California's Prop 8
 

What do you think about the proposal to ammend California's constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman?

Here is a snippet from an article that discusses the proposition.Link


A friend of mine is very much in support of the proposition. Here is a snippet from her blog:

My Catholic mother-in-law believes that if the proposition does not pass, it will mean the end of the Catholic church in California.

I have yet to speak with a supporter of this proposition whose defense does not come off as fanatical. I have friends from out of state who are calling, begging me to support proposition 8. I have family who is discussing this over the dinner table as though the end of the world will come if gays are given the right to marry.

I do not understand. So, I take it to the TFP. What do you think of this proposition? Do you think that the impact of this bill will be huge or minor? Do you see supporters of this bill as bigots, fanatics, or just concerned religious conservatives?


I am horrified at the proposition. I am even more terrified of its supporters. I was glad when the gay marriage ban was lifted. I will be sad to see it put back into place.

Just like I would not allow a government to tell me which woman (as a heterosexual male) I can or cannot marry, I don't have the right to tell another person the same.

It is an embarrassment that this is even an issue.

Legislating religious law is theocracy. I'd no sooner vote to support a ban on same sex marriage than I would a ban on worshiping any gods but the Judeo-Christian God, per the first commandment.

My concern is more with people being confused by the "yes/no" switcheroo. A yes vote bans gay marriage, a no vote does not ban gay marriage. Unfortunately, people polled found the question confusing, and people that support gay marriage are putting a line next to "yes", which is incorrect.

Remember: Yes = ban, No = no ban.

The amount of misinformation running around California about this proposition is kind of terrifying, too. My wife's co-workers (she's a teacher) were talking about it the other day, and apparently their pastors had told them that they would be civilly liable to students and their parents if they didn't teach the children about gay marriage if prop 8 doesn't pass. That somehow NOT passing the amendment would carry with it an affirmative duty to teach everyone, including these kindergarten kids, that gay marriage is ok and that failing to do so would carry civil penalties.

It makes me wonder about people. And, yeah, as will said, the yes/no flip could have some serious "unintended" side effects. Nasty little trick from the people who put this shit together. The gay marriage issue makes me so confused my brain hurts, and I'm honestly embarrassed that people plan to vote FOR taking rights away from others. Fortunately, the polling I've seen thusfar has looked on the positive side for it to fail. I hope that follows through.

I guess I should clarify my response to the OP. I think people who are against gay marriage as a LEGAL institution are bigots and fanatics who are unable to divorce their religious beliefs from secular politics. There is no legally sound argument for why gays should not be allowed to marry under state or federal law, nor will I ever be able to understand why people think that married gays will have such a dramatic impact on their life. It'd be like if I got really upset because you painted your dining room purple. Do I have to see it? No. Would I want to paint my dining room purple? No. Do I think it's a travesty to do so? Yes. But, ultimately, it has NO impact on my life, unless I go to your house for dinner, in which case, I've already accepted that you're a crazy purple-dining-room-person and like you anyway.

The only ground these people have to stand on is some nonsense about marriage being an inviolable covenant between man, woman and god. And, sorry folks, but whatever nonsensical sanctity marriage might have had went the way of the dinosaur when divorce became legal. If YOUR CHURCH does not want to marry gays or allow divorce or whatever else because it's against its teachings, fine by me, but get that shit out of my legal system, because it has no place there.

Fundamentally I do not believe any government has a role in marriage beyond enforcing a contract. That said, I have no problem defining marriage a contract between a man and woman, as long as a similar but differently title option (i.e. civil union) is offered to those in same-sex relationships. I do not support a ban on same-sex marriage.

^^^ What he said.

The US is still a very strange place to me on so many societal issues. I don't really understand how it is so different in the US compared to the rest of the western world. We've had gay marriage in Canada for a number of years and the Devil has yet to come and claim all our souls.

I certainly do not support the idea behind Prop 8. I can't believe people want to make gay marriage illegal. Do they think that the gay couples who have married since the law changed have ruined marriage? Has the sky fallen, the world ended? Of course not. These people have an irrational fear of nothing.

makes me angry
the best I can say is that when people keep calling you up, maybe remind them that the current laws are as if prop 8 did not pass
doubt it will help against most, but perhaps some will realize the hype for what it is
it also makes me sad, I'm not sure what kind of argument someone can come up with as to why they should have a say into the affairs of the laws of my state. I don't even know how republicans can think it's consistent, since the very basis of state's rights is that we should be able to do what we want outside the control of non-residents

throughout the entire 'right to bear arms' community, it's been a popular saying that what happens in Cali, happens in the USA. I'm very much against this simply because it is yet one more item in the 'peoples' private lives that the government gets their foot in the door on.

If only there were more social conservatives like DK.

Don't you mean conservatives who are socially liberal like dk?

DK is technically a fiscal and social conservative. His libertarianism just happens to dictate no government interference, which includes not disallowing gay marriage.

Ah, quite.

QFT.

It's sad that instead of the true issues like the economy, jobs, infrastructure, education..... we are more worried about abortion, gay marriage, cigarette smoking, basically social and moral values. YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE SOCIAL OR MORAL VALUES. PROHIBITION OF ANYTHING DOES NOT WORK AND COSTS BILLIONS TO FIGHT.

THIS IS THE PROBLEM PEOPLE.... OUR FOCUS IS ON BULLSHIT ISSUES AND NOT ON THE TRUE THINGS THAT MATTER.

This stems from our leadership, media and religious groups. VERY FEW OF THEM SAY WHO FUCKING CARES LET'S FOCUS ON WHAT TRULY MATTER LIKE THE ECONOMY, THE EDUCATION, THE INFRASTRUCTURE, GETTING A MANUFACTURING BASE BACK."

This stems from people wanting to have things their way, fuck everyone else and what others believe..... we want what we want NOW. We want pro-life.... pro-choice.... non smoking privately owned restaurants..... trans fat abolished.... gay marriage.... no gay marriage.....and we demand YOU live the way we tell you to.

Now go buy a house you can't afford, run up your fucking credit buying imported shit from countries with no human rights and fund people to bomb our buildings and kill our people and shut the fuck up.

The scary thing is if I have to agree with Pan anymore I'm gonna have to change my party affiliation :eek: :).

Here's my proposition: ban all marriage.

wow. conservatives use disinformation. by way of political statements made in churches no less. and they use this disinformation to generate panic. imagine that.

o those gay radicals tearing at the fabric of reactionary america by having the audacity to want to marry.

i think the amendment is horseshit.
but the inhabitants of conservativeland seem to be having a difficult time adjusting to the pulverization of their situation. this may serve some therepeutic effect for them in kali. displacement i think it's called.

The LDS church has been pouring money into this bill. Does anyone else feel that they should lose their tax exempt status for this?

I think the argument would be that the Devil got you all first, and that's why you folks allowed gay marriage.

There was talk of a backlash against gay marriage for a while, but it never really materialised. Then again, the Canada i know is Quebec, which is now very secular and very tolerant when it comes to questions of the body.

It's not just conservatives it's the vocal radicals on both sides that give us minutia and keep focus off the real issues.

To say it is just one side is a fallacy and disingenuous.

Both sides derive power not out of what great things they can accomplish but fear over the other side.

Meanwhile, the true power gets stronger.

Focus on gay marriage, abortion, smoking, anything they tell you to...... fight to legislate/ not legislate morality and social life.

I have asked on here before what if we did background checks on where the money comes from on these moral and social issues and found that in the end both sides are funded by the same people because they maintain power in doing so.

We want what we want and we have tunnel vision and ignore that which is truly important.

I'm shocked to find a church using misinformation promote any issue or agenda.
-----Added 11/10/2008 at 12 : 41 : 18-----

Yes, I think all churches should be taxed on their income. I think they should be allowed to write off any charitable acts, i.e. shelters, orphanages, food programs etc... But the income that goes to buy political ads or private jets and mansions for the slime bag TV preacher spewing hate should be taxed.

The Catholic Church seems to be doing okay up here in Canada after we passed same-sex marriage laws.

Just out of curiosity, does anyone happen to be for Prop 8? What is the rational for the passage of it? Everyone here seems to have the same state of mind.

The church has every right to say no to same sex marriage. The government does not.

Now that's an idea that I could get behind. :thumbsup:

I'm glad the AG changed the wording of the title of this proposition to make it clear what it actually is "Proposition 8 - Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry".

This makes a yes/no vote clearer, but I just hope people will read their ballots...

My girlfriend's parents and relatives are voting "yes", and their reasoning is that gay marriage is wrong and will destroy the institution of marriage. And God forbid raising children in a gay marriage, they will most likely turn out to be horrible gay-brainwashed evil-doers like their parents.

This is most likely based on their being Catholic. But, I had to convince her mother that Barack Obama is not a Muslim, so there might be other factors to consider...

A church can only lose their tax exempt status for endorsement of a particular candidate, not a proposition or issue.

I am against prop 8, and echo most of what has been said here.

My parents, on the other hand, are LDS. Just this morning I got a an email forwarded from my mom.

Nothing I could ever say would convince them otherwise. They are closed to anything other than what they are told by the church.

Not for long term renewal. Most people (adults) go back to the Catholic Church after a long absense because they have young children and they want them to experience baptism(often too young to remember) and confirmation. Most are from Catholic schools as it is part of the curriculum and when finished high school they are leaving and not coming back. The Catholic churches in Canada, especially Quebec are floundering to exist, regardless of gay marriage.

I'm embarrassed that this is even on the ballot. State sponsored segregation in 2008? In California of all places? Christ on a cracker, I thought we were better than this...

That's pretty much how I feel about it. Prop 8 is one of the major reasons I'm voting this year, because most of the rest is picking between the lesser evils. I'm going to be pissed and disappointed if it passes.

I don't think there could be anyone out there who could come up with a rational explaination as to why Prop 8 should pass. There isn't a reason. People are just afraid that same sex couples will get the same rights as them. I have no idea why certain people are hellbent on withholding basic rights from others.

No there is a rational explanation out there somewhere...tfp just happens to have a 'slight' liberal bias :)

Outside of religion, I haven't really heard anything. I am against this though, not so much for equal rights, but because the state of California is effectively making a national decision. I don't believe California should have had the right to legalize gay marriage in the first place, nor any other state. It causes too many problems, especially when those gay couples travel to other states and their marriage isn't recognized. I believe that the Federal Government should mandate it's legalization already.

Anyone else happen to be with me?

I thought marriage and divorce laws were a state perogative? I don't understand your system that well, but isn't it the case that in some states you can marry at 16 and in others you have to be 18, for instance? This would fall under the same banner, I'd have thought.

That is true, which is why California could pass and then possibly ban such legislation. I would imagine it would be practical if there was a unified definition of marriage, or no definition at all as mentioned above.

So are you suggesting taking away states' rights to make certian decisions? As I understand the US system, that would be as well received as banning guns, free speech and Baby Jesus.

Pretty much. There are too many ideological differences between the various parts of the country to make a national mandate in support of gay marriage work at this point in time. We have to start with this at the state level, just like regular marriage, and let states decide for themselves in regard to this issue. Slowly but surely it can be done! It hurts to see stuff like Prop 8 up there on the ballot, but just because it's on the ballot doesn't mean that a) it will pass, and b) it's constitutional.

Admittedly, I live in a weird state--Oregon says that marriage is between a man and a woman (Measure 36 :sad:) but has established domestic partnerships for same-sex couples. Oddly, heterosexual couples do not have domestic partnership rights--they are ONLY for same-sex couples (I'd been hoping the legislation would turn out to be something like the French Pacte civil de solidarité).

Personally, I think the issue we should be clarifying is whether marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution or a CIVIL institution. If it's the latter (and it should be, separation of church and state, etc), then the government--be it county, state, or federal--has no right to dictate who can and can't marry. It should be equivalent to issuing a business license. But that's how it should be, not how it is. We have a long ways to go. There are a lot of bigots in the United States.

let's just not legislate "sanctity", mmkay?

No, I never said that. I understand our system, I understand that the 10th amendment leaves powers reserved to states, which is what creates our two tier government. You are assuming that I mean take every right away from states. All I am saying is that there should either be a unified definition of marriage [that hopefully promotes equality] or no definition at all. This isn't like a drivers license, where states can mandate an age. This is a national issue, one that is being made by a single state [it just so happens it's the greatest state in the country :) ).

Allow me to pose you an example, what if a couple from Texas came here to get married, and then went back to Texas? Do you think their marriage will be instantly recognized?

The federal government already clarified that issue with the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

You haven't heard a "rational" explanation because there isn't one.

Seriously.

It has NOTHING to do with a liberal bias, and everything to do with the motivation for this law having nothing to do with reason.

The "reason" they would give you would be to compare gay relationships to incest or to child abuse, insofar as relationships like that are generally thought to pose a threat to the community at large or to have a victim and an abuser. People who support prop 8 (or any anti-gay marriage amendment) truly believe that gay people who get married undermine the "sanctity" of marriage for everyone in the entire country, and that allowing them to get married somehow taints and undermines the strength and meaning of marriage as a social and religious institution.

They believe it is wrong for the same reasons you and I are believe murder and theft are wrong, only instead of a specific victim to the wrong, the victim is society. It's not logical, it's not reasonable and it's not rational. It's motivated purely by close-minded religious fanaticism and a strained reading of one or two sentences in the bible. It's motivated by a hatred for how other people live their lives and a desire to have the law treat them as second class citizens, which is what these people believe they are. It makes as little sense and has as little purpose as the laws which prohibited blacks from marrying did in the Reconstruction South.

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

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?

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).

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.

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

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.

fight the good fight

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Let me know when your coming ;)

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.

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.

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?

i am so dissapointed by california :(

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 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

I still have hope.

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.

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?

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.

You are a complex man Dexter. I like that.

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.

Like I said... complex. ;)

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?

Is prop 8 ex post facto?

I love Latin.

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)