LOL...straight couples get no license issued, etc. this is going to be sweeeeeeeeeet to watch. Old Gloria is such a pittbull (in that fun spanky way, not the hillbilly with lipstick way).
gruntledboy
· 1 year ago
It would seem to equally be a violation to recognize straight out-of-state marriages from states that don't also allow gay marriages. No nipping over to Vegas to evade California law!
tlsintx
· 1 year ago
you go Gloria yeah!
PAULinDC
· 1 year ago
Godspeed to them.
I donated to the No On 8 cause. What can I do now?
nineBLUEdaisies
· 1 year ago
Yes, please! As soon as the proper parties to send checks to are identified, please post their information right away. My pen and checkbook are ready, I just need an address to mail my support to.
BooHoo
· 1 year ago
Looks solid.
barts
· 1 year ago
Tax the church!
More power to Gloria; however, in the interim I still think we should put the hurt on those christians who raised a lot of money that would have been better spent on the homeless, environment, and education, toward restricting and redefining rights of others in another state.
For these christians there IS no debate. Homosexuality is a choice and a sin. I don't know the exact wording of the CA amendment, but in OH it included the statement of "approximations of marriage" which, I believe, would include civil unions. If legislature in CA would hypothetically allow civil unions the mormons would also try to fight that as well, because it is not about protecting marriage it's about keeping the gays under the bus.
cowboyneok
· 1 year ago
I agree. The gay community needs to start fighting it NOW.
sukabi1
· 1 year ago
This is purely a civil rights issue, and the gay community is only their first target -- and is their first target because it is perceived as the easiest target... their goal is to illegitimize any cohabitation partnership that hasn't been sanctified by the church...
suppressing the gay community is the first step in suppressing / reshaping society to their views... same applies to their working like demons to suppress a woman's access to birth control / abortion.
JohnInTexas
· 1 year ago
Gee you'd have thunk the Mormon's would have made sure we didn't have the righ to marry multiple people instead of just 1 person. Maybe it's time for some raids up there in Utah so we can be sure they aren't marrying their daughters and don't have 6 or 7 wives. They've been good about distracting attention for quite awhile now.
barts
· 1 year ago
Phelps and Clan are protesting at EVERY gay march or funeral. The First amendment protects their rights to do so. Where are the gays when these lavishly built mega-churches like the one outside Columbus OH are raising LOTS of money to spread their hate and bigotry?
We shouldn't be always on the defense in protecting our rights.
LasloPratt
· 1 year ago
Let me see if I've got this straight (no pun intended)...
The same-sex marriages already performed are still in force; but any future marriages are banned.
On the face of it, that is capricious, arbitrary and discriminatory. Some gays have marriages - and some never can? That is a denial of equal protection, on the face of it.
Also, any way you slice it, this proposition enshrines a particular religious viewpoint into the state constitution - a blatant violation of the First Amendment. I'm not gay, but since I don't hold that particular religious viewpoint, Prop 8 discriminates against me as well.
Boycott Utah.
cowboyneok
· 1 year ago
Boycott Marriott, as well. It is a highy symbolic and widespread way to get your point across. Anything Marriott - boycott it.
MaudGonne
· 1 year ago
it’s fundamental to the stability of society to allow people to form lasting bonds with each other and to have them officially recognised. It’s why we ought to all be in favour of marriage. It’s why I hope that Obama, whose message of change touched millions, can persuade his fellow African-Americans to abandon their deep seated prejudice against gays. After all, I thought this so called American dream was for everyone: gay, straight, white or black. Isn’t it? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?x...
cowboyneok
· 1 year ago
I love Gloria Allred. Had to say it. G-d blessher.
Ethrdg
· 1 year ago
I second that.... I had originally opened up the comment window on this thread to post exactly that--"God bless Gloria Allred"---and got caught up reading all the discussions. I'm really glad we've got her on our side.
No matter what the issue is, she's always working for the good guys. God bless her and her many decorative brooches. (Whenever she does a TV interview, I've always got to stop what I'm doing and see what kind of brooch she's wearing.)
cowboyneok
· 1 year ago
I'm still pissed at the whole Talibangelical movments persecution complex. When have "the gays:"
Threatened their marriages? The only thing that threatens their marriages is the Talibangelical divorce rate. Threatened their First Amendment right? "The gays" aren't always screaming for books like, "Harry Potter" or "Harry has two Mommies" removed from libraries but the Talibangelicals are ALWAYS trying to get books banned/burned. Physically attacked them? Don't even have to go there. Marched at their churches or funerals? Don't have to go there, either.
Yet, we are to believe they are so "put upon" by us and we "threaten" their very existance. Uh, I think its quite backwards. We need to start taking it to them. I'm tired of being the little victim and not fighting back.
sukabi1
· 1 year ago
as I said below, this is purely about reshaping society to their narrow view...
so start going after their tax exempt status... and in the case of Utah and the LDS it would seem to me that an organized campaign to ban polygamy in that state would be a good tit for tat movement... after all their "battle cry" has been "marriage between one man one woman" ... seems like a public airing of that laundry is in order... oh, and a public airing of their "leaders" adultery and other sins against god can't be left out...
Idnor
· 1 year ago
The Mormon church would reply that those polygamous groups are outlaw groups and not their responsibility. However, what should be shouted from the rooftops is that all Mormons believe in a polygamous heaven. If you are a good, paid-up Mormon man, you WILL be married in heaven to however many women you have married on the earth.
And...If you are a good, paid-up single Mormon woman, when you die you will become one of the wives of a good, paid-up Mormon man.
Polygamy is very real in the Mormon doctrine for the afterlife, as much as most Mormon women today don't like it. The purpose of it is for the women to bear all of the children destined to populate the husband's new world when he becomes a god.
The polygamous groups in Utah and Texas now are living closer to Joseph Smith's, Brigham Young's, and many other past church leaders than the current crop, who go along to get along as far as the mainstream culture is concerned.
If you don'[t believe me that the Mormon church is this weird, look it up!
jerryCA
· 1 year ago
In addition to boycotting Mormon owned businesses, we should start a dialogue with the "black" population especially the black churches. Indeed, we had to rise above anti black bigotry (my partner is from Alamaba and he held his nose when voted for Obama) and here is what gays get from black community, stabbed in back. Remember, bible condone slavery. We should throw that in their faces.
RyansTake
· 1 year ago
Governor Patrick of Massachusetts, black, huge strong proponent of marriage equality. (Seriously, a hero on it as far as I'm concerned).
Governor Patterson of New York, black, huge proponent of marriage equality.
I have got to think that these two people are a strong place to start. Seriously, let's ship them both off to California and have them do a tour of all the churches and community and raise the issue. It's got to make a difference.
skwcw2001
· 1 year ago
i was listening to a woman today in okc talking about how she is against gays being able to be married, i asked her how does a gay persons relationship to another have anything at all to do with her, she couldnt answer, she just replied well it is wrong. It just so happens that she is white and her husband is black, i told her that it is funny that she who wouldnt be able to marry the man she is married to less than 40 years ago in many states is sitting there using the same argument that was used against people like her. She brought up the bible i then informed her that in accord with scripture marriage traditionally is between a man and multiple women it is amazing that people that have this mind set have any control over my tax paying law abiding american born life.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
Try this one, tell her fuck the Bible as it comes to others decisions. Very persuasive and little used approach in Oklahoma.
nop
· 1 year ago
don't really understand why they try to attach everything about gays to the bible. not all gays have the same religion. killing is a sin - loving is not
SebastianCA
· 1 year ago
Solano county is still performing marriages!!!
tbhull
· 1 year ago
Not knowledgeable on California law, but the argument is persuasive.
Aside from the substantive hurdles, it would appear standing will be a hurdle since the referenced couple is already married.
RitornaVincitor
· 1 year ago
I'm so relieved that my fellow San Franciscans strongly rejected the local ballot measure Proposition R that would have changed the name of a local sewage treatment facility to the George W. Bush Sewage Plant. It would have been such a shameful and undignified thing to do. I'm glad we decided to do the right thing and not give sewage a bad name.
Soundboy_jeff_meanie
· 1 year ago
I knew that this wouldn't fly.
prop 8 is unconstitutional, due to our equal protection clause.
duh, I mean... it uses the same language as prop 22 did!
so... if the fundies really want to get rid of our marriage rights in California, they have to get rid of the equal protection clause FIRST... THEN pass prop 8 again in the LEGISLATURE.
THAT would be interesting... considering our legislature PASSED gay marriage TWICE.
the big reason for prop 8? to circumvent our legislature... that doesn't sit well with anyone interested in constitutional law, or the separation of powers.
prop 8 is going down.
JustAGuy
· 1 year ago
I have one BIG question regarding all this: If Prop 8 was so obviously unconstitutional - requiring a Constitutional Convention to enact - then WHY was it certified for the ballot in the first place?
As I recall, there were squabbles regarding the Title of the proposition... why weren't these other objections raised at the same time?
-S
Ethrdg
· 1 year ago
Maybe it's a good thing that these issues weren't raised then... If they had been, perhaps the wingnuts could have figured out some sort of wording that would have dodged these issues? Attached some sort of amendment to the equal protection clause? (I'm not sure how they could have done that, but Lord knows they seem to have nothing but time to gay bash, so I'm sure they'd have figured something out.)
If they have, in fact, now messed up in how they've gone about this to the extent that this lawsuit can prevail, that cuts this proposition off at the knees. They'll never get enough legislative support to do anything that way, and without a historic election like we've just seen, they'll never get enough voter support to pull something like this off again.
Hopefully, this was their one chance in CA and they f'ed it up, royally, from a legal standpoint.
RyansTake
· 1 year ago
No on 8 did try to get it bumped off, but the courts threw it out.
As its been explained to me, the Californian court (along with many others) prefer to let things work out first, before they take up a case. So, if the people voted no, a problem would never have come up and their time wouldn't have to be wasted.
However, now that the majority voted yes, the court will have to hear the case. The explanation makes a lot of legal sense, so I'm going to cross my fingers. I don't think this is as big of a long shot as many would think. Still a long shot, but not a Hail Mary.
rougnz
· 1 year ago
While the reasons for the success of pop 8 goes well beyond the Black community, the voting pattern does highlight a serious issue. That is, the level of homphobia that exists in the Black community. We really need to support the Black GLBT community - it must be pretty hard to be them. Of course we see the bigotry play out through a higher prevalence of HIV for Black Americans. This is perhaps not surprising given the discrimination Black men must experience in their own community. The Californian result has exposed to the world a pretty ugly side of the Black community and one that is timely to start talking about.
All Comments
yeah!
I donated to the No On 8 cause. What can I do now?
More power to Gloria; however, in the interim I still think we should put the hurt on those christians who raised a lot of money that would have been better spent on the homeless, environment, and education, toward restricting and redefining rights of others in another state.
For these christians there IS no debate. Homosexuality is a choice and a sin. I don't know the exact wording of the CA amendment, but in OH it included the statement of "approximations of marriage" which, I believe, would include civil unions. If legislature in CA would hypothetically allow civil unions the mormons would also try to fight that as well, because it is not about protecting marriage it's about keeping the gays under the bus.
suppressing the gay community is the first step in suppressing / reshaping society to their views... same applies to their working like demons to suppress a woman's access to birth control / abortion.
We shouldn't be always on the defense in protecting our rights.
The same-sex marriages already performed are still in force; but any future marriages are banned.
On the face of it, that is capricious, arbitrary and discriminatory. Some gays have marriages - and some never can? That is a denial of equal protection, on the face of it.
Also, any way you slice it, this proposition enshrines a particular religious viewpoint into the state constitution - a blatant violation of the First Amendment. I'm not gay, but since I don't hold that particular religious viewpoint, Prop 8 discriminates against me as well.
Boycott Utah.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?x...
No matter what the issue is, she's always working for the good guys. God bless her and her many decorative brooches. (Whenever she does a TV interview, I've always got to stop what I'm doing and see what kind of brooch she's wearing.)
Threatened their marriages? The only thing that threatens their marriages is the Talibangelical divorce rate.
Threatened their First Amendment right? "The gays" aren't always screaming for books like, "Harry Potter" or "Harry has two Mommies" removed from libraries but the Talibangelicals are ALWAYS trying to get books banned/burned.
Physically attacked them? Don't even have to go there.
Marched at their churches or funerals? Don't have to go there, either.
Yet, we are to believe they are so "put upon" by us and we "threaten" their very existance. Uh, I think its quite backwards. We need to start taking it to them. I'm tired of being the little victim and not fighting back.
so start going after their tax exempt status... and in the case of Utah and the LDS it would seem to me that an organized campaign to ban polygamy in that state would be a good tit for tat movement... after all their "battle cry" has been "marriage between one man one woman" ... seems like a public airing of that laundry is in order... oh, and a public airing of their "leaders" adultery and other sins against god can't be left out...
And...If you are a good, paid-up single Mormon woman, when you die you will become one of the wives of a good, paid-up Mormon man.
Polygamy is very real in the Mormon doctrine for the afterlife, as much as most Mormon women today don't like it. The purpose of it is for the women to bear all of the children destined to populate the husband's new world when he becomes a god.
The polygamous groups in Utah and Texas now are living closer to Joseph Smith's, Brigham Young's, and many other past church leaders than the current crop, who go along to get along as far as the mainstream culture is concerned.
If you don'[t believe me that the Mormon church is this weird, look it up!
Governor Patterson of New York, black, huge proponent of marriage equality.
I have got to think that these two people are a strong place to start. Seriously, let's ship them both off to California and have them do a tour of all the churches and community and raise the issue. It's got to make a difference.
Aside from the substantive hurdles, it would appear standing will be a hurdle since the referenced couple is already married.
prop 8 is unconstitutional, due to our equal protection clause.
duh, I mean... it uses the same language as prop 22 did!
so... if the fundies really want to get rid of our marriage rights in California, they have to get rid of the equal protection clause FIRST... THEN pass prop 8 again in the LEGISLATURE.
THAT would be interesting... considering our legislature PASSED gay marriage TWICE.
the big reason for prop 8? to circumvent our legislature... that doesn't sit well with anyone interested in constitutional law, or the separation of powers.
prop 8 is going down.
As I recall, there were squabbles regarding the Title of the proposition... why weren't these other objections raised at the same time?
-S
If they have, in fact, now messed up in how they've gone about this to the extent that this lawsuit can prevail, that cuts this proposition off at the knees. They'll never get enough legislative support to do anything that way, and without a historic election like we've just seen, they'll never get enough voter support to pull something like this off again.
Hopefully, this was their one chance in CA and they f'ed it up, royally, from a legal standpoint.
As its been explained to me, the Californian court (along with many others) prefer to let things work out first, before they take up a case. So, if the people voted no, a problem would never have come up and their time wouldn't have to be wasted.
However, now that the majority voted yes, the court will have to hear the case. The explanation makes a lot of legal sense, so I'm going to cross my fingers. I don't think this is as big of a long shot as many would think. Still a long shot, but not a Hail Mary.