it's not.
prohibitions against ex post facto refers to punishments in criminal law, anyway.
courts are pretty fast and loose on what constitutes "punishments" too. challenges to sexual offender notifications and registrations laws on the basis of them applying to people who had been convicted decades before were struck down for some dumbass reasoning that registration is not an additional "punishment." never mind the poor drunk frat boys who now have to register for peeing on their neighbors rosebushes and whose job chances severely diminished for the rest of their lives :\

basically, they could have written it to strip all legality from homosexual marriages past, present, and future, but they didn't for whatever reasons.

I know, I just like using Latin.

is there no difference between state statutes and constitutional amendments then?

This is being added to California's Constitution.

and I ask again, how does a constitution that defines powers of a government, have the ability to define rights with grandfather clauses?

It shouldn't, but it does.

Maybe I'll get that law degree after all.

what are you guys talking about?
I'm confused...

Actually, on reading the legislation it actually bars California from recognizing homosexual marriages as valid. That would apply retroactively.
But to answer the main question I think is going on: laws, both statutes and constitutional amendments are not automatically retroactive. They can be, but they don't have to be.

This amendment could have said "no homosexual marriages can be performed in California" and any marriages performed before the amendment passed would have remained valid since they were conducted while it was legal to do so...unless the amendment specifically said that previous ones were also invalid.

I'm not sure I'm getting what you are asking about differences between statutes and amendments.

I can't believe that after voting in favour of their first African-American president, Americans would vote in favour of amending their constitution to actively discriminate against a particular group of people, specifically affecting their personal rights. Appalling.

not Americans, Californians. It's important for non-Americans to recognize that this is just one state, not the entire country. It doesn't bode well that this happened in one of the most liberal states in the union, but I'm sure you understand my resistance to being lumped in with the people who voted on this measure.

Anyway, this sickens me.

And not all Californians, either. Most near the coast support same sex marriage. It's inland that people are more conservative. Maybe it's time for California and East California. :confused:

I'm wondering what reasons the people who voted for Obama and also for this proposal have for voting the way they did? Are they afraid that all of them are going to move to CA or something?

the more i think about this the most disgusted i become.
social conservatism--the blight that keeps on giving.
jesus christ.

i may at some point have something constructive to add, but am not there yet.

Jesus Christ; a figure that has no connection to modern conservatism. The character/deity was/is very progressive in that he was/is anti-violence, anti-greed, anti-power, anti-social power imbalance, and taught not to judge others. The marriage of the right and evangelicals has existed my entire life, and it still is one of the most confusing aspects of politics.

We're all in agreement that the belief that homosexuality is wrong comes from religion, yes?

Saw this editorial cartoon. Kind of interesting:
http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/989...eed01darl3.jpg

I read a statistic that said that the African American community voted 69-31 in favor-against prop 8 yesterday, though now, of course, I can't find my source, so take that with a heaping pile of salt. There was a lot of concern leading up to the election that increased minority turnout in favor of Obama would seriously harm the prop 8 campaign, though, and it looks like they were correct. While that's certainly not the only reason it passed, it seems to have made a difference.

I'm disgusted by it. Nothing more needs be said.

It did appear to attract widespread support among blacks and latinos...:

Local Exit Polls - Election Center 2008 - Elections & Politics from CNN.com

...and nearly every other demographic except women, young voters and voters with post-graduate education.

The appeal was simple and direct....scare the voters into believing that it would mandate teaching about homosexuality in schools and force gay marriages to be performed by churches if requested.

It's causing a mess here in Arizona. As of right now those marriages will be considered valid through a grandfather clause. But there are some expending energy to give them a difficult time and make sure they can not legally adopt children.

nah, it's Americans. There were several ballots passed regarding homosexual marriage and these were the states left over from the last few cycles where it's already been voted upon.

and willravel, it's not coastal vs. eastern. It's the Bay Area vs. the rest.
The LA Times has a configurable map for anyone curious or confused.

It's not big city vs. rednecks, if anyone outside of California doubts this, they need to take a good, long, informed look at our local policies and local politics. I guess the reason for this notion is that the 9th district doesn't let the people just do willy-nilly shit, but maybe people don't realize just how large an area the 9th is responsible for.

so the people vote to make it so homosexuals can't marry
the supreme court says, sorry that's against the constitution
so the people promptly pass a constitutional amendment to define marriage

LOL, I shouldn't laugh, but I mean how does that equate to the people of California being liberal?
-----Added 6/11/2008 at 07 : 13 : 42-----
there really needs to be some type of "truth in advertising" in regards to political advertising. it's getting to the point where people who vote for things are regretting it after they get home. and it makes people scared to vote for certain things, from my conversations with people...as in, they're scared they can't figure out the consequences of the measure passing or not because of the misleading titles and info spread about them.

Go as far North as Sonoma or as far South as San Diego along the coast, it's mostly liberal.

No it is not. I said if you disagreed to go look at the map and how it voted.
(sorry if that sounded snarky, I'm actually looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this...here's the link)
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/po...3859.htmlstory

Simply because you and I mostly interact with liberals and they comprise the bulk of our friends, and because there are so many people in these large cities, don't confuse that with the regional politics.

I grew up in San Diego for 20 years, now I'm in Orange County.
Look at our mayors, look at our governors, look at our policies regarding crime, look at who we put in the House, and look at what we do with our schools, the fact is that we are a conservative state. The only thing we do that can be "liberal" is that we put Democrats in the Senate and for the past few years we've been voting Democratic for president.

The UC Berkeley liberal crim programs were systematically dismantled.
We have top notch law programs in our state: USC, UCLA, Stanford, Berkeley, USD...where are the liberals?

When you look at law and politics in this state, we're conservative to the bone.
and that's where the rubber meets the road.

I'd be interested in hearing your view on our liberal policies?

(edited link in)

On gay marriage or in general? I'm going by the latter.
I'm not. I'm looking at the way people generally vote. Some counties that normally vote liberal voted yes on Prop 8. Still, the biggest Prop 8 areas are the normally conservative places that I've named, and they all are inland.

Think about Santa Barabara, Monterey, Ventura, San Diego... these all very commonly go blue.
Have you been to Cal Berkeley? The reputation it has is just as well earned today as it was 30 years ago.
Berkeley freshmen are more liberal and less religious than their national counterparts

Not only that, but I believe that California has more unions than New England. That's pretty liberal.
It's relative. If California were in Europe or were a state in Canada, we'd be conservative, but in the US? We're liberal overall.

I named the issues that we vote conservative on.
at the local level, we are conservative and do not vote "blue"
our governor is republican, and our past governors were conservative

all those places you mentioned are extremely wealthy
the people may vote however they do, but when it comes to business and the actual movers of industry, we are conservative
you can talk to students, but I'm discussing the departments, where the research is conducted, the policies that are recommended, the thinktanks like RAND, these are the things that drive our prison industry, our crime policies, the way governance should operate, this shit is conservative bro

now I'm asking you to name some liberal policies, not tell me how many people express that they're liberal.
just this most recent election, the drug rehabilitation programs failed, the victims crime rights that decimates our criminal justice system passed, the abortion notification of minors failed by like 400,000 thousand votes and abortion is something most people agree should be legal in limited ways from both political spectrums, and then prop 8 passed.

now please go look up the mayors for the cities you mentioned and let me know what liberal policies they espouse.
in fact, did you even follow last mayor election in San Diego? It was a fiasco....you should read about it or I'll post it after I play some Ratchet and Clank.

Police brutality.

WOW Report: Exclusive Footage of Police Brutality at the Prop 8 Protest in Hollywood

Our governor is a celebrity, and our previous governor was a Democrat that didn't know what he was doing. Since WW2, it's been pretty even.
Again, we've got a ton of unions. Unions are, by their very nature, liberal. The movers of industry are the workers, after all. :thumbsup:
But it doesn't effect the students. Cal, SF, SJ, SD, SC... they all turn out liberal grads. Those grads turn into the white collar, blue voting liberals.
Liberal policies? Like pro-choice, anti-war, pro-civil rights, pro-social programs, freedom of speech, religion, and press, transparent government, accountable business, environment and such?
Who was it that said organizing liberals is like herding cats? It's naturally difficult to organize progressives because we're not all pulling for the same things. Some progressives are obsessed with healthcare, some abortion, some war, etc. Not everyone agrees on where we should be pushing the hardest, and it's there where conservatives have an advantage; they're fighting for what already is.
Oh, I was naming counties, but I'll take a crack at them (mind you about 3/4 of this is from google, I could tell you all about Chuch Reed though).
Santa Barabara: Marty Bloom is very involved in addressing homelessness, pro civil rights (especially women's rights), and she's very pro-teacher's unions
Monterey: Chuck Della Sala is heavily involved in city beautification. I don't know much more about him.
Ventura: Christy Weir? No clue.
San Diego: Yeah, not so good there.

Our governors have not been pretty even.
Going backwards:
Swartzenegger R
Davis D (it's interesting that the only democrat governor in the last 30 years and you classify him as a failure; the main reasons for his recall were that he signed into law rights for domestic partners and granting licenses for illegal aliens and requiring business to shoulder the medical insurance costs of their workers...sounds like the people were pretty liberal on those ideas, right?)
Wilson R (signed into law three strikes and resumed the death penalty after 25 years)
Deukmajian R
Jerry Brown D (actually was a liberal, elected in 75 on an anti-war platform)
Reagan R
Pat Brown (Ran first as a R, then as a D)
Knight R
Earl Warren R

I don't know about the ton of unions; you went from thinking you remembered hearing somewhere that we had the most unions, and then from there to now using that "fact" as the basis for us being most liberal.
even if either of those premises were true, how does being a union worker translate to voting for progressive policies? the votes tallied do not support your conclusion.
Workers are not directing capital, I don't even know what to say at that statement.
Millions of workers are not even in labor positions; all students and student workers are part of the auto union, for example. Teachers are in a separate union, they don't have anything to do with capital. Law enforcement is unionized here, they are far from progressive in their policies and use their union to muscle higher wages and more prisons from our state.


these are the same majority that vote for regressive policies every time they are on the budget. I asked you to give me some progressive policies that the people have been supportive of, and you give me a list of ideals.

Free choice is not a liberal issue. Yes, liberals support it, but mainstream and even many Republicans refuse to make it illegal. Across the nation bills to criminalize it failed this cycle, California is not liberal compared to the rest of the nation on this issue. It's simply not as large an issue to most Americans you seem to believe it is. What policies in regards to abortion do you see us practicing that other states do not?

The coast and southern regions of California are nearly completely militarized. The largest stretch of coast is Camp Pendleton, and San Diego is home to the Navy Sub Base and Marine Basic training. SF has a huge military presence, as well. We are home to the largest beneficiaries of military contracts, too. I don't know how you come to the conclusion that we're "anti-war". At least, not anymore than the rest of the country, which was your claim. The entire country is 90%+ against the current war in Iraq, but there is very little argument over war in Afghanistan or the "War on Terror."

And speaking of "wars", we're one of the largest beneficiaries of the war on drugs in regards to our southern border and drug interdiction. we're definately not opposed to that war. the most recent example was the refusal to pass the bill authorizing drug treatment for drug offenders. our drug policies are regressive, not just conservative.

pro civil rights in what way? we recalled our democratic governor in part because he gave marriage rights to homosexual partners, we passed a bill banning gay marriage, after the court said it was not constitutional we amended our constitution. what pro civil rights agenda do we support as a state that the rest of the country doesn't support?

freedom of religion, speech, and press?
black people can vote in our elections, too. that may have been progressive 100 years ago, but wtf. where are these policy issues anywhere in the US?

the environment is an interesting point. we have such a large state, we have some issues that tend to overlap with environmentalists. I would agree that californians seem to be environmentally conscious. I don't know how much that's represented on the whole, however. our environmentally safe energy package didn't pass, but there were problems in that bill. it's hard to know if it failed because people don't want it, or because they knew it was flawed.

I don't know how transparent government is a liberal issue, but I also don't know how we exemplify the nation in that regard.


I already wrote that I consider laws and crime to be where every day citizens brush up against their rights. I'd like you to look at those policies and point out to me where we are progressive. For example, if you mention someone's "work" with homelessness, maybe it'd be a good idea to see just how that mayor's city handles homelessness. Have they abolished anti-loitering laws? provide adequate shelters? criminalize panhandling? what kinds of mental health services are provided? needle exchanges?

it may be that organizing liberals to push an issue is like herding cats. but if the voters actually were progressively minded, they would still vote accordingly when an issue is on the ballot. they vote conservatively on this issues, however, even if they vote for their pet issue. that's not being liberal, that's having a specific agenda and we're not unique in that aspect compared to the rest of the US at all.

I agree wholeheartedly with the Candle. And well said, IMO. Thank you!

It sickens me when I see governemnet stopping intelligent adults from having their rights respected in court and I get tired of all the so-called "Godly Christians" being so political that they forget that people are created equal in God's eyes and deserve to be respected and heard. I am so sick and tired of the governement pretending to be fair about church and state when you know they are just spreading negative energy around in the Court System - and trying to prevent families from forming - and being legally joined for future protection from extremism. It's a new day Folks...

As an adoptee, I wouldn't care if mom & mom raised me or dad & dad as long as I had a happy, loving home and got out of the foster home program.

Different titles is a concession to the bigots. If there is a difference, it should be that churches and individuals grant marriages and the state grants civil unions, and even then it leaves a dirty taste in my mouth. Separate is never equal. It's not for race or creed or hair color or sexuality.

There's no reason why the state can't have one standard and religion has another. I really have a hard time seeing what's so controversial about limiting the state to only grant "civil unions" - and granting them without discrimination - and leaving "marriages" to the realm of religion. That there is even a question about doing this speaks volumes about where our "separation" is right now.

I am very disappointed with the state I live in. I am a white male who is married to a white female. I would like to say that I am a rational person. The very idea that a marriage should be banned period, is ridiculous! Marriage, by legal definition is a contract between two people. By religious definition, man and woman. This is a legal issue not a religious one. No person should have the right to enter into a legal contract "banned". What goes on behind closed doors is nobody's buisness. Why do you think the Morman church has given thousands of dollars for the yes cause. They rely on marriage and child bearing to increase their monetary worth.

All I'd like to know is how it affects the lives of ANYBODY outside of the marriage itself. If you get married to Jenna Jameson, and Frosstbite gets married to Bill Clinton, and I get married to a piece of carrot cake, how do our various relationships affect one another? The answer is NOT AT ALL (unless you happen to be related to said piece of carrot cake or ex-president or pornstar). If the carrot cake and I decide to have kids, there is no better chance that our children will grow up to be the next bin Laden than you and Jenna's kids will grow up to be porn stars.

America is not a theocracy. PERIOD. We are not a government based on religion we are based on secular, logical laws, hence the first amendment. If a marriage is, therefore, a secular rather than religious institution, then rational, non-religion-based arguments need to be presented as to why marriage should be limited to one man and one woman, or, for that matter, two people. Using the sanctity argument opens the door up for us to use that argument on any legal institution. For example, I believe that criminalizing marijuana destroys the sanctity of humanity and its relationship with the Earth. Isn't the "sanctity" of marriage destroyed when the pres gets a BJ in the oral office (haha freudian slip) or when characters in national and international TV shows and movies are depicted as cheating on their spouses? Doesn't divorce destroy the "sanctity" of marriage by ...destroying marriage? Should we outlaw divorce? what the hell is going on in this country? We elect Obama and in the same breath condemn gay marriage? WTF??

rant over.

Logic x 1000!! Serious, great rant.

should this kill the CofLDS' tax exempt status? I thought religious organizations aren't supposed to get involved in politics...

It's been my understanding that churches are allowed to promote particular issues that come up on ballots, just not candidates.

Anyone know the rule? Am I right?

Jesus, smooth. I was mostly speaking in generalities which can easily be tracked, such as the way people vote in presidential elections. When things get that specific, there are no "liberal" or "conservative" areas. There are tons of liberals in the most conservative-ish areas. Even areas like Provo Utah, which is considered to be the most conservative city in North America, have plenty of liberals.

The reason I speak in generalities in this case is simply to prevent the discussion from falling apart. Is it totally honest? No, but changing just a few minds in those traditionally red areas can't be a bad thing. That was the ultimate point I was shooting for. Going into Riverside to try and demonstrate that gay marriage isn't a threat could mean the difference between the next Prop 8 passing or failing.

I'm not sure if asking for specific liberal policies or examining whether we are liberal in general like you claim risks causing the conversation to fall apart.

Well anyway, the reason I think it's important is because many groups agitate for more regressive policies across the country on the back of California's mythical "liberal" policies. We don't have them. But whatever, the other problem is what happened in your statement above.

Relying on the stereotype of a liberal California with a conservative or backwards inland population jeopardizes effective political campaigning. Why would it be a better idea to campaign in Riverside (266,000 votes for prop 8) where people are less densely populated than San Diego or Orange County (both over 550,000 votes for prop 8)? Orange County went for McCain, while Riverside went for Obama, btw. Orange County is also home to Saddleback Church, one of the largest churches in the country and a vocal supporter of prop 8.

Yes, you are right.

I cannot understand how a country that talks so much about the values of liberty and freedom would have a problem with same sex legal unions. If a church does not wish to have the ceremony under their roof, fine, that's their right. But the gov't needs to represent the people, and gays are... duh!
It makes financial sense, more than anything, to allow it. Why should only straights be able to do their taxes a certain way. For that reason alone I think it's a violation of human rights.
Mind you, you guys voted for Bush twice so I have no idea what the HELL is going on down there.

Well, there is the argument that Californians just plain don't like it when their state supreme court reverses a statute that the popular vote made happen just a few years before.

A weak argument, but one none the less.

Also there's the argument that that same-sex unions under any name other than marriage would be a-ok, that the word "marriage" just pulls on some heart strings.

GG, The first part I'm not up on, but for the second, it comes down to semantics?

Those arguments don't hold up under the fact that prop 22, which was the reason the courts rendered a decision, passed by 61% and prop 8 passed by 52.2% of the voters. A smaller proportion of the population voted for prop 8 (responding to the court's decision) than voted for prop 22 (the cause of the court's involvement).

-----Added 11/11/2008 at 03 : 29 : 35-----
It's not merely a semantic difference. In California, same-sex couples already have the right to domestic partnerships, which are protected under the law with the same rights as married couples within the state. They are not marriages, however, which have federal rights and obligations extending beyond the state's concerns.