Derwood

I'm happy to report that the San Jose poll seems to be inaccurate, and most feel that Prop 8 will lose by about a 55 to 45% margin

ASU2003

That is still closer than what it should be. Even Apple & Google have said they are against it publicly.

Maybe it's happened in CA already, but I'm surprised a 527 hasn't run some ads saying if you elect Obama he will appoint liberal supreme court justices & along with the democratic congress that they will make this a federal law allowing same-sex marriage. Sure Obama has said that he won't, but when have facts stopped anyone?

Willravel

San Jose isn't going to be the problem. It's Bakersfield. It's Visalia. It's Stockton. It's all of the larger towns in more conservative areas that represent the Yes on 8 vote.

Worse still, apparently Utah Mormons think it's their business to pump tons of money into California's Yes on 8. I swear to Mormon God, when it comes up for a vote there, expect my money to flood into their state to support gay rights. It's disgusting that they think they get a say in what goes in the California Constitution.

Edit: BTW, it's not too late to donate and volunteer. I've been volunteering quite a bit at a local field office, and I've donated an embarrassing amount. The wonderful thing is that the majority of volunteers aren't even gay (like me).

Willravel

As of right now 21% of precincts are reporting. Yes on Prop 8 is at 54% and no is at 46%. It's still open, but I'm deeply concerned.

We Californians have a great deal of work to do.

Derwood

the Florida equivalent of Prop 8 is passing by a large margin. I'm sick over this. Setting aside the specific issue, i'm sick that states are voting measures that make their Constitutions LIMIT personal liberty instead of DEFINE it

Willravel

We'll have to work very hard on this starting tomorrow morning. Our gay friends and family deserve the same rights that our heterosexual friends and family enjoy.

BTW, California Prop 8 is now at 53% to 47% with 24% of precincts reporting. It may not be over yet. There's still a hope.

Derwood

fight the good fight

evilbeefchan

51.8% Yes, 48.2% No, with 83.7% of precincts reporting. I'm so bummed out. =(

noodle

florida passed theirs.
i officially have no legal rights in my heterosexual relationship of almost five years, our "domestic partnership".
yippee.
majority of people don't READ.

__________________

dksuddeth

welcome to the new age of 'rights are not absolute'. This philosophy of negative rights that started in FDRs period is still active and you are now getting to see where it hits some people close to home. It will only get worse from here as the dem leadership focus on rebuilding and redefining their 'progressive' society.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Derwood

All the money, effort and time that went into passing these measures....and this morning, who woke up with a better life than yesterday?

Rekna

This is sad. California the most liberal state of all protects the rights of animals before it protects the rights of homosexuals....

Willravel

This was a very close race. We (pro-gay marriage people) need very much to move inland to deal with the more red areas of California to undo the damage the Mormon Church has done.

San Bernardino, Riverside, Kern, Tulare, Shasta... these are all very close to being even, and they each have a fairly large population. If we can get in there and make really, really convincing arguments, demonstrate to them that gay marriage cannot harm them, we can get this back on the ballot next time and fix this.

BTW, Utah, I'm coming for you. You better watch out.

telekinetic

Arizona passed 102, which is a double slap in the face since gay marriage is already illegal, they just wanted to be sure that it could never BECOME legal. People were waving YES ON 102 signs at me at 5am...do they REALLY have nothing better to do than hate gays that early in the morning? Fucking churches, I swear.

__________________
twisted no more

Willravel

I saw this. The text of prop 102 is this: “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.” The only way to undo this is by vote.

Rekna

Let me know when your coming

smooth

Actually, the way I'm thinking of dealing with this is thinking of a bill that removes marriage from state control and replaces it with state sanctioned unions. I wonder how many church/state separatists would actually go for that...almost seems like it'd be something Mormons would wholeheartedly support: that churches could have absolute control over validity of marriages within their own systems and that states could regulate civil unions however they felt they needed to. that's what the mormon church does currently, anyway.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Dammitall

Yes but that makes TOO much sense... obviously it would never fly.

I am sick over the the antigay ballot initiatives that passed last night, but it's hitting especially hard with me for Prop 8 in California. The state's liberal reputation aside, gay marriage was legal there for four months and, as others have already said, the world didn't come to a screeching halt. In that time thousands of same-sex couples married and happily lived their lives, in no way intervening in or harming the lives of those who stripped them of their rights last night.

If there were a (legal and non-violent) way to make those people really, really regret the decision they made when they voted to support Proposition 8, to essentially convince them they made a big mistake and really were much better off with those gay couples being happily married, I would jump on it immediately.

__________________
If one million people replaced a two mile car trip once a week with a bike ride, carbon dioxide emissions would be reduced by 50,000 tons per year. If one out of ten car commuters switched to a bike, carbon dioxide emissions would be reduced by 25.4 million tons per year. [2milechallenge.com]

dksuddeth

so here is a question then.

If gay marriage was legal for a short time and now there is a state constitutional amendment that only recognizes marriage as 1 man/1 woman....what happens to the marriages that were legal during that period of time?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

anti fishstick

i am so dissapointed by california

__________________
And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom.
~Anais Nin

Bill O'Rights

Gay marriage was legal.
Even if only for a short time, it was legal.
I would say, although I'm not an attorney, that those marriages that were conducted during the time that it was legal...are binding.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

clavus

I am so embarrassed to be from CA right now.

I keep thinking about the gay couples I know. How do they feel, knowing that so many people think so badly of them? Knowing that so many went out of their way to deny them the right to marry whom they love.

All they want to do is live life, raise their kid and care for each other.

Shit. I'm sad. Just writing this post, I feel physically sick to my stomach. To me, it is no different than if the voters passed a law saying that my wife and I could not marry, because of our differences in race or religion. It's really horrible.

__________________
Ass, gas or grass. Nobody rides for free.

Willravel

We have a pretty good idea of where Prop 8 was most popular, so I think that organizing and going door to door there would be a start. The traditionally conservative counties—San Bernardino, Riverside, Tulare, Kern, Fresno, Shasta—are where we should be concentrating. I've got all of my arguments ready to go.

My hope is that it will be overturned in court.

Frosstbyte

My friend mentioned this to me today at lunch, and I'm wondering on what grounds you think it can be overturned. This isn't a law; it's a constitutional amendment. There is no authority I can think of for the CA Supreme Court to overturn it, because there is no binding higher authority that says that it is unconstitutional. The US Supreme Court can't hear it because the decision rests upon independent and adequate state grounds (i.e. the state constitution) and there is no federal authority which would get in the way of it. You can't challenge it on equal protection grounds because homosexuals are not a federally protected class, so it'd just get rational basis review, which it easily passes, especially with this Supreme Court.

I'm as much an opponent of Prop 8 as anyone else, but as far as I can tell, our best strategy is to do as much teaching as we can until the next major election cycle so we can overturn the damn thing. And then the NEXT election cycle, put in an initiative to require a supermajority to amend the state constitution. This simple majority crap to amend is ridiculous.

dc_dux

A challange was filed with the California Supreme Court today.

The basis, as I understand it, is that the any ballot initiative that fundamentally changes the underlying principles of the state constitution must first be approved by the state legislature.

By taking away an existing right, it seems to me to be changing the underlying principles of the constitution.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Dammitall

The ACLU and others have jumped into the ring: American Civil Liberties Union : Legal Groups File Lawsuit Challenging Proposition 8, Should It Pass

I am concerned that flooding the measure with lawsuits may do more harm than good in the court of public opinion—"activist judges" and all—and that a vigorous campaign of face-to-face interaction and education may be a better tactic. Still, it's heartening to see someone doing something about it right away.

My partner and I have always joked with each other about being goodwill ambassadors to straight people, in the hope that our relationship of ten years can serve an example to them of a "normal," "healthy" and loving relationship, as opposed to just a queer one, or worse, sinful and harmful to them. In my mind, that's exactly what people will need to see in order to understand why initiatives like Proposition 8 are destructive, wrong and unnecessary.

It is an uphill battle given what we're up against, but one worth fighting.

__________________
If one million people replaced a two mile car trip once a week with a bike ride, carbon dioxide emissions would be reduced by 50,000 tons per year. If one out of ten car commuters switched to a bike, carbon dioxide emissions would be reduced by 25.4 million tons per year. [2milechallenge.com]

Charlatan

I suppose the silver lining to this is that Canada just got an economic boost in the way of the gay marriage export business.

I am really sorry to see that the US, despite many advances, still has its collective head up its ass.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Dammitall

dc, didn't see you had posted essentially the same lawsuit I had. Apologies for being redundant.

__________________
If one million people replaced a two mile car trip once a week with a bike ride, carbon dioxide emissions would be reduced by 50,000 tons per year. If one out of ten car commuters switched to a bike, carbon dioxide emissions would be reduced by 25.4 million tons per year. [2milechallenge.com]

dc_dux

This comparison from your article makes a compelling case, IMO:

"If the voters approved an initiative that took the right to free speech away from women, but not from men, everyone would agree that such a measure conflicts with the basic ideals of equality enshrined in our constitution. Proposition 8 suffers from the same flaw – it removes a protected constitutional right – here, the right to marry – not from all Californians, but just from one group of us," said Jenny Pizer, a staff attorney with Lambda Legal. "That's too big a change in the principles of our constitution to be made just by a bare majority of voters."

But I'm not a lawyer.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Willravel

Exactly. It can be overturned if it's found to contradict principles of the Cal Constitution enough. Unfortunately, by my understanding, the likelihood of a win here isn't high.

Frosstbyte

Not content to leave it at injury, the same Mormon folks who so supported prop 8 during its glorious lifespan are already on the move to get a ballot initiative in place for the next election to bump amendments up to supermajority instead of majority in the next election cycle. Stay classy. I'm sure God loves intolerance.

Baraka_Guru

Give it time. America is slow to change when it comes to social issues.

I still have hope.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

smooth

it's not very high for a couple of reasons.
the first problem is that freedom of speech is protected conduct with historical precedence.
freedom to marry is not only not protected, it's historically held as properly regulated by the state.
the second problem is that in California homosexual partners already have laws protecting from discrimination. In everything except federal, they have the same state rights.

so there is no "right" to marry, and there is no discrimination in terms of the conduct of married people as pertains to homosexual partners other than the symbolism of "marriage".

that's why I think it'd be far more sturdier legal argument to trace where the definition of marriage comes from and argue that California is prohibited from defining a religious institution. This argument would be bolstered, I think, if advocates either started a church with doctrine explicitly allowing homosexual marriages or convincing a traditional church denomination to ammend doctrine specifically supporting homosexual marriages. With those, the argument becomes that the state has no authority over church conduct and could not discriminate between what different churches were certifying as valid marriages.


the supermajority amendments are on ballot pretty regularly. they always fail, we like our hyperdemocracy here in Cali, lol.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Derwood

there is freedom of religion, however, and this amendment implicitly denies any church (the Unitarians, for example) from performing a legal marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple. so disregarding the "gay" part of it, how is this amendment not impeding the rights of certain religions to perform these ceremonies?

Dexter Morgan

I'm from Mississippi, and a couple of months ago, I had to fly out to Riverside on business. I'd never set foot in California before, but I had the same (if naive) perception most people do: it's pretty much Liberal-land 24/7.

I met up with a close friend of mine who happens to be a lesbian; she and I and her girlfriend all went out for a bite to eat, then stopped at a gay bar for a drink. There was a "hetero" bar across the way, I heard some people cutting up outside and making a ruckus, but as we walked in, I was barely even paying attention, it was just part of the ambient noise. We have our drinks, hang out for awhile, then leave. As we're going back to the parking garage on the same block as the hetero bar, I finally realize that a bunch of these drunk fucks were . . . actually screaming in the direction of the gay bar. Yelling slurs (as well as general nonsense and gibberish), throwing the word "fags" in there a few times.

I got severely pissed off; my friend just kind of shrugged and said, "Eh, that's Riverside." I looked at her like she told me the moon was made of green cheese, because I simply couldn't believe it. I got a very quick and dirty education on how a good deal of California is, indeed, rather conservative and home to bigots so hardcore, it makes the occasional 60 year-old lifelong racist from where I live look TAME.

Also, fuck Prop 8. Thanks for proving that democracy really IS simply the tyranny of the majority.

Charlatan

You are a complex man Dexter. I like that.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Dexter Morgan

Woman.

Also, I don't believe I'm complex at all. In fact, I'm very simple: minimal government interference in its citizens' lives. Prop 8 is a smack in the face with a wet fish of that ideal.

Charlatan

Like I said... complex.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

dksuddeth

ok. I'm not a lawyer myself, but it seems extremely unorthodox that a constitutional amendment could be created that negates a 'right', yet allows those occurences that happened before to remain legal. anyone?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

Is prop 8 ex post facto?

I love Latin.