proposition bloody 8

[Mister]

UPDATE-  The ACLU has filed a lawsuit claiming that Prop 8 shouldn't have gone to a vote but rather should've been scheduled for Legislative approval. 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/05/BA3B13UM63.DTL

[deviousxen]

This is why I don't subscribe to being proud to be an american just cause Obama won.

I'm still just as rightfully cynical, and skeptical as I was before. Why? Not only is it my job, but this Prop. is a failure that is disgusting to me.

[icontact]

Jaysus wants you to turn straight, you dumb sinners. Why, if Jaysus were here rot now, he'd drive a big fat SUV, belong to a neighborhood association and vote r'publican.

Amerucka is a place whar you kin be free to live any way ya please, as long as ya ain't one o' those sinnin' queers. And in this great land of ares, everybody is created equal, cept immigrants n homersexuls. An' foreigners. An' jews.

Praise Jaysus. (He also wants fer you to be rich!)

LMFAO, well put.

[Hazumu]

So, how many registered LGBT are there (still) in California?

How many are lawyers with the smarts to write airtight propositions, with language that will withstand court challenge?

How many issues can we qualify for ballots for the next 10~15 years -- issues like keeping outside influence OUTSIDE?

Or issues like repealing rights for other groups?

Or banning divorce.

Or limiting marriage to only those who are fertile and produce issue?

They'll all be voted down -- the LGBT community doesn't have that kind of lunch-money.

But we can at least have fun scrawling on the walls of society...

Karen

[kae m]

So, how many registered LGBT are there (still) in California?

How many are lawyers with the smarts to write airtight propositions, with language that will withstand court challenge?

How many issues can we qualify for ballots for the next 10~15 years -- issues like keeping outside influence OUTSIDE?

Or issues like repealing rights for other groups?

Or banning divorce.

Or limiting marriage to only those who are fertile and produce issue?

They'll all be voted down -- the LGBT community doesn't have that kind of lunch-money.

But we can at least have fun scrawling on the walls of society...

Karen

Or just stop recognizing marriage at the state and federal level, since marriage is a religious practice which (perhaps even unconstitutionally) gives one set of rights to some people, and a more limited set others.
As entertaining as these might be to watch, I really don't think anyone wants them.  It would feel absolutely horrible if the fight for LGBT rights trampled the rights of anyone else.

[lady amarant]

Or just stop recognizing marriage at the state and federal level, since marriage is a religious practice which (perhaps even unconstitutionally) gives one set of rights to some people, and a more limited set others.
As entertaining as these might be to watch, I really don't think anyone wants them.  It would feel absolutely horrible if the fight for LGBT rights trampled the rights of anyone else.

It would be horrible yeah, but perhaps, as with suing god (or rather the church as god's representatives on earth, like Billy Connelly did), actually doing something like that could become an important symbolic act that might just get the point across about taking rights away from people or denying them equal rights.

~Simone.

[Alyssa M.]

Or just stop recognizing marriage at the state and federal level, since marriage is a religious practice which (perhaps even unconstitutionally) gives one set of rights to some people, and a more limited set others.

YES YES YES!!!!! Preserve the sactity of the sacrament of marriage -- get government out of the business entirely!

Now, we could maybe move to Cali and begin to agitate and work to have that sort of proposition voted on!

The gay recruiting effort must have been off its top game this year. Gotta get those numbers up!!!

--

on a more serious note:

In fact, in recent times, only Reagan's second term was over 60% of the popular vote.  Small victories and some large ones happen, but the sobering truth is that we are still a very deeply divided nation.

And in '80 he barely got over 50% (though he beat Carter by almost 10 points anyway).

But that's not reflective of the unity of the country. We have close elections because our Constitution produces a two party system. So half the people are more liberal than average, and half more conservative. If you have a candidate that is more cerntrist than necessary, it's a waste -- might as well squeak by in the election with someone more in line with the half of the country the party represents (or at least, more closely represents).

Presidential lections are structured to be squeakers, regardless how unified or divided we are, which is why more than 10% spread really is a landslide, and Obama's victory a solid one.

I'd agree that Prop 8 is a different story, one that really does indicate a deep divide.

~Alyssa

[Thurston]

As a Californian myself, I was extremely disappointed.
I just didn't expect it. I truly, in my heart, though that victory was as good as ours.

I can't believe that 52% of our population who will not be affected whatsoever by whats being voted on, had the right to take that right away from the other 48%.

(Granted there were many straight people that voted no, it's still outrageous)

But with all the lawsuits being filed, the blatant illegal tactics used by the YES on 8 campaign, and the strong will of our community, I'm assured that this cannot last long. 

[sarahb]

So I have a pretty obvious question: Can't the California Supreme Court overrule this prop just like the last time? Isn't it just as unconstitutional today as it was when they first overturned it for being unconstitutional?

Also, how can something be put into a vote when the final call on it said that it was unconstitutional? So are things only unconstitutional if the majority thinks it is?

[Fox]

Im in agreance after being happy that Obama won I was highly irritated to see the support for propositon 8. Well thats america for you we claim to be the land of the free and in many ways we are but then we turn around and tell someone they can't have the same basic rights as everyone else. The most sickening comment I heard on the news concerning the issue was how many religous conservatives view passing propositon 8 as more important than the presidental election itself to many that borders on the fanatical level. I live in NC myself which will prob be one of the last states to ever see gay marriage passed due to being in the bible belt although I must say that the results for the presidental election made me actually proud of my state for the first time ever. It gives me some hope that NC can become more known as the Biotech state than the bible belt.

[Alyssa M.]

I'm thinking of a referendum preventing out of state Mormons from donating huge amounts of money to propositions.

I would've thought that sorta thing would be banned anyway, I mean, the states are supposed to be independent, self-governing entities, for the most part. Huge-scale influence like this from outside parties is clear interference.

~Simone.

Why do you hate America?

Actually, that's half-serious. I can't stand it when liberals complain about the influence of religion in government. That's not the country I live in, nor the country I want to live in. I live in a country that, for better or worse, was founded on freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. I commend anyone who takes their personal convictions seriously enough to affect their view of what society we want to live in -- even though I might disagree strongly, and deplore the implications of those convictions.

Remember that many civil rights leaders were driven by religious convictions. I don't care whether your convictions come from the Dalai Lama, the Pope, Karl Marx, or Ayn Rand. It is entirely appropriate that you live out those convictions in how you speak publicly and how you vote privately.

It is job to explain to the Mormons and culturally conservative blacks and latinos, among many others that supported Prop 8, that gay marriage is a civil right on par with interracial marriage. It is not our job to silence those groups. As Schwarzenegger said, "It's the same as in the 1948 case when blacks and whites were not allowed to marry. This falls into the same category." Those groups don't understand that. We need to explain it.

--

Seriously, though, where do Mormons get off advocating for government interference with regard to who can marry whom? Mormons?!?!?! Just asking them that -- rather than telling them they should stfu and gtfo -- might actually accomplish something.

~Alyssa

[lady amarant]

Alyssa,

I disagree insofar as, in my opinion, imposing one's religious views on others is in and of itself a rights violation. This is not a majority rule issue. It's a question of basic equality, and it's in that that I believe that, not only should churches not have had such a powerful say in the matter, I don't even feel the referendum itself can be justified. If it were a question of forcing churches to marry gay couples yeah, that would be a "coomunity issue", but purely in affording one group of human beings the same basic rights as other groups - HOW can that be something an enlightened society can feel justified to vote on?

~Simone.

Posted on: 15 November 2008, 07:02:10Wait, different thought:

What is the highest "Law of the Land" in the United States? I've always understood it to be, at least in principle, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

In South Africa, the Constitutional Court, and through it the constitution, is the highest law. Basically that's why we have civil unions on a par with marriages in here - even beyond the Supreme Court of Appeal, any citizen can take a perceived rights violation or inequality to the Constitutional Court, which then rules on the matter. If it finds in favour of the plaintiff, it can actually instruct Parliament to formulate and pass a Bill to the effect of the ruling.

So in theory, even if a referendum took away the rights gay couples enjoy under civil unions, (which are marriages in all but name) whether at provincial or national level, it would ultimately be overturned in the constitutional court. The only way that rights could ever be taken away from a group would be through an amendment to the constitution, which would have to pass through parliament on at least a two-thirds majority.

So the question I'm asking: Is there not a similar mechanism that can be followed in the US?

~Simone.

[Kaelin]

Actually, that's half-serious. I can't stand it when liberals complain about the influence of religion in government. That's not the country I live in, nor the country I want to live in. I live in a country that, for better or worse, was founded on freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

People are entitled to freedom to (and yes, even from) religion as a matter of personal belief and speech.  However, the government is not allowed to promote the *establishment* of a religion, yet the religious contract of marriage (particularly mixed-sex-only marriage) has repeatedly been given legal support.  Or more precisely, the majority religious view been established to oppress the minority religious view -- keep in mind that Prop supporters are *denying* the religious rights of certain others, but that the Prop opponents (by virtue of having a more inclusive policy) do not do the same.

It is job to explain to the Mormons and culturally conservative blacks and latinos, among many others that supported Prop 8, that gay marriage is a civil right on par with interracial marriage. It is not our job to silence those groups.

Non-violent protests are a way of making of making their voice heard.  And they definitely are not any ugly in their expression as conservatives who camp out at clinics that perform abortions, who seek to *intimidate* pretty systematically...

Seriously, though, where do Mormons get off advocating for government interference with regard to who can marry whom?

That's not really an idea popular to Mormons for quite a while.  In fact, modern Mormons are rather unhappy with being confused with the Fundamental LDS sect that's done some pretty creepy "marriage" arrangements (involving young teenage girls and far older men).

[kae m]

So the question I'm asking: Is there not a similar mechanism that can be followed in the US?

~Simone.

It's tricky, but here's the really really basic overview that's going to miss a bunch of details:
There's the constitution which covers the US, then each state has a constitution too.  The US constitution grants a set of basic rights, and the state constitutions can grant other rights.  The proposition in California was a state constitutional amendment which actually added "marriage is between one man and one woman".  Previously, the California supreme court's decision was that blocking gay people to marry was unconstitutional on the basis that it denied a group rights that another group had, and that's something prohibited by the constitution.  The decision they made is still accurate, but now the constitution actually says same-sex couples can't get married.  So unlike a law, the state supreme court can't overturn it for being unconstitutional - it's actually in the constitution now.

That means the path to overturning it is either through voiding the proposition on the grounds that it fundamentally changes the intent of the state constitution, or sending it to the US supreme court.  There's a very real argument for both, the constitution is meant to give the same rights to everyone, this amendment fundamentally changes that.  Such a fundamental change to the intent of the constitution needs a 2/3s majority in the state legislature, and wouldn't be eligible to be amended through a proposition.  The other option would almost definitely fail if it was tried right now.  While I think the same argument is still valid, there are too many conservative judges in the supreme court, they would rule in favor of the state.  The bigger problem is there's going to be a certain resentment toward the LGBT community as a whole if the proposition, and the will of the majority of voters, is overturned and voided.  The right decision isn't going to be the popular decision.

The whole thing is going to be a pretty big embarrassment 50-100 years from now, as it should be.  But right now we just have to keep pushing for everyone's rights, we might only make it with incremental steps, but we should never be willing to settle for anything less than equality for everyone.  I am fortunate enough to have the right to marry any person I want in my state, but injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere and all that.

[lady amarant]

There's a very real argument for both, the constitution is meant to give the same rights to everyone, this amendment fundamentally changes that.  Such a fundamental change to the intent of the constitution needs a 2/3s majority in the state legislature, and wouldn't be eligible to be amended through a proposition.

That was basically what I was getting at. Our constitution is also meant to give rights rather than taking them away, and any laws or movements to change that have a REAL uphill battle to fight. That's why capital punishment is still illegal, and probably always will be, even though the vast majority of people would vote for it because of our high crime rate - the right to life is guaranteed by our constitutionm, and rights cannot be taken away.

The other option would almost definitely fail if it was tried right now.  While I think the same argument is still valid, there are too many conservative judges in the supreme court, they would rule in favor of the state.

As I understand, the Supreme Court is about equal to our Constitutional Court. Sounds like the difference here is that our judges are obligated to stick to the constitution, while Supreme Court judges are allowed alot more freedom in their rulings.

The bigger problem is there's going to be a certain resentment toward the LGBT community as a whole if the proposition, and the will of the majority of voters, is overturned and voided.  The right decision isn't going to be the popular decision.

Sad but true. Even though the majority of voters were acting directly against what America is supposed to stand for, in my eyes anyway. 

~Simone.


The whole thing is going to be a pretty big embarrassment 50-100 years from now, as it should be.  But right now we just have to keep pushing for everyone's rights, we might only make it with incremental steps, but we should never be willing to settle for anything less than equality for everyone.  I am fortunate enough to have the right to marry any person I want in my state, but injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere and all that.
[/quote]

[jenny_]

The bigger problem is there's going to be a certain resentment toward the LGBT community as a whole if the proposition, and the will of the majority of voters, is overturned and voided.  The right decision isn't going to be the popular decision.

The vote was pretty close though (52-48).  Its the will of only slightly more than half of voters (and only 35% of the electorate) that would be overturned.

[kae m]

The bigger problem is there's going to be a certain resentment toward the LGBT community as a whole if the proposition, and the will of the majority of voters, is overturned and voided.  The right decision isn't going to be the popular decision.

The vote was pretty close though (52-48).  Its the will of only slightly more than half of voters (and only 35% of the electorate) that would be overturned.

Sure, but it's still the majority and it will be an issue our opponents will cling to.  It won't be effective to people who actually believe in equality, but for the base that supported this it's like throwing gasoline on the fire.

[RebeccaFog]

some fires need gasoline.

[whatsername]

some fires need gasoline.

Watching (and participating in locally) the nationwide protests against same-sex marriage rights being stripped here makes me think this as well.  Rebecca at Trans Group Blog wrote what I think is a pretty <a href="http://transgroupblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/its-end-of-world-as-we-know-it.html">poignant post in that train of thought</a>.