm-shifting and all.
it's not worth the time......even three replies into the thread?

Freedom of re-speech? :confused:
Nope, the "get over it....cry...cry...cry" bit.

My point (and stop trolling off me): THE MAJORITY OF CALIFORNIA VOTERS DO NOT SUPPORT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND NEVER HAVE...GET OVER IT!

So your point is that we should just shut up and take it? Hah. No, I think instead I will spend the next few years utterly humiliating you and people like you, in public, for your ridiculous and cowardly support for a hateful, bigoted, lying and stupid proposition.

But I'll consider getting over it if you just type more in all caps. That's persuasive.

Doesn't an amendment to the Californian constitution require a super majority?

Doesn't an amendment to the Californian constitution require a super majority?

*shrugs* This crap only needed 60% to pass in Florida (and I hear it got 62%) :(

My first impression upon seeing the results in California:

"GOD DAMN YOU YOU CALIFORNIA FUCKS! WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?! :angry:"

I still honestly can't believe it. Colorado smashed down an amendment on personhood handily, yet the much more liberal state of California is suddenly saying "Hey, yeah, let's ban the marriages that have been happening since June, since George Takei getting married seriously infringes upon us!"?!

Doesn't an amendment to the Californian constitution require a super majority?

That'd make sense, wouldn't it? But nooooooooooo...%&*#$&

Doesn't an amendment to the Californian constitution require a super majority?
No, just a simple majority.

Of course the resulting lawsuits will be interesting, and given that California's ballot laws are, shall we say, easy to get, it's quite possible that after two years we'll see this AGAIN from the opposite side this time.

Nope, the "get over it....cry...cry...cry" bit.Ah ... i was giving them credit of sorts, like it was a lyrical thing or something, then eradicated by the instinctive natural editor that seems commonplace with such recondite prosemasters.
Mah bad.

After reading the text of both Proposition 8 and Amendment 2, Amendment 2 worries and angers me far more.

After reading the text of both Proposition 8 and Amendment 2, Amendment 2 worries and angers me far more.

Amendment 2 is indeed more worrisome, text-wise. I was watching that too, and was more than a little disappointed when it won. But Prop. 8 is more dangerous politically because it does three things.

First, it keeps same-sex marriage out of the mainstream national culture: MA and CT, compared to California, are rather small and insignificant.

Second, it shows the opponents of same-sex marriage that they can stop it if they work at it. They've met with failure so far. Yes, they've passed initiatives and amendments in any number of different states, but not in states where it actually mattered--and the Federal Marriage Amendment was a miserable failure. Here, they've succeeded (assuming the percentages hold) at reversing progress: at, in a state where same-sex marriage was legalized by court decision, making it illegal again. That shifts a lot of the momentum to their end; it's no longer the inevitable pace of progress they're fighting against. (Well, it is, but it's much less obvious.)

Third, because it's a constitutional amendment passed in response to a court decision in a state where we probably would seen a change in the law through legislative means within five to ten years anyway, it serves as a really good reason for more caution toward the judiciary on the part of LGBT rights activists, and for more caution on the part of the judiciary toward striking down discriminatory marriage laws. Since every state that has legalized same-sex marriage so far has done it through the courts, that's very bad news for those of us who believe in equality.

Also, I think this one is over. Prop. 8 won. It's 52-48 now with 83% reporting, and by the map a lot of those yet to report are in strong "Yes" areas.

My first impression upon seeing the results in California:

"GOD DAMN YOU YOU CALIFORNIA FUCKS! WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?! :angry:"

I still honestly can't believe it. Colorado smashed down an amendment on personhood handily, yet the much more liberal state of California is suddenly saying "Hey, yeah, let's ban the marriages that have been happening since June, since George Takei getting married seriously infringes upon us!"?!

George Takei marrying some guy isn't the problem with this guy. He's pissed because Portia de Rossi is married to Ellen DeGeneres.

So prop 8 was to ban gay marriage?

Didn't many other states pass similar amendments?

George Takei marrying some guy isn't the problem with this guy. He's pissed because Portia de Rossi is married to Ellen DeGeneres.

:(

Bigots sadden me.

Also, I think this one is over. Prop. 8 won. It's 52-48 now with 83% reporting, and by the map a lot of those yet to report are in strong "Yes" areas.

...which doesn't stop me from noting that its lead just shrunk slightly.

Come on, California. Make me a miracle.

Edit: I still think it's over. I'm just pandering to my delusions to avoid feeling the full brunt of the disappointment.

So prop 8 was to ban gay marriage?


Yep.

ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments

The gist of the advertising I saw most of about prop 8 was in two types. I have to see these things in cars, on bumperstickers, on signs, on every god damn website I go in fact thanks to that nifty localization feature spam now has.

Well, three degrees. The first seems kinda innocuous and simple.

http://images.cafepress.com/product/297890504v2_350x350_Front.jpg

The second one however, now begins to imply that the children are threatened...

http://protectingmarriage.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/support-marriage-3.jpg

And the last one - the one they slip between the cracks of your front door in the middle of the night - outright says so:

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/5263/yeson8gw8.jpg

So there you have it, folks.

They had a lot of advertising for it. I saw very little No on 8.

I mean a lot of people when they vote, might not even consider the wording or the issues or anything, and just think of slogans like "protecting children." Shit, if it involves protecting children, it's gotta be a good thing.

Note the ad doesn't even mention gay marriage, yet there's the implication once you connect the two that once you start allowing the gays to marry, they'll indoctrinate and brainwash children into becoming gay, and possibly murder them and drink their blood.

(Luckily, I guess, the evil gay desire and ability to brainwash, convert, murder and cannibalize children magically disappears once you deprive them of their ability to get legally married. Whew, what a relief that must be.)

Great...California, thanks a whole lot for disappointing millions. You've really outdone yourselves this time. I thought the worst thing you'd ever do was give us Reagan, but nooo...

I'd thought they needed some kind of supermajority to win on this one, and so I felt relatively safe. Of course, I don't live in california, so I didn't really have much say one way or the other. Extremely disappointing.

Fuck you California.

A few other states have outright same-sex-marriage bans passing handily. True, some are very red states, but I'm surprised more has not been made of the plethora of anti-gay-marriage initiatives out there in other states.Virginia did theirs in 2006. Some may already have them.

"GOD DAMN YOU YOU CALIFORNIA FUCKS! WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?!

I dont think God will damn us for banning something the Bible says not to do...(read Romans 1:26 i believe)

maybe say

"I damn you" next time or something like that

I dont think God will damn us for banning something the Bible says not to do...(read Romans 1:26 i believe)

maybe say

"I damn you" next time or something like that

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's.

Fuck you California.

I've been saying that for years. Welcome to the club.

/me hands CthulhuFhtagn a t-shirt and membership card.

And the Republicans call California a People's Republic?

Well, heres to hoping that our victory in the presidential and congressional elections can result in some sort of federal law that some nullifies this ammendment.


Lawyers, how can the federal government overturn a state's constitutional ammendment?

Well, heres to hoping that our victory in the presidential and congressional elections can result in some sort of federal law that some nullifies this ammendment.


Lawyers, how can the federal government overturn a state's constitutional ammendment?Make a law? Federal law trumps state law. Not sure if this counts for constitutional law as well, but there was a case when Californians decided cougars should be protected to the detriment of Bighorn Sheep and that got trumped by an emergency listing of the latter on the endangered species list.

Well, heres to hoping that our victory in the presidential and congressional elections can result in some sort of federal law that some nullifies this ammendment.


Lawyers, how can the federal government overturn a state's constitutional ammendment?

Not a lawyer, but if I understand the American Constitution correctly, if it doesn't specifically cover something, then the State Constitutions can. Now maybe if the people of America ratified a Federal Amendment to the Constitution addressing this we could stop California from doing this. Good luck with that.

Lawyers, how can the federal government overturn a state's constitutional ammendment?

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Not a lawyer, but if I understand the American Constitution correctly, if it doesn't specifically cover something, then the State Constitutions can. Now maybe if the people of America ratified a Federal Amendment to the Constitution addressing this we could stop California from doing this. Good luck with that.

What Im wondering is if a federal law can trump state constitutional ammendments.

Oh well, I guess California may have to reverse this themselves.


Fucking California. And fucking Utah.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."



So...I wonder if this ammendment was challanged in the Fed supreme court as unconstitutional?

Preferably after Obama gets to appoint some of his guys.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

So the only place to go is to the US Supreme Court on argument that the California amendment violates, say, the equal rights provision in the US Constitution or some such?

If so - how long does it usually take for cases like that to be ruled on (or tossed out, I guess) by the Supreme Court?

Well, heres to hoping that our victory in the presidential and congressional elections can result in some sort of federal law that some nullifies this ammendment.


Lawyers, how can the federal government overturn a state's constitutional ammendment?

I think, think, Obama would have to repeal DOMA first. I rather hope he does.

Urgh. I thought California was better than this. In the words of someone at a Scottish football match: "Fucking BOO!"

I think, think, Obama would have to repeal DOMA first. I rather hope he does.

Ah shit. Yeah, he would need to get that repealed you would imagine.

But he might not. Its not like the supreme court is always consistant.

So the only place to go is to the US Supreme Court on argument that the California amendment violates, say, the equal rights provision in the US Constitution or some such?

If so - how long does it usually take for cases like that to be ruled on (or tossed out, I guess) by the Supreme Court?

actually, i heard that there are state court challenges being brought, on the grounds that marriage was found to be a fundamental right in the cali constitution, and therefore not something that can be gotten rid of by amendment. i don't know, something about revising rather than amending the state constitution, and the different levels of support needed for each.

also, congress could also technically legalize it, though i don't expect to see that anytime soon.

actually, i heard that there are state court challenges being brought, on the grounds that marriage was found to be a fundamental right in the cali constitution, and therefore not something that can be gotten rid of by amendment. i don't know, something about revising rather than amending the state constitution, and the different levels of support needed for each.
Ah, okay

also, congress could also technically legalize it, though i don't expect to see that anytime soon.
Yeah, no.

For those that are worrying, do remember that these numbers do not include any early voters or absentee voters. It may help out, a lot.

For those that say this is against God and yay for Prop 8...wasn't this country founded on the idea of religious freedom, and doesn't it say somewhere that church and state should be seperate? Cause I know, this is not going to force any of the Christian churches to actually marry anyone they don't want to...this is only legalizing something in the government. So for someone that has no religious ties to any Christian church, why are so many forced to deal with the Christian beliefs?
And for those that say it should be illegal because men with men and women with women can't procreate, I'd like to show you all the abondoned, ophened, homeless children out there coming from "loving" male/female bonds. Also, hello I'm the daughter of a lesbian and I don't know, but I think I'm actually alive and well and contributing to society, oh and very straight...so no I haven't been "brainwashed" into being a "freak."

This kind of stuff makes me wish I lived in Cali so I could actually do something to help, instead of just having a bunch of friends there that have to deal with all the close mindeness.

Also, hello I'm the daughter of a lesbian and I don't know, but I think I'm actually alive and well and contributing to society, oh and very straight...so no I haven't been "brainwashed" into being a "freak."

But....but....Christians and Prop 8 supporters say thats impossible.


You're lying. They know how you feel better than you do. Deep down youre confused and ashamed.





Youre new here, so I will come right out and tell you that Im joking.

But....but....Christians and Prop 8 supporters say thats impossible.


You're lying. They know how you feel better than you do. Deep down youre confused and ashamed.





Youre new here, so I will come right out and tell you that Im joking.

Well I could be the next coming of the Lord? If the first coming of the Lord was to a virgin, perhaps the second coming is to a lesbian?

There were like three hundred thousand more "yes" than "no" on 8.

That doesn't translate to "ZOMG, 30 million Californians are a bunch of bigots!" Nor does it translate to "black people hate gays," which I'm already starting to see. Honestly, do we need to do this thing where any and all things get immediately turned into divisive, hostile generalizations?

It's amazing to see the split on the number of blacks that voted Yea and Nea on Prop 8...

70-30 in favor it was, the last I saw. Ironic how those that honor how one civil rights barrier has been breached erect another...

There were like three hundred thousand more "yes" than "no" on 8.

That doesn't translate to "ZOMG, 30 million Californians are a bunch of bigots!"

If 30 million Californians voted yes on prop 8 (note I have no clue what the population of California is so I don't know if you're talking about referring to ALL Californians as bigots or just the ones who voted yes on prop 8) then that's EXACTLY what it translates to. One can not have voted for prop 8 without being a bigot.

If 30 million Californians voted yes on prop 8 (note I have no clue what the population of California is so I don't know if you're talking about referring to ALL Californians as bigots or just the ones who voted yes on prop 8) then that's EXACTLY what it translates to. One can not have voted for prop 8 without being a bigot.

Roughly 10 million voted at all, last I checked. California has a population of 30 or so million and is the most populous state in the union. Of those who voted it was like 52% yes 48% no, again, last I checked.

The media, and people in general are way too quick to declare victory or defeat. I was looking through Google news and remarkably enough, about 52% of the sources said Prop 8 has narrowly passed and 48% or so say it was narrowly shot down. ;)

95% of the precincts reporting, and Prop 8 is ahead by 4%.
Come on you damn absentess, I know you can do it!

also, congress could also technically legalize it, though i don't expect to see that anytime soon.

I don't think it can; I'm fairly sure marriage has been ruled to be an issue left by the Constitution to the states. That's why the Republicans had to resort to the Federal Marriage Amendment to stop same-sex marriage in MA.

Yay Massachusetts! Still leading the way in tolerance in this nation.

irony

Yay Massachusetts! Still leading the way in tolerance in this nation.

ironyHm?
I thought General Law 207 was still in effect! :(


Why irony?

So did Florida, Arizona AND California all ban gay marriage yesterday?

Any other states?

Hm?
I thought General Law 207 was still in effect! :(


Why irony?That is...?

Well I could be the next coming of the Lord? If the first coming of the Lord was to a virgin, perhaps the second coming is to a lesbian?

Nice someone new! and with a sense of humor tooo!!!!:hail:

That is...?The same laws and procedures that govern traditional marriage also apply to same-sex marriages. There are no special procedures for a same-sex marriage.
That's General Law c.207.

Hm?
I thought General Law 207 was still in effect! :(


Why irony?

I'm not sure I follow the relevance of c.207.

And it's ironic considering the founding roots of the state.

Oh wow, I never thought that would ever happen... Next thing you know California will be turning red... Too late for McCain though.

I frankly don't care, I don't live there, Florida's Proposal 2 passed so its all good here.

Just create a civil union type dealy, give it legal rights equal to marriage under law and pass that. It shuts up the religious conservatives and everyones happy.

Seriously... this is not hard.

So did Florida, Arizona AND California all ban gay marriage yesterday?

Any other states?

Well?

sounds like you people are "flaming" conservatives...like i said...the majority of voters in California do not support your views.....and then you attack me for misspelling? Boy, I'm glad i am not as smart as you

Then a majority are wrong

Well?A few million absentee votes in CA are being counted, but AZ and FL have banned it.

So did Florida, Arizona AND California all ban gay marriage yesterday?

Any other states?I think Massachusetts and D.C are the only ones that have any sort of law or court ruling for same-sex marraige now.
Could be wrong, though.

Just create a civil union type dealy, give it legal rights equal to marriage under law and pass that. It shuts up the religious conservatives and everyones happy.

Seriously... this is not hard.

It doesn't shut up the religious conservatives and it would be that whole "separate but equal" dealie. In addition, since treaties that make other countries recognize marriages use the word "marriage", no civil union could ever be legally equal to marriage.

I think Massachusetts and D.C are the only ones that have any sort of law or court ruling for same-sex marraige now.
Could be wrong, though.Connecticut and Massachusetts.

Connecticut and Massachusetts.Ah, what happened to D.C.'s registration/effort/thing?
Connecticut doesn't have a law at all.... So, I was actually right, but that's beside the point!
Go, Connecticut. :p

Ah, what happened to D.C.'s registration/effort/thing?Hmm, never heard of it, to be honest.

It doesn't shut up the religious conservatives and it would be that whole "separate but equal" dealie. In addition, since treaties that make other countries recognize marriages use the word "marriage", no civil union could ever be legally equal to marriage.

Fine... pass the easier to pass civil unions deal and quietly ammend it later

Well, couldn't the Supreme Court shoot it down? By the time a case resulting from this got their, we might have an Obama apointee or two on the Court.

The Supreme Court could decide that the ban on same-sex marriage denies equal protection under the law and/or violates fundamental rights protected by the 14th Amendment. SCOTUS should do so, based on precedent like Loving v. Virginia (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/388/1.html), 388 U.S. 1 (1967), but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the current Court to even take up the issue.

what did i say? what did i change? a few misspelled words? Did I say something about "I wish I was smarter than you?" I believe that is what you are talking about. But you keep dragging this on. You are trolling Now..

My point (and stop trolling off me): THE MAJORITY OF CALIFORNIA VOTERS DO NOT SUPPORT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND NEVER HAVE...GET OVER IT!

Goodbye, GOD BLESS, and may you haved a nice life. No hard feelings...it's not worth the time...

Unfortunately, a quirk in the laws of California allowed the California Constitution to be changed by a mere majority vote.

Usually the whole point of having equal protection under the law and fundamental rights enshrined in a constitution is to protect such rights and equality from the vicissitudes of public opinion.

This travesty is no more justified by majority support than anti-miscegenation laws were justified by their supporters.

Well, heres to hoping that our victory in the presidential and congressional elections can result in some sort of federal law that some nullifies this ammendment.

Lawyers, how can the federal government overturn a state's constitutional ammendment?

Well, federal law pursuant to the U.S. Constitution is supreme over any state law -- including a state constitution.

Whether Congress has the authority under the Constitution to define marriage nationally is an interesting question. I can think of good arguments both ways.

Of course, SCOTUS could decide that same-sex marriage is protected by the 14th Amendment.


Just create a civil union type dealy, give it legal rights equal to marriage under law and pass that. It shuts up the religious conservatives and everyones happy.

Seriously... this is not hard.

We have civil union "type deal[ies]" in California, but as the California Supreme Court explained in In re Marriage Cases (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF) (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384, such laws are an unfair form of "separate but equal" and deny fundamental rights and equality to same-sex couples and homosexuals.

Note, neither the religious conservatives or those of us concerned with rights and equality are "happy" with second-class citizenship for homosexuals.

Hmm, never heard of it, to be honest.Alright.

The one good result on the day the US committed national suicide.

And to all presumptuous sexual deviants in California who proclaimed themselves "married" from May to November: consider this a divorce :upyours:

Are you serious?

Yes, he is.

I hate bigotry.

I look fowards to NM's tirades and rage induced weepings. Especially when Prop 8 is repealed.

Prop 8 no doubt passed because Obama got more Hispanics and blacks to the polls. I would appreciate the irony if it wasn't derived from such ingrained bigotry.

I look fowards to NM's tirades and rage induced weepings. Especially when Prop 8 is repealed.
It's a constitutional amendment. Who do you propose will repeal it?

I hate bigotry.

I know right, stupid bigots should all be shot.


that's a joke...

Prop 8 no doubt passed because Obama got more Hispanics and blacks to the polls. I would appreciate the irony if it wasn't derived from such ingrained bigotry.

One would imagine that African Americans of all people would not be so quick to vote overwhelmingly in favor of institutionalized bigotry.


But alas, they were.

The one good result on the day the US committed national suicide.

And to all presumptuous sexual deviants in California who proclaimed themselves "married" from May to November: consider this a divorce :upyours:

I hope you have a son soon just so he ends up being a "sexual deviant".

One would imagine that African Americans of all people would not be so quick to vote overwhelmingly in favor of institutionalized bigotry.


But alas, they were.Indeed. But African Americans are still a largely conservative group.

This is so bloody childish. If only it could be solved with "Marriage for no one if you can't play nice and share". Who gets married to who has about as much significance in any one's life as having the guy across the street name his black dog Blizzard.

And to all presumptuous sexual deviants in California who proclaimed themselves "married" from May to November: consider this a divorce :upyours:

I'm to take it this means you're going to make all 'sexual deviants' sleep on your couch until they move out?

Moonlit walks on the beach are, I suppose, out of the question...

The one good result on the day the US committed national suicide.

And to all presumptuous sexual deviants in California who proclaimed themselves "married" from May to November: consider this a divorce :upyours:

Well this is why the damn thing passed. Too many crackers migrated to this state.

Never mind the fact that people tend to be stupid. I have come across many who believed the ads that the public schools will start teaching children about gay marriage.

The other argument I heard parroted by those destined for Heaven was to protect the sanctity of marriage.

Well the 42% that don't end in divorce that is.....

The one good result on the day the US committed national suicide.

And to all presumptuous sexual deviants in California who proclaimed themselves "married" from May to November: consider this a divorce :upyours:

This is actually the first time in my life I have wished i was homosexual (i'm not) just so that it would put me on the oposite side of the spectrum from this ignorant --------------

This is so bloody childish. If only it could be solved with "Marriage for no one if you can't play nice and share". Who gets married to who has about as much significance in any one's life as having the guy across the street name his black dog Blizzard.

Vote on this
marriage for all consenting adults
OR
marriage for no one.

The one good result on the day the US committed national suicide.

And to all presumptuous sexual deviants in California who proclaimed themselves "married" from May to November: consider this a divorce :upyours:

Of course, the one thing Prop. 8 likely won't change is the legal status of same-sex couples that got married while it was legal for them to do so. (which was actually started in mid-June and includes about 18,000 couples)

So you can take that :upyours: and shove it 'til it hurts. :eek:

Of course, the one thing Prop. 8 likely won't change is the legal status of same-sex couples that got married while it was legal for them to do so. (which was actually started in mid-June and includes about 18,000 couples)

So you can take that :upyours: and shove it 'til it hurts. :eek:

But if he did that that would make him ghey! :D

Unless of course he's a closeted self-hating gay like in the Republican Party. Maybe he's got posters of Mark Foley and Larry Craig in his bedroom ceiling?

:tongue:

The one good result on the day the US committed national suicide.

And to all presumptuous sexual deviants in California who proclaimed themselves "married" from May to November: consider this a divorce :upyours:

They were married. Simply reversing the right to marry (if that sticks) won't make any difference, retroactively.

Just create a civil union type dealy, give it legal rights equal to marriage under law and pass that. It shuts up the religious conservatives and everyones happy.

Seriously... this is not hard.

Of course when you actually sit down and read Amendment 2 it could get harder...

Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.

Especially since "substantial equivalent" hasn't actually been defined yet.

Of course, the one thing Prop. 8 likely won't change is the legal status of same-sex couples that got married while it was legal for them to do so. (which was actually started in mid-June and includes about 18,000 couples)

So you can take that :upyours: and shove it 'til it hurts. :eek:

You're talking to the guy who said, before the election, that afterward he would just "smile rather than post" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13741917#post13741917).

Needless to say, he is neither smiling, nor refraining from posting. No, he's calling for civil war (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14170539#post14170539).

I don't think there's much need to take clowns like him seriously.

Of course, the one thing Prop. 8 likely won't change is the legal status of same-sex couples that got married while it was legal for them to do so. (which was actually started in mid-June and includes about 18,000 couples)

So you can take that :upyours: and shove it 'til it hurts. :eek:

Pussycat, your view on what's "likely" to happen is of no importance. Unless there's a grandfather clause in Prop 8 that I missed, if it's not between a man and a woman it's not marriage in the state of California. So you can take that :eek: and roll it up into a nice tight little tube so you'll have something at hand when the batteries in your vibrator run out :tongue:

Of course, the one thing Prop. 8 likely won't change is the legal status of same-sex couples that got married while it was legal for them to do so. (which was actually started in mid-June and includes about 18,000 couples)

So you can take that :upyours: and shove it 'til it hurts. :eek:

WAIT WHAT?!

You meant they can stay married?!

You're talking to the guy who said, before the election, that afterward he would just "smile rather than post" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13741917#post13741917).

I put my faith in the people. My mistake. It won't happen again.

Now now, New Mitanni, be honest and stick to your promise. You said you'd smile and not post, after the election. Every post you make shows you (and presumably others like you) to be a flat-out liar.

Please tell me that Proposition 8 is going down in flames, and didn't wind up passing due to California liberals' complacency about the presidential race results for the state or nation. I want to sleep well tonight.

Its not complacency. the same people you got out to vote so obama would win the election tend to also agree with prop 8.

Now now, New Mitanni, be honest and stick to your promise. You said you'd smile and not post, after the election. Every post you make shows you (and presumably others like you) to be a flat-out liar.

He doesn't care.

Pussycat, your view on what's "likely" to happen is of no importance. Unless there's a grandfather clause in Prop 8 that I missed, if it's not between a man and a woman it's not marriage in the state of California. So you can take that :eek: and roll it up into a nice tight little tube so you'll have something at hand when the batteries in your vibrator run out :tongue:

And when Prop 8 gets revocted or overturned at the federal or state level, Ill just smile at you.

Seriously, in the end, eventually we will win. History has this nasty little habit of showing us this. People expressed the same feelings youre expressing now about same sex marriage. Look were that got them.

But, until the federal (democratically controled congress + supreme court + PRESIDENT Obama) government or the Cali state government does do something about it, Im just going to enjoy the next four years of progress. I want to see how you try and spin it once things get undeniably better under a President Obama.

Now now, New Mitanni, be honest and stick to your promise. You said you'd smile and not post, after the election. Every post you make shows you (and presumably others like you) to be a flat-out liar.

He doesn't care.

You didn't honestly expect a hardcore Bushevik like New Mitanni to hold to his words or care now did you folks?

:D

The next person who tells me that California is uber-liberal is getting smacked. They can't even do human rights correctly.

the next person who tells me that california is uber-liberal is getting smacked. They can't even do human rights correctly.+1...

The next person who tells me that California is uber-liberal is getting smacked. They can't even do human rights correctly.California is uber-liberal.
*waits for the smack*
I know, I'm such a bad boy. :(

Pussycat, your view on what's "likely" to happen is of no importance. Unless there's a grandfather clause in Prop 8 that I missed, if it's not between a man and a woman it's not marriage in the state of California. So you can take that :eek: and roll it up into a nice tight little tube so you'll have something at hand when the batteries in your vibrator run out :tongue:

:D

My view of what is likely is based on what both proponents and opponents of Prop. 8 have said will be the impact on existing marriages.

Prop. 8 isn't inherently retroactive. Please explain how someone that got legally married is suddenly not married anymore.

Especially when the California Attorney General says Prop. 8 isn't retroactive and the issue would ultimately be up to the same court that legalized same-sex marriage in the first place. :wink:

Prop. 8 isn't inherently retroactive. Please explain how someone that got legally married is suddenly not married anymore.

It states explicitly that nothing except a one-man-one-woman marriage is "recognized or valid" anymore; in fact, nothing "similar" to a marriage will be recognized, which is language vague enough to drive a Mack truck through. In Michigan for example, that language means that contracts providing joint health insurance, which is "similar" to marriage, can't be enforced.

It states explicitly that nothing except a one-man-one-woman marriage is "recognized or valid" anymore; in fact, nothing "similar" to a marriage will be recognized, which is language vague enough to drive a Mack truck through. In Michigan for example, that language means that contracts providing joint health insurance, which is "similar" to marriage, can't be enforced.

The entire language of Prop 8 is: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California."

You have a point that this could be interpreted to mean that existing same-sex marriages are no longer valid. I note that, although they said something different before Prop. 8 passed, its advocates are now starting to say it applies "regardless of where or when" the marriage was performed. So New Mitanni could be right. I hope not.

One good thing is that, unlike the Michigan amendment, the California law doesn't have the "or similar union for any purpose" language. Domestic partnerships should be untouched by this change.

And when Prop 8 gets revocted or overturned at the federal or state level, Ill just smile at you.

Seriously, in the end, eventually we will win. History has this nasty little habit of showing us this. People expressed the same feelings youre expressing now about same sex marriage. Look were that got them.

But, until the federal (democratically controled congressCant change a state's constitution and marriage is a state issue + supreme court not likely to be new appointees next four years so it is a republican stacked supreme court + PRESIDENT Obama) not likely his two major voting blocks are Union workers and African Americansboth of whom are not progressive on this issue government or the Cali state government Legislature and California courts can't as this is a constitutional amendment does do something about it, Im just going to enjoy the next four years of progress. I want to see how you try and spin it once things get undeniably better under a President Obama.


I think you have entirely too many hopes. He is a president and is beholden to his voting block especially on his first term.

You have a point that this could be interpreted to mean that existing same-sex marriages are no longer valid.
It is not really a matter of "interpreting" it: that is precisely what it SAYS.
I note that, although they said something different before Prop. 8 passed, its advocates are now starting to say it applies "regardless of where or when" the marriage was performed.
In Michigan, similarly, the Prop 2 ads (50% funded by the Catholic Church) specifically said it would not interfere with "domestic partner" benefits; the instant it passed, Ave Maria (the church's law school) sued to strike down such benefits.
One good thing is that, unlike the Michigan amendment, the California law doesn't have the "or similar union for any purpose" language. Domestic partnerships should be untouched by this change.
I see. That's good; I took it for granted they would have put that "similar union" language in there.

And when Prop 8 gets revocted or overturned at the federal or state level, Ill just smile at you.


And it will. There is a growing movement to oppose that kind of discrimination.

And it will. There is a growing movement to oppose that kind of discrimination.This (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/proposition-8-h.html)might make some people happier.
And this. (http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_10907777)

This (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/proposition-8-h.html)might make some people happier.
And this. (http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_10907777)

Really, this is a civil attorny's wet dream.

Really, this is a civil attorny's wet dream. The L.A. city attorney filed with three others against it.
Go, lawyers!


I just realized what I typed. ...Someone please slap me? :tongue:

This (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/proposition-8-h.html)might make some people happier.
And this. (http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_10907777)

Not likely to work. A state court cant overturn the state constitution. And as much as i favor same sex marriage i don't want any courts able to over turn their Constitution. It will have to go to the federal courts and they will have to find this article is against the current Constitution. Which wont happen given the republicans have packed the court.

A state court cant overturn the state constitution.So they can't rule a state law to be unconstitutional based on the (state) Constitution, but SCOTUS can rule it to be unconstitutional based on the (federal) Constitution?

So they can't rule a state law to be unconstitutional based on the (state) Constitution, but SCOTUS can rule it to be unconstitutional based on the (federal) Constitution?

I would imagine. TCT or Neo can correct me, but I dont see why not.

Indeed. But African Americans are still a largely conservative group.

Well, in a sense. They still go overwhelmingly for Democrats, even Democrats who are strong social liberals... and a lot of black politicians, on the national level at least, are very much pro-gay rights.

Here's a question: controlling for religiosity (level of church attendance, etc.) are African-Americans still less likely than whites to support LGBT rights?

I'm not sure what the answer to that one is; just tossing it out there.

Not likely to work. A state court cant overturn the state constitution.

But can Prop. 8 overturn the state constitution? California law says "no": initiatives can amend but not revise the constitution. So the issue is, does what amounts to an attack on equal protection constitute an "amendment" or a "revision"?

I'm skeptical as to whether that will fly, but if the California courts buy it, I will be delighted.

So they can't rule a state law to be unconstitutional based on the (state) Constitution, but SCOTUS can rule it to be unconstitutional based on the (federal) Constitution?

Yes. Though I don't see that happening any time soon.

So they can't rule a state law to be unconstitutional based on the (state) Constitution, but SCOTUS can rule it to be unconstitutional based on the (federal) Constitution?

A state court cant rule the state constitution is against the state constitution as it makes no sense and the state Constitution is the basis of the court (and common law).

The SCOTUS can rule that a State Constitution is unconstitutional against the Federal Constitution was done during reconstruction a few times I believe.

Current Make up of the SCOTUS that's a very unlikely ruling. And it is unlikely Obama will get to appoint anyone the first 4 years, and in the second 4 years will only get to replace the progressives anyways.

So I would not lean on the courts to over turn this amendment.
The best bet is wait for Obama 2nd term and get him to campaign for overturning this amendment in a referendum, should work provided he still has the star power he currently has. Don't expect it in the first term as he will risk Union workers which are vital in certain areas.

So prop 8 was to ban gay marriage?

Didn't many other states pass similar amendments?

I believe Michigan passed it in the 2004 election, from what I remember. By a wide margin.

But can Prop. 8 overturn the state constitution? California law says "no": initiatives can amend but not revise the constitution. So the issue is, does what amounts to an attack on equal protection constitute an "amendment" or a "revision"?


They didn't over turn the Constitution. Overturning the state Constitution would be creating an initiative with a new state Constitution (and skipping the law makers). All this did was over turn a ruling. A constitutional Amendment is the correct means to check the supreme courts rulings. Like what happened at the federal level in regards to Income tax.

All this did was over turn a ruling. A constitutional Amendment is the correct means to check the supreme courts rulings. Like what happened at the federal level in regards to Income tax.

I agree. I don't think it will fly. But it's the argument they're making.

My understanding is that they're essentially saying that equal protection and minority rights are more than just provisions, but rather core, fundamental values of the California Constitution--and when they are abridged to take away what the courts have deemed to be a fundamental right, that strikes at the heart of the Constitution in the way a mere alteration in the method of gathering funds does not.

Nice someone new! and with a sense of humor tooo!!!!:hail:
Gentle, gentle!
Delicately, at first.

I agree. I don't think it will fly. But it's the argument they're making.

My understanding is that they're essentially saying that equal protection and minority rights are more than just provisions, but rather core, fundamental values of the California Constitution--and when they are abridged to take away what the courts have deemed to be a fundamental right, that strikes at the heart of the Constitution in the way a mere alteration in the method of gathering funds does not.

interesting choice of words equal protection.
It was because the SCOTUS ruled they couldn't equally protect the states and conduct a direct income tax.


I think a better way to solve the gay marriage issue is to gradually educate the public to the point they are willing to vote in favor. We end up with a Roe V Wade we will have at least 50 years of annoying protest. (down the street from planned parents hood candle light vigil there tonight again cant get any good sleep)

I couldn't find the original source stating Proposition 8's passing (mostly because I'm lazy), but this will suffice.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/06/state.laws/index.html?iref=newssearch

What a pity. I thought California was the hub of progressive thought in the United States. I guess this is just another reason I'll stay in Canada.

I couldn't find the original source stating Proposition 8's passing (mostly because I'm lazy), but this will suffice.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/06/state.laws/index.html?iref=newssearch

What a pity. I thought California was the hub of progressive thought in the United States. I guess this is just another reason I'll stay in Canada.

Just goes to show you what influence people can have when they put their effort, faith, fear and money into it. By golly, that's the American way, innit?

http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/slowpoke.gif
So guys, who won the election? Bush or Gore?

http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/slowpoke.gif
So guys, who won the election? Bush or Gore?

Neither. I think it was some guy named Dewey.

I lived in California for 59 years. I can tell you that it is probably the most unintelligently run state in the country. It once had the best educational system in the country, now it ranks slightly below Arkansas. It once had a flourishing economy, now it's heading into economic disaster well in front of the rest of the country. This can't be blamed entirely on the Governator, he's trying, against long odds, to fix something that can't be fixed.

The problem with California is "progressive" thought. This is not a knock at sane liberals - sane liberals and sane conservatives want to balance the needs of the state, the needs of business, the needs of the environment and the needs of the people. When the insane of either party get control, as has happened all too often in California, you get what you see there now a cess-pit of environmental-economic disaster where the people end up the all-time losers. The only winner is the state as it reaps more power to destroy the golden goose. California is rapidly turning into a third world state with it's rapidly dying or fleeing middle class and it's rapidly expanding poverty class all governed by an ever more detached wealthy elite.

It's no surprise prop 8 passed, money and insanity are the governing principles of California. Religious insanity is just the most vocal at the moment.

If sanity ever does return to the state, it may be too late.

*snip*

I've heard similar things from a friend of mine. First off, she's very liberal, graduated from University of Michigan and now works at University of California - Berkeley. She and her husband were flying back to Detroit from San Fransisco and there was some frost that morning. Rather than spraying de-icer on the wings, as is done in other airports (for fear the chemicals would get into San Fransisco Bay), they decided to spin the plane around in the sun for two hours, idling the engines to melt the ice, causing them to miss their connecting flight from Detroit to Lansing. Now, neither she nor I are oblivious to environmental concerns (I vote Green fairly often) but that's just silly.

They didn't over turn the Constitution. Overturning the state Constitution would be creating an initiative with a new state Constitution (and skipping the law makers). All this did was over turn a ruling.

Um, that's not even close to being correct. They didn't "overturn a ruling" as it doesn't work at all in that way. California doesn't have judiciary by the people. The California Supreme Court ruled that the pre Prop 8 constitution guaranteed a right to same sex marriage. Proposition 8 then modified the constitution to take that right away. Which, arguably, makes it a revision to the constitution of California.

The California supreme court ruled that under the constitution same sex marriage was a constitutional right. Proposition 8 doesn't say "no, it isn't, you're wrong" which is what "overturning the ruling" would mean. It says "it's not a right any more". Overturning a ruling is to say that the ruling was in error, this is not at all the case here. Proposition 8 can not do that, California doesn't have ballot initiatives to change judicial rulings. All it could do is change the constitution so that the right found no longer exists from that point forward.

But if it does do that, that might well make it a revision to the constitution, and ballot initiatives in California that actively revise the constitution require a legislative vote, which this did not have. It's a very interesting argument.

First, it keeps same-sex marriage out of the mainstream national culture: MA and CT, compared to California, are rather small and insignificant.

To be honest with you, California is looked down upon by most of the rest of the country as filled with crazies and loonies. Some of the laws passed in that state really defy logic, level-headed thought.

I can understand people being proud of how big Cali is and how much history it has, but don't confuse that with how the rest of the nation views the state or what comes out of it. We pretty much just roll our eyes and/or laugh.

Well, heres to hoping that our victory in the presidential and congressional elections can result in some sort of federal law that some nullifies this ammendment.


Lawyers, how can the federal government overturn a state's constitutional ammendment?


Only thing that the Fed can do is go to the US constitution and create an amendment there. Support for that is very weak and I doubt would pass.

At this point only the people of Cali can repeal that new ammendment to their consititution. I think the SUCOUS can rule on it being unconsititutionally against the 14th Amendment but I could be wrong...I'm no legal expert.

EDIT: BTW, I believe love is love and how consenting people want to express that love between each other is their business IMHO. I'm straight and proud of it (hey if people can be proud of being gay, I can be proud of being straight), but if asked I can totally support the idea of those who are gay and wanting to get married.

To be honest with you, California is looked down upon by most of the rest of the country as filled with crazies and loonies. Some of the laws passed in that state really defy logic, level-headed thought.

Same-sex marriage is more than a law, though; the presence of thousands of married same-sex couples would have a strong cultural impact in a way that various absurd initiatives (that generally no one outside of the state cares about, unlike Prop. 8) do not.

I can understand people being proud of how big Cali is and how much history it has, but don't confuse that with how the rest of the nation views the state or what comes out of it. We pretty much just roll our eyes and/or laugh.

I am not a Californian.

interesting choice of words equal protection.
It was because the SCOTUS ruled they couldn't equally protect the states and conduct a direct income tax.

WTF are you babbling about now?

Same-sex marriage is more than a law

No, the amendment is a law. Nothing more. Just like anything else listed in that state's consititution. The IDEA is more than a law but the actual prop is just a bill/law.

though; the presence of thousands of married same-sex couples would have a strong cultural impact in a way that various absurd initiatives (that generally no one outside of the state cares about, unlike Prop. 8) do not.

To be honest, I don't think anyone outside of the state really cares either. Remember, there are states out there that have amendments that state they do not recognize same-sex marriages made in other states. The SUCOUS has rejected to hear at least one case I know of that challenged this. Really it is just a Cali issue.

I am not a Californian.
Never implied you were.

I think a better way to solve the gay marriage issue is to gradually educate the public to the point they are willing to vote in favor. We end up with a Roe V Wade we will have at least 50 years of annoying protest. (down the street from planned parents hood candle light vigil there tonight again cant get any good sleep)

This argument can be (and often is) made against any attempt to enforce the Constitution against a popular prejudice.

Was Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=347&invol=483), 347 U.S. 483 (1954), a mistake because it was controversial and led to (sometimes violent) protests?

Not likely to work. A state court cant overturn the state constitution. And as much as i favor same sex marriage i don't want any courts able to over turn their Constitution. It will have to go to the federal courts and they will have to find this article is against the current Constitution. Which wont happen given the republicans have packed the court.
The court would not be overturning the constitution. It would merely be saying that a constitution cannot contradict itself. Besides, state constitutions are not immune to federal constitutional challenge, as we found in Romer v. Evans.


But can Prop. 8 overturn the state constitution? California law says "no": initiatives can amend but not revise the constitution. So the issue is, does what amounts to an attack on equal protection constitute an "amendment" or a "revision"?

I'm skeptical as to whether that will fly, but if the California courts buy it, I will be delighted.

I read the case that was filed, and basically, what the Petitioners want is a writ of mandate that enjoins any level of California government from enforcing Proposition 8 while its validity is decided. The main ideas motivating the amendment versus revision distinction is that amendments by initiative are supposed to be allowed insofar as they improve on the rights offered by the California Constitution. A revision counts as something which alters in a fundamental way the "governmental plan" of the State, and Petitioners are arguing that a vote of two-thirds of the State Legislature more along the lines of a constitutional convention is required to bring this about.

It's not just the equal protection issue; Petitioners argue that Proposition 8 also fundamentally alters the constitutional role of the courts insofar as the courts protect the minority, and the idea that Proposition 8 can do irreparable harm to the fundamental rights of the minority by a simple vote means that in theory, any proposition could injure the fundamental rights of any minority by a simple vote. The argument is that in effect, Proposition 8 introduces the idea that fundamental rights can be denied by a simple majority vote, and thereby constitutes a revision to the constitution of the kind that only a constitutional convention can legitimate.

The SUCOUS has rejected to hear at least one case I know of that challenged this.


Did you mean SCOTUS? Regardless, what are you talking about?

It's okay to be mad, but remember that we live in a democracy and the people have spoken.

People seem to forget that California is packed full of minorities (Asian, Hispanic, Black, etc...) who based on ethnic beliefs and upbringing will not support gay marridge.

It's okay to be mad, but remember that we live in a democracy and the people have spoken.

You do not appear to understand the concepts of rights or equal protection under the law.

These are not supposed to be matters for popular vote.

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html ), 319 US 624, 638 (1943):

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

(I know this refers to the U.S. Constitution, but the principle is the same for state constitutions.)

It's okay to be mad, but remember that we live in a democracy and the people have spoken.

People seem to forget that California is packed full of minorities (Asian, Hispanic, Black, etc...) who based on ethnic beliefs and upbringing will not support gay marridge.

I suppose you'd be fine if people decided to vote to revoke the right of free speech then and institute a fascist government so long as it was democratically chosen?

Did you mean SCOTUS? Regardless, what are you talking about?

In 1997, the North Dakota Legislature approved a law barring state recognition of same-sex marriages. A Grand Forks lesbian couple, married in California (or Hawaii or some other state...I don't remember off the top of my head and most sites I hit with a google search on it are being blocked by the work proxy server..) and then residing in North Dakota challenged the law. The went to the ND Supreme Court and their challenge was struck down..yada..yada..yada....and ended up submitting the case to the US Supreme Court who declined to hear the case and effectively backed the ND Supreme Court ruling.

It was a national news story back then for a few months.


Basically what I am saying is that Cali can pass the resolution or not but it only affects Cali. Other states do not have to recognize the marriages.

(EDIT: again, I am playing devils advocate and I don't have a problem with how ever people what to express their love, gay or straight....except in cases of polygamy or those over 18 wanting to marry those under 18...)

You do not appear to understand the concepts of rights or equal protection under the law.

These are not supposed to be matters for popular vote.

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html ), 319 US 624, 638 (1943):

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

(I know this refers to the U.S. Constitution, but the principle is the same for state constitutions.)
I know nothing about law, let alone US law, so I have to ask, can the group taking legal action against proposition 8 use something from West Virginia as precident?

It's okay to be mad, but remember that we live in a democracy and the people have spoken.

Hamilton and Madison would beg very much to disagree. Also, what is the point of a Constitution that strictly forbids the legislative arm from passing certain kinds of laws if we adhere to the principle that the majority can do whatever it wants?

For example, the federal Constitution says that the Congress shall pass no bills of attainder. Suppose that the Congress passes a bill of attainder. On your view, we can be mad, but we must remember that we live in a democracy, and the people have spoken. This is absurd, because the people spake what the Constitution (to which they also are theorized to have agreed) specifically forbids.

You can either have a Constitution, or you can have unadulterated democracy, which we all know blows. So what's your point here?

I suppose you'd be fine if people decided to vote to revoke the right of free speech then and institute a fascist government so long as it was democratically chosen?

I'd be mad... and packing my bags.

I know nothing about law, let alone US law, so I have to ask, can the group taking legal action against proposition 8 use something from West Virginia as precident?

The decision in question was a U.S. Supreme Court opinion on the U.S. Constitution. So it is nationally applicable precedent.

That said, the sentiment I quoted isn't the holding of the case or particularly relevant except for the truth of what it says.

I hope that answers your question.

You do not appear to understand the concepts of rights or equal protection under the law.

I am familiar with equal protection. The courts will ultimately decide, but the people have spoken regardless.

The decision in question was a U.S. Supreme Court opinion on the U.S. Constitution. So it is nationally applicable precedent.

That said, the sentiment I quoted isn't the holding of the case or particularly relevant except for the truth of what it says.

I hope that answers your question.

Yes, but remember that the US Supreme Court declared that abortion was to be allowed, however the states still can ban it via their consititutions if they wish and the only thing the Government can do is pass a US Consititutional Amendment. States Rights. (just like how South Dakota had a measure that was strict and had no chance of passing this Tuesday.)

I'd be mad... and packing my bags.
I'll tell you what I would do. I'd pick up a gun, and shoot-to-kill every single last police officer I could find. I would post around town that the revolution has started effective immediately, and that riots should specifically target the police stations, and that anyone found inside will be shot without question. These posters would offer ample warning that cops who disagree with the law and support the cause of justice can make themselves clearly known by surrendering their badges and authority immediately, and that to avoid any accidental confusion, they should not be seen in uniform in public.

I would consider to do this until the government ceased to be fascist. And I am fairly confident this is roughly how others would respond.

Hamilton and Madison would beg very much to disagree. Also, what is the point of a Constitution that strictly forbids the legislative arm from passing certain kinds of laws if we adhere to the principle that the majority can do whatever it wants?

For example, the federal Constitution says that the Congress shall pass no bills of attainder. Suppose that the Congress passes a bill of attainder. On your view, we can be mad, but we must remember that we live in a democracy, and the people have spoken. This is absurd, because the people spake what the Constitution (to which they also are theorized to have agreed) specifically forbids.

You can either have a Constitution, or you can have unadulterated democracy, which we all know blows. So what's your point here?

Well, your example doesn't follow... but if prop 8 was unconstitutional (which is debatable, btw) then it should have never been on the ballot. At any rate, the majority have spoken. Decide for yourself what that means.

Well, your example doesn't follow... but if prop 8 was unconstitutional (which is debatable, btw) then it should have never been on the ballot. At any rate, the majority have spoken. Decide for yourself what that means.

If it was Unconstitutional, the Cali SC would have struck it down before it actually hit the ballot, or opponents (much smarter and legally agile) would already be screaming it was illegal.

I'll tell you what I would do. I'd pick up a gun, and shoot-to-kill every single last police officer I could find. I would post around town that the revolution has started effective immediately, and that riots should specifically target the police stations, and that anyone found inside will be shot without question. These posters would offer ample warning that cops who disagree with the law and support the cause of justice can make themselves clearly known by surrendering their badges and authority immediately, and that to avoid any accidental confusion, they should not be seen in uniform in public.

I would consider to do this until the government ceased to be fascist. And I am fairly confident this is roughly how others would respond.

Good luck!

Yes, but remember that the US Supreme Court declared that abortion was to be allowed, however the states still can ban it via their consititutions if they wish and the only thing the Government can do is pass a US Consititutional Amendment. States Rights. (just like how South Dakota had a measure that was strict and had no chance of passing this Tuesday.)

Not so. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

And the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

States are bound by U.S. Supreme Court decisions interpreting and applying the U.S. Constitution regardless of what their state constitution may say. No state may deny anyone equal protection of the laws or deny fundamental rights such as the right to abortion.

Well, your example doesn't follow... but if prop 8 was unconstitutional (which is debatable, btw) then it should have never been on the ballot. At any rate, the majority have spoken. Decide for yourself what that means.
Yes it does. If what you are saying is what I think you're saying (what the majority says, goes, no exceptions), then what I'm saying is that your position flatly contradicts constitutional theory.

And no, if Proposition 8 were unconstitutional, that would not prevent it from being on the ballot. It would mean that people should not have voted for it, and it would mean that it should not have been introduced.

My argument is not about the unconstitutionality of Proposition 8. It's about the idea that what the majority says goes, even if it's directly in opposition to the letter of the Constitution.

Furthermore, the question now presented to the Supreme Court of the State of California has to do with the constitutionality not of the Proposition itself, but they idea that the Constitution of California can be altered in the way it was, instead of by a constitutional convention.

The decision in question was a U.S. Supreme Court opinion on the U.S. Constitution. So it is nationally applicable precedent.

That said, the sentiment I quoted isn't the holding of the case or particularly relevant except for the truth of what it says.

I hope that answers your question.
"Seek not the lawyers for councel, for they will say both no and yes.":tongue: In any case, Wikipedia tells me the legal chelleges to proposition 8 are on different grounds to that anyway.

Yes, but remember that the US Supreme Court declared that abortion was to be allowed, however the states still can ban it via their consititutions if they wish and the only thing the Government can do is pass a US Consititutional Amendment. States Rights. (just like how South Dakota had a measure that was strict and had no chance of passing this Tuesday.)
State constitutions are still subject to the US Constitution and federal law. That much I do know. Therefore, for example, the provisions of the Texas and Maryland constitutions banning atheists from state elective office have no effect.

To be honest with you, California is looked down upon by most of the rest of the country as filled with crazies and loonies.

That's a cute little opinion you have. Do you have anything to back it up, or shall we just blithely assume that you are intimately familiar with the opinion of "most of the rest of the country?"

California is no more filled with 'crazies and loonies' than anywhere else. We are a subsection of America, and if you don't like what you see in this 30+ million strong mirror, maybe it's time to re-examine yourself from a different angle.

Some of the laws passed in that state really defy logic, level-headed thought.

The same is true of any state.

I can understand people being proud of how big Cali is and how much history it has, but don't confuse that with how the rest of the nation views the state or what comes out of it. We pretty much just roll our eyes and/or laugh.

Yeah that explains how everyone in this thread, and in the nation, is just laughing and dismissing this as a non-issue and not bothering to comment on it. :rolleyes:

It's okay to be mad, but remember that we live in a democracy and the people have spoken.

We do not live in a pure democracy. There's a reason for that - namely that certain things should not be put to a majority vote.

Well, your example doesn't follow... but if prop 8 was unconstitutional (which is debatable, btw) then it should have never been on the ballot.

The Constitution doesn't keep laws that violate it from being proposed or passed. It just makes it clear that the government does not have the authority to enforce them.

I agree that it never should have been on the ballot, though. Equal protection under the law shouldn't be up for a vote.

At any rate, the majority have spoken. Decide for yourself what that means.

It means the majority are bigots.


Yes, but remember that the US Supreme Court declared that abortion was to be allowed, however the states still can ban it via their consititutions if they wish and the only thing the Government can do is pass a US Consititutional Amendment. States Rights. (just like how South Dakota had a measure that was strict and had no chance of passing this Tuesday.)

This is patently incorrect.

State constitutions cannot violate the federal constitution. SCOTUS can strike down anything within a state constitution that does so.

Yes, but remember that the US Supreme Court declared that abortion was to be allowed, however the states still can ban it via their consititutions if they wish and the only thing the Government can do is pass a US Consititutional Amendment. States Rights. (just like how South Dakota had a measure that was strict and had no chance of passing this Tuesday.)

I suggest you familiarize yourself with the 14th amendment and the central holding of Roe v. Wade before you make yourself look even MORE foolish.

We do not live in a pure democracy. There's a reason for that - namely that certain things should not be put to a majority vote.



The Constitution doesn't keep laws that violate it from being proposed or passed. It just makes it clear that the government does not have the authority to enforce them.

I agree that it never should have been on the ballot, though. Equal protection under the law shouldn't be up for a vote.



It means the majority are bigots.



This is patently incorrect.

State constitutions cannot violate the federal constitution. SCOTUS can strike down anything within a state constitution that does so.


While I am no legal wizard, and reading up on this I do concede that point in my ignorance prior to reading (it's been over 14 years since I have been in a government class room of any sort); I would ponder the question on the why's and how's of South Dakota's Ballot Measure (if it had passed, which I am not saying it should have) that would have banned abortions in that state except in cases of life of the mother, rape and incest.

(I would point out that opponents need not make a law against this. Just look at ND. Only one clinic in the entire state performs abortions and it is located in Fargo, located in the far eastern part of the state. All others have been shut down for various reasons (some questionable I will say).)

I suggest you familiarize yourself with the 14th amendment and the central holding of Roe v. Wade before you make yourself look even MORE foolish.

Well at least we know who the asses are on the forums.

While I am no legal wizard, and reading up on this do concede that point in my ignorance prior to reading; I would ponder the question on the why's and how's of South Dakota's Ballot Measure (if it had passed, which I am not saying it should have) that would have banned abortions in that state except in cases of life of the mother, rape and incest.
I assume that the point of the ballot measure is to open up a legal challenge in the courts which would work its way up to the Supreme Court and strike down Roe v. Wade, rather than just to ban abortion in South Dakota.

(I would point out that opponents need not make a law against this. Just look at ND. Only one clinic in the entire state performs abortions and it is located in Fargo, located in the far eastern part of the state. All others have been shut down for various reasons (some questionable I will say).)
I hear Mississippi is the same.

I assume that the point of the ballot measure is to open up a legal challenge in the courts which would work its way up to the Supreme Court and strike down Roe v. Wade, rather than just to ban abortion in South Dakota.

Now that does make sense. Thanks for enlightening me.

Now, if I recall correctly, isn't it that the states of Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota and South Dakota have trigger laws which would take effect if Roe v. Wade is overturned, making it illegal? I'll have to look that up but I think I remember that from Tuesday's election coverage.

ANYWAY, I appologize as it seems I started a threadjack. Let us now return to the Gay Marriage issue in california :)

I assume that the point of the ballot measure is to open up a legal challenge in the courts which would work its way up to the Supreme Court and strike down Roe v. Wade, rather than just to ban abortion in South Dakota.

Which is probably what would happen.


Now, if I recall correctly, isn't it that the states of Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota and South Dakota have trigger laws which would take effect if Roe v. Wade is overturned, making it illegal? I'll have to look that up but I think I remember that from Tuesday's election coverage.
Yes. These laws and constitutional initiatives are essentially trigger laws, because existing interpretation of constitutional law would prevent their enforcement until either Roe is overturned, or the Supreme Court of the United States rules that all state constitutions supersede the federal constitution.

Well at least we know who the asses are on the forums.

as well as those who want to talk out of theirs.

In any case, Wikipedia tells me the legal chelleges to proposition 8 are on different grounds to that anyway.

Yes. I didn't mean to make anyone think otherwise.

For those that are interested, here is a pdf (http://www.nclrights.org/site/DocServer/CampaignPetition.pdf?docID=4321) of one of the briefs that has been filed seeking an injunction against Prop. 8. (BTW, it does quote the same language I quoted from West Virginia v. Barnette. :wink:)

as well as those who want to talk out of theirs.

Actually, you were the ass, I was mearly ignorant which was very correctable and I thank those for point out my ignorance...I learned (or relearned I should say) something about the abortion issue I was totally incorrect on. I don't know if there is a way you can correct being an ass.

While I am no legal wizard, and reading up on this I do concede that point in my ignorance prior to reading (it's been over 14 years since I have been in a government class room of any sort); I would ponder the question on the why's and how's of South Dakota's Ballot Measure (if it had passed, which I am not saying it should have) that would have banned abortions in that state except in cases of life of the mother, rape and incest.

The Constitution doesn't keep laws that violate it from being passed. It provides the guidelines by which the courts can determine whether or not a given law is permissible.

If South Dakota's ballot measure had passed, it would have been challenged immediately. It most likely would have been put on hold (with an injunction) until the challenge and appeals were over. And it most likely would have been overturned.

SD was likely hoping that McCain would get in, have a few SCOTUS appointments, and stack the court with justices set on overturning Roe v. Wade.

Yes. I didn't mean to make anyone think otherwise.

For those that are interested, here is a pdf (http://www.nclrights.org/site/DocServer/CampaignPetition.pdf?docID=4321) of one of the briefs that has been filed seeking an injunction against Prop. 8. (BTW, it does quote the same language I quoted from West Virginia v. Barnette. :wink:)
Indeed. It's a pretty interesting argument not about the constitutionality of the proposition itself, but about the constitutionality of enacting the proposition in the way it was.

I would ponder the question on the why's and how's of South Dakota's Ballot Measure (if it had passed, which I am not saying it should have) that would have banned abortions in that state except in cases of life of the mother, rape and incest.

It was intended deliberately to violate the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution, to create a court case which proponents hope would be the occasion for the Supreme Court to change its mind. Assuming however that the Supreme Court would not change its mind, it was null and void.

wait a minute... so because LIBERAL judges say its unconstitutional, our votes mean squat? They interpret the law, which means it is ambiguous and it is bias on the part of the judges. Put conservatives, they will be anti gay, put liberals they will be pro gay... so no one is "right" so that's why I think it is better for the people of California to be heard rather than the judges who have obvious bias. In California gays have every civil right that straights have. Their civil unions are looked at the same way marriage is by the law, even though its not called marriage. So what if its not called marriage, they have the same rights, there is no right that is denied, they can still have traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Allowing gay marriages won't stop gay bashing and people discriminating against gays, homosexuals will still be denied jobs and other things by people even if they are "married". Ultimately their push towards the courts instead of trying to get it passed by the voters doesn't bring everyone together on the issue, it separates them more.

Indeed. It's a pretty interesting argument not about the constitutionality of the proposition itself, but about the constitutionality of enacting the proposition in the way it was.

I haven't finished reading the brief. But I have to say I was shocked in the first place to learn Prop. 8 allegedly only required a bare majority to amend the California Constitution and take away fundamental rights and equality under the law. :eek:

Again, thank you all for pointing that out. I hadn't really concidered it a vehicle to open up a challenge to the Row Vs. Wade ruling. Nice to learn something new.

wait a minute... so because LIBERAL judges say its unconstitutional, our votes mean squat?

You should not be voting on whether or not to provide equal protection to some citizens.

It has nothing to do with conservative or liberal. It has to do with a basic right - equal protection under the law.

In California gays have every civil right that straights have. Their civil unions are looked at the same way marriage is by the law, even though its not called marriage.

Separate but equal is never equal.

And no, they are not equivalent in the law anyways.

Ultimately their push towards the courts instead of trying to get it passed by the voters doesn't bring everyone together on the issue, it separates them more.

It isn't the fault of homosexuals that they are so often surrounded by bigots.

If people weren't dead-set on treating them as second-class citizens, there'd be no problem here.

Well at least we know who the asses are on the forums.
The person who said "California is looked down upon by most of the rest of the country as filled with crazies and loonies" would have to be at the top of the list. I assume you live so deep in Red territory that you do not understand what "most of the rest of the country" is even like.

I haven't finished reading the brief. But I have to say I was shocked in the first place to learn Prop. 8 allegedly only required a bare majority to amend the California Constitution and take away fundamental rights and equality under the law. :eek:

Actually North Dakota, South Dakota and I believe Minnesota and Montana also have that in their consititution where the voters only need a bare majority to amend the state consititution.

I haven't put much thought into that but now that it comes up, can't this be abused and turned into a 'tyrany of the majority'?

The person who said "California is looked down upon by most of the rest of the country as filled with crazies and loonies" would have to be at the top of the list. I assume you live so deep in Red territory that you do not understand what "most of the rest of the country" is even like.


*shrug* Lived in Nevada (Pahrump), Missouri (Kansas City), North Dakota (Fargo), Florida (Miami) and New York state (NYC). Pretty much the same response from everyone I met.

Oddly, it was those in NYC and Miami that had the lowest opinion of California. Then again, it could be the rest were just being more polite ;)

wait a minute... so because LIBERAL judges say its unconstitutional, our votes mean squat? They interpret the law, which means it is ambiguous and it is bias on the part of the judges. Put conservatives, they will be anti gay, put liberals they will be pro gay... so no one is "right" so that's why I think it is better for the people of California to be heard rather than the judges who have obvious bias. In California gays have every civil right that straights have. Their civil unions are looked at the same way marriage is by the law, even though its not called marriage. So what if its not called marriage, they have the same rights, there is no right that is denied, they can still have traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Allowing gay marriages won't stop gay bashing and people discriminating against gays, homosexuals will still be denied jobs and other things by people even if they are "married". Ultimately their push towards the courts instead of trying to get it passed by the voters doesn't bring everyone together on the issue, it separates them more.

*sigh*

First, the California Supreme Court is dominated by conservative Republicans -- including the majority that decided In re Marriage Cases (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF), 43 Cal.4th 757 [76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384 (2008).

Second, the court in In re Marriage Cases explained at length why denying the right to marry to same-sex couples violated both fundamental rights and equal protection under the law. I suggest you read the case.

Third, although whether Prop. 8 is a valid revision of the California Constitution is now going to be decided, the general principle behind constitutions is that they override the desires of the majority when it comes to denying fundamental rights or equal protection under the law.

Fourth, your "the courts should wait for popular sentiment" argument has already been made and rebutted. You could make that argument in favor of any popular legislation that violates the U.S. Constitution. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka is an excellent example of a rightly decided case that went against popular opinion.

I believe Michigan passed it in the 2004 election, from what I remember. By a wide margin.One of 30 states to pass some form of it. Michigan is notable for having the most extremely hostile language in its version: nothing "similar" to marriage may be "recognized". It has already been ruled that this means employers cannot allow couples to carry each other on their health insurance policies. Whether couples can leave each other their property in a will, etc. has not been tested.

wait a minute... so because LIBERAL judges say its unconstitutional, our votes mean squat?

Yes. That's precisely that it means. If your vote is for something unconstitutional (according to somebody in a better position than you to say so, like a judge who has spent years as an expert in the field of law), then your vote does and should mean squat.


They interpret the law, which means it is ambiguous and it is bias on the part of the judges.

Bias is unavoidable. Live with it.


Put conservatives, they will be anti gay, put liberals they will be pro gay...

Not always. Some conservatives are pro-gay. Some liberals are anti-gay.


so no one is "right"

No. The laws of logic demand that someone is right. One of the two propositions "p" and "not p" is correct. What you mean is that people don't agree. But it does not follow that nobody is right.


so that's why I think it is better for the people of California to be heard rather than the judges who have obvious bias.

The people of California have already been heard from the moment the constitution was ratified. They said "this is the supreme law within these borders that every other law must be in agreement with."


In California gays have every civil right that straights have. Their civil unions are looked at the same way marriage is by the law, even though its not called marriage. So what if its not called marriage, they have the same rights, there is no right that is denied, they can still have traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Allowing gay marriages won't stop gay bashing and people discriminating against gays, homosexuals will still be denied jobs and other things by people even if they are "married". Ultimately their push towards the courts instead of trying to get it passed by the voters doesn't bring everyone together on the issue, it separates them more.
1) No, they don't have the same legal rights. That's the whole point of the challenge. Many laws turn on the marriage classification and therefore only cover people who are married. And let's not even talk about what happens outside of the State.

2) Yes, I agree with you that what we call the unions doesn't matter in the end. However, the fact that laws now talk about marriage specifically violates this understanding.

I haven't finished reading the brief. But I have to say I was shocked in the first place to learn Prop. 8 allegedly only required a bare majority to amend the California Constitution and take away fundamental rights and equality under the law. :eek:
Yes. I was driven to tears; this proposition is devastating.

*shrug* Lived in Nevada (Pahrump), Missouri (Kansas City), North Dakota (Fargo), Florida (Miami) and New York state (NYC). Pretty much the same response from everyone I met.

Oddly, it was those in NYC and Miami that had the lowest opinion of California. Then again, it could be the rest were just being more polite ;)NYC and Miami are just jealous.

The person who said "California is looked down upon by most of the rest of the country as filled with crazies and loonies" would have to be at the top of the list. I assume you live so deep in Red territory that you do not understand what "most of the rest of the country" is even like.
Take a trip to the deep south and you will find that opinion. Living in South Carolina in a county that has voted with the solid south (80% McCain 20% Obama this year :p) I expect that people in California probably think of us as crazies and loonies too. Ive been to San Diego twice and I quite liked it, but it was so different than what im used to. So don't be so quick to condemn that everyone "deep in red territory" is what you see on Hee Haw

wait a minute... so because LIBERAL judges say its unconstitutional, our votes mean squat? They interpret the law, which means it is ambiguous and it is bias on the part of the judges. Put conservatives, they will be anti gay, put liberals they will be pro gay... so no one is "right" so that's why I think it is better for the people of California to be heard rather than the judges who have obvious bias. In California gays have every civil right that straights have. Their civil unions are looked at the same way marriage is by the law, even though its not called marriage.

Just like when we had separate schools for black students, but it was OK because those schools were equal right?

*shrug* Lived in Nevada (Pahrump), Missouri (Kansas City), North Dakota (Fargo), Florida (Miami) and New York state (NYC). Pretty much the same response from everyone I met.

Oh, well your rather suspicious personal anecdotes are sure persuasive. You've obviously met several million people, and asked them all the same question.

You must be kinda tired though.

The Constitution doesn't keep laws that violate it from being passed. It provides the guidelines by which the courts can determine whether or not a given law is permissible.

If South Dakota's ballot measure had passed, it would have been challenged immediately. It most likely would have been put on hold (with an injunction) until the challenge and appeals were over. And it most likely would have been overturned.

SD was likely hoping that McCain would get in, have a few SCOTUS appointments, and stack the court with justices set on overturning Roe v. Wade.
Might not need McCain. court is currently 4 to 4 with one swing vote.
They likely want to make an attempt Before Obama can appoint any justices.

Might not need McCain. court is currently 4 to 4 with one swing vote.
They likely want to make an attempt Before Obama can appoint any justices.

Kennedy has voted to curtail abortion rights, but I don't see him overturning Roe v. Wade.

I'm pretty certain there would have to be another appointment before that could happen.

You should not be voting on whether or not to provide equal protection to some citizens.

Let me put it this way, gay union is the Lamborghini, and traditional marriage is the Ferrari. @ 200 mph they both have the same protection... and thats what I want on this issue... they are essentially the same thing but called different by a different brand... marriage isn't a service being provided by the government, its just a lisence... and it should state the same protections as a gay union license.
It has nothing to do with conservative or liberal. It has to do with a basic right - equal protection under the law.

Read my first response, I want people to be protected under the law.


Separate but equal is never equal.

And no, they are not equivalent in the law anyways.

That's what you say, but if they xeroxed copied all the rights traditional marriages have and applied them to homosexual unions, it would be equal under the law. The government doesn't have the power to change how gays are viewed by the people, gay people have the power to do that, and with time and with hard work they can stop gay bashing.


It isn't the fault of homosexuals that they are so often surrounded by bigots.

Look at it this way, if instead of women not being able to vote men couldn't vote the world would still be at the same spot in history. What if Blacks, or Asians, or Latinos (ect.) were the powerful "race" on the planet? We would still be pretty much at the same place in history. What if marriage was only homosexual? Would humans exist? Think about it... marriage existed far before any religious institution was founded. It is a basic instinct in humans; early humans were attracted to each other not because of love, but because of the goal to procreate successfully and create the next generation.
If people weren't dead-set on treating them as second-class citizens, there'd be no problem here.
I don't treat them as second rate citizens, I just think that their bond is a bond of love, and a traditional marriage is a bond of love and a bond of nature because through that bond a child can be created where as with homosexual bonds. It is natural for a species to place immense value on the bond individuals have which is responsible for producing children. Anyways... calling people bigots for expressing their opinions whether that be by vote or by speech is... pretty hypocritical and goes against your cause.

Just like when we had separate schools for black students, but it was OK because those schools were equal right? the only way i can see this happening again is if there are laws that pass favoring one group over the other, which I am against and I beleive that if something is passed that effects marriage or gay unions, it should effect the other in the same way.

So why aren't childless marriages treated differently? Your accused of bigotry, rightly or wrongly, because you support discrimination.

Let me put it this way, gay union is the Lamborghini, and traditional marriage is the Ferrari. @ 200 mph they both have the same protection... and thats what I want on this issue... they are essentially the same thing but called different by a different brand... marriage isn't a service being provided by the government, its just a lisence... and it should state the same protections as a gay union license.

Not under laws that specifically turn on the classification of "married persons."


I don't treat them as second rate citizens, I just think that their bond is a bond of love, and a traditional marriage is a bond of love and a bond of nature because through that bond a child can be created where as with homosexual bonds [a child cannot be created].

Untrue and irrelevant. A lesbian couple can, by acts done outside the relationship, rear biological children. Also, gay couple of any sex can raise adopted children. Raising children is a bond of nature. It's also not necessary for having recognized unions. We currently recognize marriage regardless of the couple's plans for raising children.


Anyways... calling people bigots for expressing their opinions whether that be by vote or by speech is... pretty hypocritical and goes against your cause.

No, not really. People often think that tolerance and diversity (TM) means you have to tolerate intolerance, which in fact, you don't.

Let me put it this way, gay union is the Lamborghini, and traditional marriage is the Ferrari. @ 200 mph they both have the same protection...


Except they don't. Look up the DoMA (1997) and see 1049 differences.


...and thats what I want on this issue... they are essentially the same thing but called different by a different brand... marriage isn't a service being provided by the government, its just a lisence...


On the contrary - it's neither of those things. The issue of the license IS a governmental service, and it connects to literally hundreds of rights.


That's what you say, but if they xeroxed copied all the rights traditional marriages have and applied them to homosexual unions, it would be equal under the law. The government doesn't have the power to change how gays are viewed by the people,


On the contrary, the government DOES have the ability to change how people are viewed, as demonstrated by abolition of slavery, the emancipation of the female vote, and the unification of racially segregated education.


...gay people have the power to do that, and with time and with hard work they can stop gay bashing.


What about straight people that fight alongside those gay people for their equality?

From what you've written, it seems you view it as gays v's straights, but it ain't like that.

I don't treat them as second rate citizens, I just think that their bond is a bond of love, and a traditional marriage is a bond of love and a bond of nature because through that bond a child can be created where as with homosexual bonds.


Oh no, not this bullshit, again.

Even in straight marriage, children do NOT have to be the biological children of the married couple.

I have a step daughter, and yet she's my daughter every bit as much as my biological child. I have lesbian friends who have the happiest, most-well-adjusted teenage son I have ever met. Gay people can have children.


It is natural for a species to place immense value on the bond individuals have which is responsible for producing children. Anyways... calling people bigots for expressing their opinions whether that be by vote or by speech is... pretty hypocritical and goes against your cause.


Nature is irrelevent. Homosexuality exists in nature. Octopi, for example, not only couple with their own gender, they do it across species lines with other types of octopi. 'Nature' is not necessarily the measure we want here. Certainly not for the argument you seem to want to make.

Let me put it this way, gay union is the Lamborghini, and traditional marriage is the Ferrari. @ 200 mph they both have the same protection... and thats what I want on this issue... they are essentially the same thing but called different by a different brand...

Separate but equal is never equal. What you are talking about is semi-equality, not actual equality.

marriage isn't a service being provided by the government, its just a lisence... and it should state the same protections as a gay union license.

Actually, marriage is a set of protections afforded by the government. The marriage license is simply the manner in which you obtain those protections.

Read my first response, I want people to be protected under the law.

Just like people who supported segregated schools claimed to want people to be protected under the law.

You want them to be protected as a separate class of citizens.

That's what you say, but if they xeroxed copied all the rights traditional marriages have and applied them to homosexual unions, it would be equal under the law.

Actually, it wouldn't. Marriage also has considerations nationwide and internationally.

And then there is the issue of having a second-class citizen status - a separate legal structure for one class of citizens as opposed to another.

The government doesn't have the power to change how gays are viewed by the people, gay people have the power to do that, and with time and with hard work they can stop gay bashing.

The government doesn't have to change how anyone view anybody else and cannot. The government cannot do away with bigotry in society. But they are required to provide equal protection - to do away with institutionalized biogtry. And equal protection does not mean "We'll declare them as a separate class of citizens with separate legal structures."

I don't treat them as second rate citizens, I just think that their bond is a bond of love, and a traditional marriage is a bond of love and a bond of nature because through that bond a child can be created where as with homosexual bonds.

Legal marriage does not require the creation of a child. If it did, we'd have to exclude all people who are sterile.

It is natural for a species to place immense value on the bond individuals have which is responsible for producing children. Anyways... calling people bigots for expressing their opinions whether that be by vote or by speech is... pretty hypocritical and goes against your cause.

I'm not calling people bigots for expressing their opinions. I'm calling them bigots for voting in a bigoted manner. People who do not support equal protection for homosexuals are being bigoted. Period.

It isn't hypocritical to point out bigotry.

Now, people who support semi-equality might be better than those who support true equality, but that is neither here nor there.

the only way i can see this happening again is if there are laws that pass favoring one group over the other, which I am against and I beleive that if something is passed that effects marriage or gay unions, it should effect the other in the same way.

(a) Then what exactly is the point of the separate legal structures?

(b) That would be horribly unwieldy and, in practice, would never happen.

(c) You are talking about creating two separate legal structures - one of which would be held in higher regard. Even if they had all the same protections (which is pretty much legally impossible), you would still be setting up a separate class of citizens.

Two things. Firstly, Obama not coming fully out for No on 8 (wording unintentional) and the mere fact this passed in a solidly Democratic state (and that now-light-blue Florida passed a similar law even with a 60% threshold) is a sign that many, many moderates are not prepared to grant gay rights.

Secondly, this may well be that people are afraid of what they do not understand. Most Americans now recognise that skin pigment does not a good or bad person make. They haven't made such a shift on sexual orientation, perhaps because they see it on some level as a lifestyle choice rather than an accident of birth. (Hence the 'ex-gay' fundamentalist movement, etc.)

Kennedy has voted to curtail abortion rights, but I don't see him overturning Roe v. Wade.

I'm pretty certain there would have to be another appointment before that could happen.
it why they waited until the end of bushes presidency they were hoping for another appointee. I would say heard now 80% chance not over turned. but a 20% chance of it being over turned or more highly restricted.

All the justices that will mostly likely die or retire next are of the liberal camp.

Two things. Firstly, Obama not coming fully out for No on 8 (wording unintentional) and the mere fact this passed in a solidly Democratic state (and that now-light-blue Florida passed a similar law even with a 60% threshold) is a sign that many, many moderates are not prepared to grant gay rights.

I agree. And this is a serious problem, because the prerequisite to having freedom is recognizing the freedom of other people (Bakunin, et al).


Secondly, this may well be that people are afraid of what they do not understand. Most Americans now recognise that skin pigment does not a good or bad person make. They haven't made such a shift on sexual orientation, perhaps because they see it on some level as a lifestyle choice rather than an accident of birth. (Hence the 'ex-gay' fundamentalist movement, etc.)
But then this introduces a serious problem: why should lifestyle choices determine a person's rights? Last I checked, Black people never made the argument that "we deserve rights, and we're sorry you hate us being Black, but it's really not our fault. We didn't choose to be this way." It is as if, had Black people chosen the color of their skin, then they would in fact deserve their second-class status. Doesn't that seem a little strange, to say the least?

Personally, I'm done with this argument about lifestyle. Whether I choose to be gay, bisexual or trans has nothing to do with the morality of my loving, committed same-sex relationships. These relationships are beautiful and should be recognized by a society.

I totally agree that lifestyle shouldn't matter. Unfortunately we are dealing with a real world in which, to too many people, it does.

Ok, yeah it sucks that Prop. 8 and the Environmental Props failed. I agree that these are the dark spots of an otherwise great election. But guess what? Another major election is coming up in just 2 years! And we can make a difference. What's the biggest problem that gays have? Adoption and visitation rights. So let's forget marriage, and work on a proposition that ONLY deals with adoption AND visitation rights. I'm a Christian who's ok with both, BTW, so let's not bring religion into this. Take it one step at a time. First adoption and visitation rights, then civil unions, then marriage.

On the environment - we need to rally against these oil robber barrons. How about a direct proposition: "Oil companies must pay taxes on windfall profits acquired in California [easy to calculate] and these taxes shall be used for the explicit purposes of distributin solar power throughout California." Something like that. Maybe even tax the top five percent, they said that if they're taxes are up they'll leave, but come on. Who's going to leave the entertainment capital of the World?

So who the heck is with me on this?

Can this not be merged into an already-existing thread on this, please -_-

Can this not be merged into an already-existing thread on this, please -_-

No, it's a policy proposal. These don't get merged.

No, it's a policy proposal. These don't get merged.
Sad times.

Ok, yeah it sucks that Prop. 8 and the Environmental Props failed. I agree that these are the dark spots of an otherwise great election. But guess what? Another major election is coming up in just 2 years! And we can make a difference. What's the biggest problem that gays have? Adoption and visitation rights. So let's forget marriage, and work on a proposition that ONLY deals with adoption AND visitation rights. I'm a Christian who's ok with both, BTW, so let's not bring religion into this. Take it one step at a time. First adoption and visitation rights, then civil unions, then marriage.

Good call!

Focussing on the actual (legal) benefits of marriage is (a) a compromise, wise given how marriage rights seem to be going backwards, and (b) directs attention at same-sex families: family life doesn't have the "ick" factor that other people having sex does.

EDIT: And if this thread ends up the same as the other one, they can be merged then.

Good call!

Focussing on the actual (legal) benefits of marriage is (a) a compromise, wise given how marriage rights seem to be going backwards, and (b) directs attention at same-sex families: family life doesn't have the "ick" factor that other people having sex does.

EDIT: And if this thread ends up the same as the other one, they can be merged then.

Compromise, when it comes to civil rights, is not a good idea. That is saying "What? We gave them something! What more do they want, to be actual people?"

It does nothing but reaffirm their subhuman treatment.

Also, same sex families are one of the biggest arguments against gay marriage. The whole "think of the children" thing.

I totally agree that lifestyle shouldn't matter. Unfortunately we are dealing with a real world in which, to too many people, it does.
Well, my point is that in a democracy, we should at least have some shared assumptions. What makes democracy liberating compared to monarchy is that it is supposed to be a sentinel against tyranny, not a mechanism for instituting it. I had assumed that the right of free association was one of those assumptions.

Compromise, when it comes to civil rights, is not a good idea. That is saying "What? We gave them something! What more do they want, to be actual people?"

It does nothing but reaffirm their subhuman treatment.

Also, same sex families are one of the biggest arguments against gay marriage. The whole "think of the children" thing.

Who's compromising? We're taking it one step at a time. Universal Education wasn't born overnight. Also, gays in California are only treated subhumanly when it comes to visitation rights, the very thing we're overturning. In addition, most people don't want gays having tax cuts, and that's why at the very least 11.2% voted yes on this proposition. I live in California - I can tell you right now, that most people here want gays to adopt. Because more of the kids in shelters end up in jail. Where do you think gays are adopting from? The Model Home of Mr and Mrs. Smith?

Good call!

Focussing on the actual (legal) benefits of marriage is (a) a compromise, wise given how marriage rights seem to be going backwards, and (b) directs attention at same-sex families: family life doesn't have the "ick" factor that other people having sex does.

EDIT: And if this thread ends up the same as the other one, they can be merged then.

Exactly. Also, as for family life, I mean your parents don't show you how they have sex. Gay families don't have sex in front of kids either. And if anyone's ever seen a varsity team celebrate gold - the hugging, ass slapping, cheek kissing, I mean if that's gay behaviour, then I gotta say, at least half of all of our athletes are gay. Something, (maybe their wives and girlfriends,) tells me otherwise. So I just don't get what's so wrong about letting gays adopt.

Well, my point is that in a democracy, we should at least have some shared assumptions. What makes democracy liberating compared to monarchy is that it is supposed to be a sentinel against tyranny, not a mechanism for instituting it. I had assumed that the right of free association was one of those assumptions.

Tyranny by an uninformed majority. It's why Democracy fails if the education system fails. Solution: Better education system for all!

No, the amendment is a law. Nothing more.

Only in a narrow legal sense. But then you're just repeating a tautology.

To be honest, I don't think anyone outside of the state really cares either.

And that's why this was the most expensive campaign on a ballot measure, ever? And why it was the second most expensive campaign anywhere in the country this year (after the presidential one)? And why the major reason for that was the out-of-state funding, on both sides?

If California had kept same-sex marriage, it would have been over for the opponents. Oh, they would have whined and fought for much longer, no doubt, but it would have been a palpable shift from same-sex marriage being legal in a fringe New England state (and now two of them) to same-sex marriage being legal in the largest state in the union, with thirty-six million people and a cultural influence that is even greater than that. Simply the presence of married same-sex couples there would have mainstreamed the issue, quite aside from what people think of California's political judgment.

Remember, there are states out there that have amendments that state they do not recognize same-sex marriages made in other states.

Right, it would have changed very little legally. But it would have changed much socially and culturally.

The argument is that in effect, Proposition 8 introduces the idea that fundamental rights can be denied by a simple majority vote, and thereby constitutes a revision to the constitution of the kind that only a constitutional convention can legitimate.

But this is a poor argument.

One procedure for amending the California Constitution is initiative and majority vote. That's the law, it was the law before Prop. 8, and if you have a problem with that aspect of the law, you have to change the constitution, and you can't do that in court. The role of the people has always been to craft and amend the constitution (directly or through the legislature); the role of the courts is to interpret it. There's no alteration to those roles with Prop. 8.

I was looking at the exit polling breakdown of prop 8 and it looks like a large African American turn out might actually be what pushed prop 8 over as they broke for it 70% to 30% (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#CAI01p1).

I'm still holding out hope, but I'm going to sleep a little depressed.
The minority voters who turned out in droves for Obama are what led to Prop 8 passing.

They tend to be economically liberal and will vote Democrat, but most are very religious and thus conservative on social issues.

So I just don't get what's so wrong about letting gays adopt.

Didn't you get the memo?

They are obviously going to molest them and give them gay cooties so there will be more gay people! Civilization will decline because there will be less hetros around....

Didn't you get the memo?

They are obviously going to molest them and give them gay cooties so there will be more gay people! Civilization will decline because there will be less hetros around....

Didn't you know that every zombie movie since Night of the Living Dead is a metaphorical/subliminal warning about The Gay Peril? Even hugging homos will infect you and turn into a flaming queer or a raging bull dyke and that's what these films are trying to warn Real Americans about.

That and saying the best way to deal with homosexuals is to put a bullet in their head.

Didn't you get the memo?

They are obviously going to molest them and give them gay cooties so there will be more gay people! Civilization will decline because there will be less hetros around....

[I know you're being ironic, but I'll reply as if you were a Neocon]

Yes, and putting kids on the streets wouldn't get them raped, give them cooties, get them raped again, this time with molestation, maybe a little ass-raping, and then have them die of hunger.

Newsflash: Gays will be adopting kids off the street, who desperately need a home! Guess how much rights homeless people have in California? Unless they know an attorney - zilch!

As for visitation rights - a gay doctor couldn't treat a patient, because they had sex. As a result, the patient died. Also, if you are gay and on your deathbed, you cannot actually see your friends if it's a public place, like a hospital. For this reason gays refuse medical treatment outside of their house.

So yeah, that's why a straight guy like me is against prop 8 and for visititation rights and adoption rights for gays. Now who's with me on this one?

I'll tell you what I would do. I'd pick up a gun, and shoot-to-kill every single last police officer I could find. I would post around town that the revolution has started effective immediately, and that riots should specifically target the police stations, and that anyone found inside will be shot without question. These posters would offer ample warning that cops who disagree with the law and support the cause of justice can make themselves clearly known by surrendering their badges and authority immediately, and that to avoid any accidental confusion, they should not be seen in uniform in public.

So you'd fight the fascist government by gunning down police officers that could as far as you know want to revolt as much as you? And then put up posters telling the ones lucky enough not be caught in your rampage that they have a chance at surrender?


Nature is irrelevent. Homosexuality exists in nature. Octopi, for example, not only couple with their own gender, they do it across species lines with other types of octopi. 'Nature' is not necessarily the measure we want here. Certainly not for the argument you seem to want to make.

Homosexual behaviour in other animals is a lot more interesting than a lot of people realise too.

Couples of black swan males have even been known to find a female swan and either "adopt" (read: steal) her children or use her as a surrogate.

Oh no, not this bullshit, again.

Even in straight marriage, children do NOT have to be the biological children of the married couple.

In fact, they don't even have to exist at all.

But this is a poor argument.

One procedure for amending the California Constitution is initiative and majority vote. That's the law, it was the law before Prop. 8, and if you have a problem with that aspect of the law, you have to change the constitution, and you can't do that in court. The role of the people has always been to craft and amend the constitution (directly or through the legislature); the role of the courts is to interpret it. There's no alteration to those roles with Prop. 8.
I'm not saying it's a good argument, necessarily. I think it's an interesting argument, though, and it's one that may at least tie the court up for a while. And since the suit doesn't actually ask the court to decide the constitutionality of the issue at the moment, it doesn't really matter if they're grasping for strays, since not much is at risk.

So you'd fight the fascist government by gunning down police officers that could as far as you know want to revolt as much as you? And then put up posters telling the ones lucky enough not be caught in your rampage that they have a chance at surrender?

Sorry. I mean to say due warning first (say, 48 hours), but essentially in the fascist government case, I would advocate a very liberal use of deadly force. This force however should be pin-pointed to target law enforcement and no others.

I'm not saying it's a good argument, necessarily. I think it's an interesting argument, though, and it's one that may at least tie the court up for a while.

Yeah, I hope they stay Prop. 8 for a while. The more same-sex marriages before it comes into effect, the better.

Yeah, I hope they stay Prop. 8 for a while. The more same-sex marriages before it comes into effect, the better.
Precisely. That way, it's easier to demonstrate constitutional harm.

In fact, they don't even have to exist at all.
Don't you have some fencing to do?

Don't you have some fencing to do?
Fencing: it's a good sport.

Fencing: it's a good sport.
That's what i've been hearing, but it's hard for me to forsake alligator wrestling.
*looks wistfully at Intangelon*

That's what i've been hearing, but it's hard for me to forsake alligator wrestling.
*looks wistfully at Intangelon*
I'd rather stab the alligator than wrestle it.

I'd rather stab the alligator than wrestle it.:eek:
There might be some thrusting of sorts, maybe even penetration, but if you're talking about swords and alligators, that's just wrong.

:eek:
There might be some thrusting of sorts, maybe even penetration, but if you're talking about swords and alligators, that's just wrong.
As much as my attitude on sexuality is "if it moves, yes," I try to keep it at least in my species.

As much as my attitude on sexuality is "if it moves, yes," I try to keep it at least in my species.I thought it was the way they did things in their kingdom, so i didn't stop him. You know, like Fluffy on the leg, establishing dominance and such.
Ever hear of "sharkjacking"?
Uhm, me neither.

Am I the only one who thinks that it's both sad and ironic that on the same day America elects its first black President, that several states vote to write discrimination and bigotry into the law?

To be honest I wasn't expecting anything more from the Southern states that voted to ban same-sex marriage, but I'm ashamed that the formerly great state of California voted to write that same discrimination into their constitution where same-sex marriage was already fucking legal. They lose the rights that they have fought so long and hard for just because some religious nutjobs and some ignorant people don't like the idea of people of the same gender getting married when it has no effect on them whatsoever. November 4th was a sad day for civil rights even if Obama was elected President. It is my hope that Obama, who has stated his opposition to Prop 8, vetoes the bill or selects judges that will overturn this act of discrimination.

For those of you who support of the ban, don't go coming to me with bullshit that the majority has spoken and they don't like it. This is a clear example of tyranny by majority. The constitution was written to protect minorities and equal rights, not to take them away. The founding fathers are turning in their graves. This was not the America they envisioned where an oppressive and ignorant majority can take away the rights of minorities that they don't like. Why do you think they escaped to America in the first place? To live free of discrimination, persecution, and not have their rights stripped away from an uncaring majority. America is supposed to be the land of the free. Apparently some people seem to think that 'the land of the free' only applies to white, heterosexual, property-owning, Christian males or groups that they don't treat as second class (inferior) citizens. History has taught us that only after facing tough ignorance, racism, sexism, discrimination, violence, and even death that minority groups slowly gain equality. Prop 8 is simply unAmerican an undemocratic.

If we had listened to ignorance in the past, slavery would still be legal.

If we had listened to ignorance in the past, women would not have the right to vote or have jobs.

If we had listened to ignorance in the past, blacks and other minorities would not have gained the right to vote and live free of dehumanizing discrimination laws.

If we had listened to ignorance in the past, interracial marriage would still be illegal as it also somehow went against your faith.

If we hadn't listened to ignorance now, gays and lesbians would be treated as equals and have the right to marry.

So why should we listen to you now as you force the state of California to write discrimination into its law? Do you think that if a vote was held 200 years ago outlawing slavery it would have passed? Do you think if a vote was held on the women's suffrage movement it would have passed? Do you think that if a vote was held 50 years ago blacks would have been given the right to vote and live free of persecution? No. Even if there was a vote great people like Doctor King would not have sat there and taken it while doing nothing. They would have fought it every step of the way even if it meant more persecution or the threat of imprisonment and death. Civil rights activists and the gay community have every right to do the same today to work to over turn an unconstitutional proposition. If I was gay and living in California I know I wouldn't take kindly to sitting around as some ignorant people oppress me and make it the law to take away my rights. How would you feel if you had your rights taken away?

Let's say that there was a ban on heterosexual marriage and it passed with a majority. Would you just accept it as 'the people have spoken' and allow such discrimination to be written in the law? No. You would fight tooth and nail to have it removed so don't bitch about homosexuals and their supporters trying to do the same.

I ask the religious types who worked to vote yes on Prop 8 - what gives you the right to force your religious dogma into the law and therefore on to the entire population of the state? What gives you the right to freely discriminate against a minority and impose your will on them? What gives you the right to rape a state's constitution to write discrimination into the law without giving me bullshit that it 'goes against your faith' and 'protects children'?

While we're on the topic of 'protecting children', I'm assuming that you're ignoring all the children who are ignored, abused, sexually assaulted, and abandoned by those oh so loving heterosexual parents. The ones who turn to a life of crime and drugs because their father is a deadbeat and their mother could give two shits about them. The children who grow up perfectly normal, and straight, by their evil homosexual parents.

If you ban same-sex marriage because of those two reasons, then why not ban divorce? Divorce goes against your faith and doesn't protect children at all. Why not ban adultery? It goes against your faith and doesn't protect children. Why not vote to ban childless couples from getting married? Atheists? Non-Christians? Why don't we just go back to the dark ages where people were killed, beheaded, stoned, and burned alive for 'going against your faith'? When you force shit like Prop 8 on the entire fucking population it only means that you want your religious views to be forced on them, that national and state policy should be dictated by you when ignoring the non-religious and other religions that actually have no problems with same-sex marriage.

Nobody was forcing you to preform same-sex marriages in your churches and nobody was forcing you to have a same-sex marriage, but here you are forcing the state to strip away the rights of homosexuals and the churches that did preform same-sex marriages. Your ignorance was responsible for creating one of the most despicable campaigns, most of which was funded by the Mormon church, to spread your propaganda and messages of fear and hatred to an entire population. Whatever happened to religion being about peace, tolerance, and understanding of all? Oh yeah, you religious nuts who twist your religion into an excuse for ignorance, hatred, and discrimination. I wouldn't want to live in a country where people like you continue to oppress homosexuals and anyone else for going against your faith.

Look, I have nothing against your faith and I perfectly understand why its the basis on how you act. I'm not advocating any hatred or ignorance to what you believe. I myself was raised Catholic (without being ignorant) until I was old and mature enough to make decisions for myself and I discovered that religion isn't something for me when so many people misuse it and use it as an excuse for ignorance. What you believe in is none of my business. I have no problem with religious people who didn't support Prop 8 and those who don't go around preaching all the time. What I do have a problem with is when you use that faith to strip away the rights of a minority, change the constitution to suit your views, fund a propaganda campaign based on ignorance, and tell people what they can and can't do with their lives.

I'm glad that I live in a country where discrimination and ignorance isn't the law and where your types aren't forcing your way into government to impose your will on the entire population.

Where was all this moral outrage when other, normally reasonably progressive, states banned gay marriage? Why did the homosexuals of Wisconsin, Michigan, Vermont or New Jersey not rate this sort of concern?

Jesus said so.

Jesus said so.

Can you give me a specific passage so I can refute this "Its in teh Bible" rubbish?

Can you give me a specific passage so I can refute this "Its in teh Bible" rubbish?

I'm pretty sure the line goes something like "man shall not lie with man as with woman".

Bunches of threads merged.

Can we not have 20 different threads on Prop 8, please? A little self-control would be helpful.

I'm pretty sure the line goes something like "man shall not lie with man as with woman".

Jesus didn't say that. You're quoting old testament.

I'm pretty sure the line goes something like "man shall not lie with man as with woman".

which technically, Jesus did not say (according to New Genoa). but then again, you don't hear Jesus neither condemning it nor condoning it.

I'm pretty sure the line goes something like "man shall not lie with man as with woman".

If you had read my post, I asked you to give me reasons without quoting religious rhetoric and without mentioning Jesus.

Where was all this moral outrage when other, normally reasonably progressive, states banned gay marriage? Why did the homosexuals of Wisconsin, Michigan, Vermont or New Jersey not rate this sort of concern?
First, California is large and has a long history of leading on gay rights. (See San Francisco). The sheer size of California meant lots of marriages would be involved - and also more likely to provoke a serious contracts clause challenge in federal courts of another state's gay marriage bans.

Second, and more importantly, this marks a reversal of progress. All the other states in which gay marriage has been banned did not have legalized gay marriage before - it was simply a pre-emptive strike to prevent gay marriage from becoming legalized.

First, California is large and has a long history of leading on gay rights. (See San Francisco). The sheer size of California meant lots of marriages would be involved - and also more likely to provoke a serious contracts clause challenge in federal courts of another state's gay marriage bans.

Second, and more importantly, this marks a reversal of progress. All the other states in which gay marriage has been banned did not have legalized gay marriage before - it was simply a pre-emptive strike to prevent gay marriage from becoming legalized.

wasn't it voted on to be banned at the start, but the California Supreme Court overturned that?

which technically, Jesus did not say (according to New Genoa). but then again, you don't hear Jesus neither condemning it nor condoning it.

He says EVERYONE should be celibate if they can, though. (Well, it's actually more DIRECTLY a call to cut your own nuts off, technically).

It's amazing that people are so ready to pick and choose which parts of their scripture they're willing to accept. Usually the bits that condemn what OTHER people do.