AMERICAblog: Yesterday's Prop 8 oral arguments in California
CitizenX
· 8 months ago
Do they really want to open the can of worms of >50% majority being the law of the land. Just think, in a couple of years California could have: No income or sales tax Legalized drugs Free healthcare Free college educations etc.
MikeInSanJose
· 8 months ago
We almost do have legalized drugs.
I'm thinking we can do way with cops and speed limits!
...and RELIGION!!
MikeInSanJose
· 8 months ago
Then again, if we put an initiative that repeals Prop 8 on the ballot again next election cycle, I think we'd pass it, by a magin similar to the one Obama had over McCain.
This has just been too much bullshit. And after all that has come out about the way the Yes on 8-ers lied to get this passed, with California law being manipulated by fucking MORMONS, people are pissed.
Nustudoon
· 8 months ago
The problem with winning a popular vote to return our marriage rights is; that even if we won, the opponents could return with another prop. to take away our rights again. I for one do not want yo-yo rights where they are given one year and taken away the next on the whim of the voting population. I thought the constitution, and the supreme court were supposed to pretect us from that...
Jeffrey
· 8 months ago
Exactly, Nustudoon. The courts should do their job and prevent a rollercoaster ride of civil rights being granted and then taken away every couple of years. Why didn't our team argue to throw Prop 8 out under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution? Even if the people of California have the right to pass any sort of Ballot Intitiative they want with a simple majority, they don't have the right to pass laws that go against Federal protections. To paraphrase one of the justices "if gays and lesbians can't look to the supreme court to protect their rights, who can they look to?"
Steve_in_CNJ
· 8 months ago
almost any one of the commenters here could have done a better job arguing against the amendment. who hired this "team" of weak amateurs?
Gridlock
· 8 months ago
Gays did.
That's been the problem for the last 15 years. Letting toothless organizations with zero leadership potential do our fighting for us.
ChrisSF
· 8 months ago
Whoa, slow down there. The lawyers (at least Shannon Minter and Terry Stewart anyway) were excellent in my opinion. You can't do much to persuade a judge who has already made up his mind. The papers are what really counts, and they were written by some of the best and brightest. Those "toothless organizations" were the ones that got Colorado's Amendment 2 thrown out, got sodomy laws declared unconstitutional, and brought marriage to Massachusetts. We owe them a lot.
ChrisSF
· 8 months ago
Oh, and the lawyers who argued were also the very same lawyers who won marriage in California in the first place.
Jeffrey
· 8 months ago
Chris is absolutely right. Our lawyers (that does not include the bumbling doofus from Jerry Brown's office) did an outstanding job.
Todd
· 8 months ago
That was my question too -- why even get to the revision vs. amendment argument? The proposition violates equal protection.
ChrisSF
· 8 months ago
Because if the federal equal protection argument had been made, it would go to the U.S. Supreme Court and we would lose, hands down, and have to live with that awful decision for the rest of our lives. It was an essential and correct tactical decision to avoid making bad federal law so that we can make good federal law later, after Obama gets enough appointments.
Nustudoon
· 8 months ago
Fuck another Propostition. I want the supreme court to do their job, do what's right, and protect our rights so we don't have to fight for them every election cycle.
CitizenX
· 8 months ago
Perhaps we could get a vote on mormons having to live in their own communities out in the hinterlands of CA. After all, it only takes >50% of the voters to make it the law of the land, no matter who it harms.
wmforr
· 8 months ago
Since most voters don't read a proposition anyway, why not take a clue from the Bushies and give it a name that will appeal to the market:
The Marriage Preservation Act,
for example.
THEN we can craft an amendment to outlaw the Mormon religion and call it
The Defense of Religion Act
pdxprobert
· 8 months ago
how about taxes too...
Butch1
· 8 months ago
Especially, religion!
naschkatzehussein
· 8 months ago
Exactly. That's why those judges are there in the first place: the majority may be said to express "the will of the people", but that does not mean it is right or just because it is a majority. The judges should be a moderating or conciliatory influence when a majority votes to impinge upon the rights of a minority as in this case. If the voters of California voted tomorrow by a majority of 50 + 1 to force all Jews to wear yellow stars or all Muslims to wear green crescent moons, would that vote go into effect even though it would discriminate on the basis of religion? Gay marriage is a similar issue.
Gridlock
· 8 months ago
Maybe it's time to start going a little Basque.
RobertSanDimas
· 8 months ago
I've had thoughts along that line, Grid. There are a couple of factors in my case: my patience has grown thin, to the bursting point; and I'm approaching my eighth decade so I'd like to see this happen before My Final Event!
Gridlock
· 8 months ago
Well.. it's happened elsewhere. You could always breathe the sweet air of freedom in Canada LOL
Butch1
· 8 months ago
It certainly might become the option we choose. This country doesn't deserve the talent the gays and lesbians display. If this country continues going in this direction, it deserves to fail, it doesn't represent anyone besides the mouth breathing bigots who have nothing better to do than to make life difficult for the lives of minorities. They care less about the children affected by their same gendered folks having their marriages dissolved, not recognized, not legitimate and having there lives mocked and their noses rubbed into this prejudicial ruling. Yes, second-class citizenship is in vogue in this country. Perhaps, it's time to stop paying taxes since the benefits are not extended to its gay citizens.
scytherius
· 8 months ago
I'm in CA and we just keep plugging. We keep putting it on the ballot. We must be relentless because, in time, it will wear them down. The problem in CA is that the system is horrifically broken with Prop voting. THAT is what needs to be eliminated. However, having said that, we lose for now in the CASCO, they talk about how it's the will of the people, god did this, etc. They continue to be exposed for the bigots they are and we win.
I was around during the "white's only" water fountain, etc., period so have learned to be patient. Remember how bad it seemed after 2000 and Bush won, and then 2004. It just takes persistence and patience. That approach will make this happen in no more than 6-10 years. To not do this and we are talking about 30 years.
Of course if CA is so big on the will of the voters, it's time to put some anti-religion props up for vote.
Butch1
· 8 months ago
Agreed! It time the tables were turned on them starting with removing the tax-exempt status they hide their bigotry behind.
naschkatzehussein
· 8 months ago
That's the way to go, and I wouldn't doubt that it would pass.
Butch1
· 8 months ago
Certainly, worth a try. If only, we had some visionaries and leadership. Sean Penn has done more for gay marriage than some of the folks working on Prop 8 No.
Webster
· 8 months ago
How about a ballot initiative in California to do away with the California Supreme Court altogether? Conservatives hate the courts (because they "legislate from the bench"), and Liberals/Progressives will hate them if Prop 8 is upheld. That would make up more than 50% of the vote, I'll bet. So vote the Supreme Court out of existence!
wmforr
· 8 months ago
But will the Supreme Court uphold it? :-)
Gridlock
· 8 months ago
Frankly, the gay rights movement needs a leader. It's so scattershot, message-less and dispassionate. There needs to be a single unifying entity with its own leadership across the nation. A populist to whip up sentiment and furor. An orator to speak on behalf of the community and do so well.
KarenMrsLloydRichards
· 8 months ago
Practical matter: who would it be? Since the GOP can't even do this, you're asking for the impossible.
Neil Patrick Harris would be a delightful leader of the Gays, but he's said no.
Gridlock
· 8 months ago
Yes, but the GOP is collectively *special*, so it's not surprising that they have difficulty wiping their own rich, fat, white asses without a crayon diagram.
As to who would lead, we need a short list of candidates. Before that though, we need ONE unifying organization to rally the troops and create local cells across the nation. This patchwork quilt of rudderless, toothless organizations (HRC anybody) needs to be dispensed with and absorbed into a mighty, well funded, and well oiled machine with a long term strategic plan, short term tactical options, and a good chunk of funding.
Set that up, find a charismatic leader and watch the funding roll in. It needs to function like a military campaign crossed with a political juggernaut. It needs to stay on message. It needs to be consistent. The ranks need drilling and marching orders. We need legions of inspired and battle ready (and dare I say it pissed off) LGBT folks who can swing into action with concerted, well directed efforts from a centralized command structure.
That's what we need.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 8 months ago
The NAACP's decision this week to urge repeal of Prop 8 was a huge step. Hard to overstate how important this was. As for leadership, well, wouldn't it be nice if Barack Obama would get off the fence. That would be a start.
ndtovent
· 8 months ago
You're right. I've said this for years. We need another Harvey Milk
J.P.
· 8 months ago
Chris Krueger was a bumbling, mumbling idiot. Come on! Equality IS listed as an inalienable right and he couldn't even get that out of his mouth. But this is as it should be. The people did this (voting in Prop 8). It is now our responsibility to get the people to vote differently. To change it.
Butch1
· 8 months ago
Meanwhile, we all still do not have our rights. Perhaps, proposing we pay less income tax or none at all until we have full citizenship. Let's vote on that.
How in the hell is gay marriage going to cost more money? It is the same as (yuk) hetro marriage. There goes the religious idiots again preaching hate and bigotry. Down with religion!
If this country can't recognized us and give us marriage rights not civil unions but true marriage rights and over turn Prop 8 which isn't going to happen then every gay person in this country should hold their taxes until this country does recognize us and then see what it will cost. I am tired of being a nobody as far as rights go. I am entitled to have the same rights as the Constitution and Bill of Rights say I have. No where is gay mentioned. All men or person shall have....
If this country can't recognize us then we shouldn't have to recognize it or its laws.
STUPID AMERICAN PEOPLE!
Gridlock
· 8 months ago
"Your stupid minds! Stupid! STUPID!!"
Butch1
· 8 months ago
Agreed.
nicho
· 8 months ago
I was simply astounded -- dumbfounded -- at the ignorance of the justices and of the attorneys as to what inalienable rights are and how they work.
I used to teach rights theory and none of them could have passed my final exam. I had to go for a five mile walk after it was over or I was going to smash something in the house.
They were fucking clueless. And, I can't believe they kept equating gays and lesbians with murderers as equivalent "minority groups."
They hounded the anti-Prop H8 people with questions and counter arguments and they did everything but offer to give Ken Starr a blow job.
I am fucking furious and really discouraged that our rights are in the hands of dimwits.
Todd
· 8 months ago
The reason they brought up the 'murderer's issue was because the CA SCT overturned the death penalty in '72, but the voters overturned the decision and reinstated. The Court then subsequently upheld the constituionality of that proposition, allowing the voters' will to prevail.
The discussion involved how the two cases were distinguishable.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 8 months ago
This is why we need gay and lesbian people in government. It is patently obvious that there are no GLB justices on the California court. They probably don't know any GLBs. They are going to repudiate their own earlier decision out of raw cowardice. It will help them sleep better knowing that they have not incurred the wrath of the hetero mobs.
Soundboy_jeff_meanie
· 8 months ago
considering that California is now sending 'IOU's to people who are getting tax refunds...
If this thing passes in the courts, and makes the whole GLBT community 3/5's of normal people...
I seriously think we should consider only paying 3/5's of our state taxes... and sending 'IOU's for that 3/5.
Molly Weasley
· 8 months ago
It's time for a new ballot initiative -- ensuring equal rights -- and this time let's make sure it gets passed.
It's wrong, but I can see why the Calif. Supreme Court would be loath to overturn a voter-passed initiative.
me
· 8 months ago
Time to march, protest and .. gasp!... riot!
I am so sick of this
Butch1
· 8 months ago
Unfortunately, I think both assessments are going to be correct. What is wrong with this country? The argument has nothing to do about being fair to a minority one bit. The court used to be the only haven where a minority had a chance of protection from a mean spirited majority. That, is a thing of the past. The majority rules evidently, and the minorities do not have a chance anymore. It must be alright to change one's constitution to discriminate against some of its citizens. A pox on those justices if they rule against marriage.
jc
· 8 months ago
The problem is that we are not very grass roots. We don't do a whole lot on a national level like the black community once did. Getting married on the courthouse steps doesn't help. Money is the only thing that talks. Once we compound our interests/monies against the church and businesses that get in our way will we succeed. Think of the bar in where the manager donated to prop 8--weren't they whiped out? We need to do this on a national level. Hit them in the pocketbooks somehow--congress and senate/gov/etc. Numbers on how much in taxes we pay as a community...removing our vote from the Dem party. Educating minority votes. Etc etc etc.
Butch1
· 8 months ago
I stopped shopping at Albertson's super market when I found out they gave money for Prop 8. I will shop else where and give my money to people who actually appreciate me.
Gridlock
· 8 months ago
I would with-hold taxes as well. A mass movement. Until federal recognition, no taxes. A nice little note telling them that until you're allowed to pursue happiness and enjoy liberty to marry your spouse, they won't be getting one red cent. They aren't holding up their end of the constitutional bargain.
KarenMrsLloydRichards
· 8 months ago
Last night Herrera (on Maddow) was more optimistic than these two opinions. Letting Starr go on and on, Herrera said, allowed him to formulate plenty of ground for the Court's findings against him.
Keep the faith.
nicho
· 8 months ago
Unrelated to the hearing, but this just seemed appropriate
It doesn't look good based on yesterday's arguments - although I think Rex is wrong in thinking it may be unanimous, I'd guess we'll get at least 2 votes in dissent.
I find it frustrating and maddening that the California supremes don't seem to grasp the danger of allowing 50%+1 being allowed to strip away rights that the same court previously found to be fundamental. Perhaps we should be advancing an referenda denying recognition to marriages performed in the LDS? Would the same court decide that the voters could amend the constitution to single out another class of citizens for denial of rights?
-- -- --
On the good news front, it looks increasingly likely that Vermont will be enacting marriage equality this year.
Yesterday the State Senate President (Peter Shumlin) and House Speaker (Shap Smith), both Democrats, announced that they were going to push forward with legislation recognizing same sex marriages - putting it on a "fast track" and promising passage before the end of the legislative session this spring.
Passage seems highly likely -- with more than 2-1 Democratic/Progressive Party majorities in both houses, most observers seem certain that the votes are there. (Even the Republican leader in the House has publicly said she will be voting for the bill, as will several other Republican members.)
A poll in January showed strong support for marriage equality among Vermonters (58% - 39%, a result consistent with other polling over the past two years). The same poll showed that only 22% said that they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who supports marriage rights for lesbian/gay couples (compared to 26% who would be more likely, and 50% who said it wouldn't matter.)
This is a huge contrast to the uproar in 2000 when Vermont enacted civil unions - but after 9 years of civil unions, and marriage equality in nearby Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Quebec, Vermonters have come to see that granting legal recognition to lesbian/gay couples hasn't brought down western civilization. What was viewed as radical in 2000 is now seen as pretty mainstream now.
While legislative passage seems highly likely, it is less clear what Republican Governor Jim Douglas will do if the bill makes it to his desk. He has publicly said that he thinks it is the wrong time to bring it up -- first claiming it would be too divisive, and now saying that the legislature should only address economic issues this session. (The legislative leaders point out that they can walk and chew gum at the same time, and that the legislature has the capacity to act on multiple issues.)
Most observers believe that Douglas would not veto the legislation - he has the option of letting a bill become law without signing it, and that seems the most likely outcome. (Socially conservative stands are not a good way to win elections in Vermont - especially for a Republican like Douglas who tries to cultivate a moderate image.) It is unclear if the votes would be there to override a veto -- it seems nearly certain that Senate has the votes to override, while the House may or may not have the votes for an override.
No sure thing - but it seems increasingly likely that Vermont will be the next state to enact marriage equality (and would be the first state to do so without be forcing by a judicial mandate.)
Butch1
· 8 months ago
The problem is keeping the bigoted trolls away from the voting box afterwards. They are the worst, mean-spirited bunch only out to cause pain to gays and lesbians.
JackDallasQueer
· 8 months ago
Yes however the white trash religious fundy types are a small minority in VT. Vermonters tend to be very bright, well educated types who see through this bullshit. God I miss New England
benb
· 8 months ago
Ken Starr's assertion that the people of California can do whatever they want was absolutely frightening. No one would be safe from a simple majority.
pdxprobert
· 8 months ago
What if some religious sect is a majority in a particular state and they get a majority of their followers to vote a certain way, lets say favoring people who believe like they do over people who don't.. isnt that one outcome that could occur... could we see biblical law voted in by a majority?
eclare
· 8 months ago
Fortunately for Ken Starr and his absolutely absurd theory, the federal Constitution would prevent that.
In fact, the only reason Starr could make that argument is that the federal Constitution protects all the rights and all the groups that matter to him. If any of those were actually in danger of being taken away by majority rule, you can bet your bottom dollar he'd be changing his tune.
wmforr
· 8 months ago
John Yoo: The President can do anything he wants to.
Ken Starr: 51% of voters can do anything they want to.
Do these lawyers have any feeling, gut feeling for the passion that went into drafting the Bill of Rights? Not to mention understanding what it says?
ChrisSF
· 8 months ago
I was having that same thought. Somehow upholding Prop 8 is very appropriate in an age of warrantless wiretapping of anyone the government pleases, the NSA sucking and storing all of our emails, and torture being deemed a legitimate practice. We are forgetting our history.
In the red sliver of NY
· 8 months ago
What resounded loudest for me was "get government out of the marriage business altogether." Pass a new proposition calling for civil unions for all citizens and retroactively changing all marriage licenses to civil union licenses. Let religion have the word. Even better, nullify all current marriages and make couples who want to enjoy the benefits of Civil Unionization pay a new fee for that license. If you want to be "married" find a church--it will be nothing but symbolic, but if you want the rights and privileges of Civil Unions, get a license from the state.
ndtovent
· 8 months ago
Bad news. But i wonder if that would affect civil unions. Didn't CA have a DP/Civil union law before the original consitutional provision was struck down? If so, will prop's passage affect that law?? I've read news blurbs about it here and there, but no specific articles, nor have I heard one way or the other in the broadcast media news.
Todd
· 8 months ago
No, they are not affected.
scottinsf
· 8 months ago
Don't be so sure about that. The yes on 8 people are already starting to argue that civil unions/domestic partnerships are invalid under prop 8. They are already saying that the part about "will be recognized" means ONLY marriage can get any protections and rights, not civil unions. Mark my word, if prop 8 is upheld that will be the next lawsuit pushed by its supporters.
ChrisSF
· 8 months ago
I actually think that even if it upholds Prop. 8, the Cal. Supreme Court will be very clear that domestic partnerships are not affected, and in fact might say that domestic partnerships must be provided and must have all of the rights and benefits of marriage.
Lynn Dee
· 8 months ago
I believe it was the Court (although it may have been Ken Starr) that said something about "all political power" belonging to the people of the state. And it seems to me that word "political" is key. Obviously, fundamental rights should not be subjected to the ebb and flow of political power and should not be submitted to the people for a vote. That's what the whole "tyranny of the majority" concern is all about.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 8 months ago
the whole thing sounded like kindergarten. has 10th grade civics become an elective? how can we be taken seriously as a constitutional democracy?
Lynn Dee
· 8 months ago
I think there's not really, or shouldn't be, a problem with all political power belonging to the people. That's almost by definition. But, that in turn means fundamental rights should not be subjected to that power. The whole point of fundamental rights, it seems to me, that they're impervious to the ebb and flow of political power.
This is so basic I just have to believe (or hope?) that the Justices were simply ensuring that the attorneys would thoroughly address the issue.
It's gotta be that, right?!
Retired Catholic
· 8 months ago
Supreme Court appeal would be a nonstarter with the current bunch. Run the initiative. The pro-con numbers have changed enough and if you challenge the Mormon's tax exempt status at the same time you could tie them in knots.
justadood
· 8 months ago
My feeling of the proceedings was that the Justices believe the Initiative system to be essentially valid to perform whatever level of Constitutional amending or rewriting the Citizenry decide at that time.
This being the case, I recommend not waiting with bated breath---my gut says what pretty much all here are saying: it's likely Prop H8 will be upheld....making it necessary to assemble a Campaign to repeal a priority to run as soon as possible.
With the loons and wingnuts starting to surface, with more than rhetoric in their ammo-bags, get ready for violence as well....They'll be gunning for LGBT with more than words this time around......
AdamBlast
· 8 months ago
I watched the whole thing too.
It was clear the Court thinks the initiative process is horrible and out of control, and--most importantly--something they have *already* washed their hands of. They kept saying that it's up to others to limit it and that *they* must not. Honestly, I believe that's a side-effect of their having to administer the initiative-created death penalty all these years.
Jeremy
· 8 months ago
You say my marriage is yuk and you wonder why you don't get support for your cause. My wife has long been a supporter of gay rights. There are literally thousands of straight individuals, both married and single, that are tireless supporters of total equality in America.
wmforr
· 8 months ago
Who said your marriage is yuck? Not me. In fact, that is one of the few developments in recent years that have heartened this old codger:
1. The number of straight people who actively support gay rights, including marriage rights.
2. The number of young people who care about politics. Thank Obama a lot for this. In 2004 and 2008 I asked my college classes who was voting and it went from about 25% to about 90% with the 10% being under age or noncitizens.
3. The number of young GLBT people who have been catalyzed by Proposition 8 to realize that civil rights may even be more important than attending the next white party.
Jason
· 8 months ago
What the hell is going on here? How could they possibly suggest a 50+1 majority can take away a right? I only wish we could come up with something just a ridiculous and get it on the ballot. These people are legislating religion and not providing equal protection? As much as I hate the idea may the US supreme court is the next step.....UNLESS its possible they are also that stupid! It would definetly be better that we don't end up there until after Obama has a chance to make an appointment. God I'm rambling but I'm just sick!!!
ChrisSF
· 8 months ago
Yes, they are also that stupid. Actually, not stupid, just incredibly hostile. Taking it to the US Supreme Court would be a disaster -- and one that we would have to live with for the rest of our lives, nationwide, not just in California. Don't even think about it.
How in the hell is gay marriage going to cost more money? It is the same as (yuk) hetro marriage. There goes the religious idiots again preaching hate and bigotry. Down with religion!
If this country can't recognized us and give us marriage rights not civil unions but true marriage rights and over turn Prop 8 which isn't going to happen then every gay person in this country should hold their taxes until this country does recognize us and then see what it will cost. I am tired of being a nobody as far as rights go. I am entitled to have the same rights as the Constitution and Bill of Rights say I have. No where is gay mentioned. All men or person shall have....
If this country can't recognize us then we shouldn't have to recognize it or its laws.
Hey, Arnold, I've got a wasteful and unnecessary government program I'd like to cut from the state budget. How about a constitutional amendment to abolish the California Supreme Court? Since they've ruled that we can define "rights" on our own and judicial review is pointless, what exactly is the point of having them around anymore?
Eamon
· 8 months ago
Excuse me, folks, but I don't believe anyone has ever accused either John Yoo or "Kenny the Pornographer" Starr of being good lawyers. That having been said, not one of the justices seemed to be interested is the Big Issue: whether half a group plus one can limit or remove the rights of all or some of the remaining members of that group AND have that decision enforced by the power of the state. I am sure that Dean Starr would feel quite differently if he were on the receiving end of the deal. Although as a practicing lawyer for almost forty years I know that one doesn't have to agree with a proposition to argue in favor of it. Forty years (almost) of being involved in the profession have taught me that it is certainly easier to argue the merits of a case one believes in. In one of my own blog entries after the election (yes a shameless) plug I pointed out that one thing we should be doing is the repeal the property tax exemptions enjoyed by the mythologists. Why should the citizenry want to support and subsidize the very people who want to take their liberties away from them? I have long believed that the people of California should get themselves out of the marriage businessand only concern themselves with the care and support of children. All else can be dealt with in the civil courts. I think we should sponsor initiative to remove from legal recognition the word and status of 'marriage.' As one of the commentators here said earlier up this thread, let everyone who wants some legally recognized status for being coupled with another human being go and file a domestic partnership. Let's make DPs universally available!
nicho
· 8 months ago
Here's what I find so confusing. This is from the ruling last year from the same court which allowed same-sex marriage:
[U]nder this state's Constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual's liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process.
Emphasis mine. This would seem to head off the initiative at the pass. Perhaps the justices yesterday were just toying with people.
M
· 8 months ago
That quote from the initial ruling last year gives me some real hope.
I wish that were true, but unfortunately the passage you cite is referring to Prop. 22, which was an earlier initiative that banned same-sex marriage using a regular statute. The court struck that down as unconstitutional last year. Prop 8 is an amendment to the California Constitution, so if the justices decide it was validly adopted, it becomes part of the constitution regardless of what the court said last year. It would override the court's opinion from last year.
nicho
· 8 months ago
But it says quite clearly that marriage cannot be altered by ballot initiative.
M
· 8 months ago
That's how I read it too.
Jeffrey
· 8 months ago
Adam is right. Sorry Nicho. I wish you were.
AdamBlast
· 8 months ago
How I wish you were right, nicho. Note that it says "statutory initiative process". That is in contrast to an ammendment initiative, which is designed specifically to eliminate the court's ability to declare a law unconstitutional. They've *made* it constitutional.
JoshCH
· 8 months ago
Maybe we could backrupt some of these anti-gay groups and churches by continuously putting pro-gay marriage amendments on the ballot? They would spend a lot of money to defeat them.
The scary part is that if a majority vote can strip away any right then couldn't the anti-gay groups put up a ballot to criminalize homosexuality next time? Or a ballot to nix domestic partnerships?
When it comes to our side the future in CA may be bleak.
Has the majority EVER given minorities their equal rights at the ballot box?
M
· 8 months ago
They have. But only in a few states. Then what happens is that the federal government eventually steps in a forces those states that still won't to give rights to those they are unjustly withholding them from.
(Like with women and the vote. And the Civil Rights Act. And for inter-racial marriage.)
M
· 8 months ago
That should read some states not a few. I'm not sure how many in each of those instances.
red_dwarf
· 8 months ago
Religious fruitcakes, assinine narrow minded ass.wipe judges, fascist whores - and crime dynasties like the Bush family.
Welcome to insanity. Good thing I'm not God; otherwise I'd be bitch slapping a helluv lot of people.
RainbowPhoenix
· 8 months ago
We need to start planning the next step. For starters, overhauling the amendment initiative in California. We already have the legislator on our side, so we just need to change it so that all amendments require legislative approval first. I do not plan on waiting till I'm sixty to be able to marry the person of my choice.
JS
· 8 months ago
Let's get a proposition on the next ballot repealing tax-exempt status for the mormon & catholic churches and let Ken Starr explain how unconstitutional that is after he stated that the will of the people should prevail no matter what the issue is.
MadAsHell
· 8 months ago
Here's why we'll lose - BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT AFRAID OF US. Why? Because every time they hit us like this, the worst that they see from us is a few people with candles weakly singing "We Shall Overcome". We currently are not a threat in their eyes. In contrast, the reason African Americans won their rights in the 60s is because the wing nuts were ultimately SCARED TO DEATH of the potential race war, and they blinked.
SO - how are WE going to scare these people? Perhaps we should show up in more numbers - and show up with bricks and rocks - for a change?!
AdamBlast
· 8 months ago
There was an elephant in the room that our side never seemed to take into consideration.
However-many years ago, the people of California overturned the court's ruling on the death penalty. The judges found that initiative so repellant, abhorant, and indefensible. And yet they've have had to administer it, death by death, ever since.
Today, because of that, the court has a huge vested interest in washing their hands of the whole initiative process once their clear voice has been overturned by the voters. In their minds, they've thinking--how can we overturn this one, when we're already letting the public kill people? Thus, they *have* to say the public can do *anything* by initiative, however awful.
Sad nobody put themselves in their shoes, it cost us this ruling. It could even be unanimous.
ChrisSF
· 8 months ago
Well, I am sorry, but I have to disagree. The death penalty case was no secret, it was discussed over and over again in thousands of pages of briefing. The anti-8 side not only considered it, they dealt with it at painful length. It just appears the court didn't agree that the death penalty issue was different.
AdamBlast
· 8 months ago
Is life any less inalienable than liberty in the litany of constitutional rights? Isn't that the point the Chief Justice kept bringing up? Having let life be subjugated by public demand, the "inalienable rights" ship had already passed, and they were committed to letting the public write the constitution absolutely. (These are less my theories than my impression of theirs--I'm not an anti-death penalty activist, still undecided myself. I was just continually struck by how misguided they thought the initiative process was, how sadly over-broad, and by the way they kept harping on how bad the death penalty initiative was, as if to say this one was no worse.)
Robin Gilbert
· 8 months ago
Does this mean we can circulate a petition for an initiative to ban the Church of Latter Say Saints in California and if it passes by a majority of the voters it will not be considered unconstitutional?
AdamBlast
· 8 months ago
There were examples almost that extreme in the oral arguments, and yes, the Court seemed to be saying that if it was a constitutional ammendment-type initiative, any attempt by themselves to throw it out would be exceeding their scope.
One of our lawyers said if an ammendment eliminating freedom of speech was passed, the Court would surely "find a way" to invalidate it. His comments had the exact opposite effect he intended. They responded with something like--yes, we might find a way, but it wouldn't be right.
FRESNO
· 8 months ago
The No On 8 campaign was run on the failed premise that if they could just muster enough votes in the more liberal, coastal areas, that they could cancel out the conservative base of the Central San Joaquin Valley. The Valley was ignored, and then proceeded to vote 60-72% in favor of Prop 8. We cannot afford to continue to ignore the Valley. These are the people that are robbing you of your rights, these are the people the Supreme Court Justices fear being recalled by.
For the love of God people, when the court issues its ruling -- don't just march in the Castro. It's time to bring the fight, gloves off, to the places that provide the backbone for the anti-gay movement in California.
Meet in the Middle 4 Equality ---Come to FRESNO!
Fed up in California
· 8 months ago
At this point I would support an initiative revoking the marriages of heterosexual caucasians and forbidding them to marry. They can have domestic partnerships if they wish.
It seems just about as fair. Marriage is between one man and one woman? OK, one man and one woman of color.
In fact, how about defining marriage as between one man and one woman only. The other men and women? Kinda sucks to be them, but that's the way it goes. And picking The Man and The Woman could turn out to be a hit reality TV show.
All Comments
Just think, in a couple of years California could have:
No income or sales tax
Legalized drugs
Free healthcare
Free college educations
etc.
I'm thinking we can do way with cops and speed limits!
...and RELIGION!!
This has just been too much bullshit. And after all that has come out about the way the Yes on 8-ers lied to get this passed, with California law being manipulated by fucking MORMONS, people are pissed.
Why didn't our team argue to throw Prop 8 out under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution? Even if the people of California have the right to pass any sort of Ballot Intitiative they want with a simple majority, they don't have the right to pass laws that go against Federal protections. To paraphrase one of the justices "if gays and lesbians can't look to the supreme court to protect their rights, who can they look to?"
That's been the problem for the last 15 years. Letting toothless organizations with zero leadership potential do our fighting for us.
The Marriage Preservation Act,
for example.
THEN we can craft an amendment to outlaw the Mormon religion and call it
The Defense of Religion Act
I was around during the "white's only" water fountain, etc., period so have learned to be patient. Remember how bad it seemed after 2000 and Bush won, and then 2004. It just takes persistence and patience. That approach will make this happen in no more than 6-10 years. To not do this and we are talking about 30 years.
Of course if CA is so big on the will of the voters, it's time to put some anti-religion props up for vote.
Sean Penn has done more for gay marriage than some of the folks working on Prop 8 No.
Neil Patrick Harris would be a delightful leader of the Gays, but he's said no.
As to who would lead, we need a short list of candidates. Before that though, we need ONE unifying organization to rally the troops and create local cells across the nation. This patchwork quilt of rudderless, toothless organizations (HRC anybody) needs to be dispensed with and absorbed into a mighty, well funded, and well oiled machine with a long term strategic plan, short term tactical options, and a good chunk of funding.
Set that up, find a charismatic leader and watch the funding roll in. It needs to function like a military campaign crossed with a political juggernaut. It needs to stay on message. It needs to be consistent. The ranks need drilling and marching orders. We need legions of inspired and battle ready (and dare I say it pissed off) LGBT folks who can swing into action with concerted, well directed efforts from a centralized command structure.
That's what we need.
How in the hell is gay marriage going to cost more money? It is the same as (yuk) hetro marriage. There goes the religious idiots again preaching hate and bigotry. Down with religion!
If this country can't recognized us and give us marriage rights not civil unions but true marriage rights and over turn Prop 8 which isn't going to happen then every gay person in this country should hold their taxes until this country does recognize us and then see what it will cost. I am tired of being a nobody as far as rights go. I am entitled to have the same rights as the Constitution and Bill of Rights say I have. No where is gay mentioned. All men or person shall have....
If this country can't recognize us then we shouldn't have to recognize it or its laws.
STUPID AMERICAN PEOPLE!
I used to teach rights theory and none of them could have passed my final exam. I had to go for a five mile walk after it was over or I was going to smash something in the house.
They were fucking clueless. And, I can't believe they kept equating gays and lesbians with murderers as equivalent "minority groups."
They hounded the anti-Prop H8 people with questions and counter arguments and they did everything but offer to give Ken Starr a blow job.
I am fucking furious and really discouraged that our rights are in the hands of dimwits.
The discussion involved how the two cases were distinguishable.
If this thing passes in the courts, and makes the whole GLBT community 3/5's of normal people...
I seriously think we should consider only paying 3/5's of our state taxes... and sending 'IOU's for that 3/5.
It's wrong, but I can see why the Calif. Supreme Court would be loath to overturn a voter-passed initiative.
I am so sick of this
Keep the faith.
http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/fai...
I find it frustrating and maddening that the California supremes don't seem to grasp the danger of allowing 50%+1 being allowed to strip away rights that the same court previously found to be fundamental. Perhaps we should be advancing an referenda denying recognition to marriages performed in the LDS? Would the same court decide that the voters could amend the constitution to single out another class of citizens for denial of rights?
-- -- --
On the good news front, it looks increasingly likely that Vermont will be enacting marriage equality this year.
Yesterday the State Senate President (Peter Shumlin) and House Speaker (Shap Smith), both Democrats, announced that they were going to push forward with legislation recognizing same sex marriages - putting it on a "fast track" and promising passage before the end of the legislative session this spring.
Passage seems highly likely -- with more than 2-1 Democratic/Progressive Party majorities in both houses, most observers seem certain that the votes are there. (Even the Republican leader in the House has publicly said she will be voting for the bill, as will several other Republican members.)
A poll in January showed strong support for marriage equality among Vermonters (58% - 39%, a result consistent with other polling over the past two years). The same poll showed that only 22% said that they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who supports marriage rights for lesbian/gay couples (compared to 26% who would be more likely, and 50% who said it wouldn't matter.)
This is a huge contrast to the uproar in 2000 when Vermont enacted civil unions - but after 9 years of civil unions, and marriage equality in nearby Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Quebec, Vermonters have come to see that granting legal recognition to lesbian/gay couples hasn't brought down western civilization. What was viewed as radical in 2000 is now seen as pretty mainstream now.
While legislative passage seems highly likely, it is less clear what Republican Governor Jim Douglas will do if the bill makes it to his desk. He has publicly said that he thinks it is the wrong time to bring it up -- first claiming it would be too divisive, and now saying that the legislature should only address economic issues this session. (The legislative leaders point out that they can walk and chew gum at the same time, and that the legislature has the capacity to act on multiple issues.)
Most observers believe that Douglas would not veto the legislation - he has the option of letting a bill become law without signing it, and that seems the most likely outcome. (Socially conservative stands are not a good way to win elections in Vermont - especially for a Republican like Douglas who tries to cultivate a moderate image.) It is unclear if the votes would be there to override a veto -- it seems nearly certain that Senate has the votes to override, while the House may or may not have the votes for an override.
No sure thing - but it seems increasingly likely that Vermont will be the next state to enact marriage equality (and would be the first state to do so without be forcing by a judicial mandate.)
In fact, the only reason Starr could make that argument is that the federal Constitution protects all the rights and all the groups that matter to him. If any of those were actually in danger of being taken away by majority rule, you can bet your bottom dollar he'd be changing his tune.
Ken Starr: 51% of voters can do anything they want to.
Do these lawyers have any feeling, gut feeling for the passion that went into drafting the Bill of Rights? Not to mention understanding what it says?
This is so basic I just have to believe (or hope?) that the Justices were simply ensuring that the attorneys would thoroughly address the issue.
It's gotta be that, right?!
This being the case, I recommend not waiting with bated breath---my gut says what pretty much all here are saying: it's likely Prop H8 will be upheld....making it necessary to assemble a Campaign to repeal a priority to run as soon as possible.
With the loons and wingnuts starting to surface, with more than rhetoric in their ammo-bags, get ready for violence as well....They'll be gunning for LGBT with more than words this time around......
It was clear the Court thinks the initiative process is horrible and out of control, and--most importantly--something they have *already* washed their hands of. They kept saying that it's up to others to limit it and that *they* must not. Honestly, I believe that's a side-effect of their having to administer the initiative-created death penalty all these years.
1. The number of straight people who actively support gay rights, including marriage rights.
2. The number of young people who care about politics. Thank Obama a lot for this. In 2004 and 2008 I asked my college classes who was voting and it went from about 25% to about 90% with the 10% being under age or noncitizens.
3. The number of young GLBT people who have been catalyzed by Proposition 8 to realize that civil rights may even be more important than attending the next white party.
How in the hell is gay marriage going to cost more money? It is the same as (yuk) hetro marriage. There goes the religious idiots again preaching hate and bigotry. Down with religion!
If this country can't recognized us and give us marriage rights not civil unions but true marriage rights and over turn Prop 8 which isn't going to happen then every gay person in this country should hold their taxes until this country does recognize us and then see what it will cost. I am tired of being a nobody as far as rights go. I am entitled to have the same rights as the Constitution and Bill of Rights say I have. No where is gay mentioned. All men or person shall have....
If this country can't recognize us then we shouldn't have to recognize it or its laws.
STUPID AMERICAN PEOPLE!
--------------------------------------------------
Right there wmforr
[U]nder this state's Constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual's liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process.
Emphasis mine. This would seem to head off the initiative at the pass. Perhaps the justices yesterday were just toying with people.
Here's a link to the full-text.
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S1...
That quote is on the bottom of page 6.
The scary part is that if a majority vote can strip away any right then couldn't the anti-gay groups put up a ballot to criminalize homosexuality next time? Or a ballot to nix domestic partnerships?
When it comes to our side the future in CA may be bleak.
Has the majority EVER given minorities their equal rights at the ballot box?
(Like with women and the vote. And the Civil Rights Act. And for inter-racial marriage.)
Welcome to insanity. Good thing I'm not God; otherwise I'd be bitch slapping a helluv lot of people.
SO - how are WE going to scare these people? Perhaps we should show up in more numbers - and show up with bricks and rocks - for a change?!
However-many years ago, the people of California overturned the court's ruling on the death penalty. The judges found that initiative so repellant, abhorant, and indefensible. And yet they've have had to administer it, death by death, ever since.
Today, because of that, the court has a huge vested interest in washing their hands of the whole initiative process once their clear voice has been overturned by the voters. In their minds, they've thinking--how can we overturn this one, when we're already letting the public kill people? Thus, they *have* to say the public can do *anything* by initiative, however awful.
Sad nobody put themselves in their shoes, it cost us this ruling. It could even be unanimous.
One of our lawyers said if an ammendment eliminating freedom of speech was passed, the Court would surely "find a way" to invalidate it. His comments had the exact opposite effect he intended. They responded with something like--yes, we might find a way, but it wouldn't be right.
For the love of God people, when the court issues its ruling -- don't just march in the Castro. It's time to bring the fight, gloves off, to the places that provide the backbone for the anti-gay movement in California.
Meet in the Middle 4 Equality ---Come to FRESNO!
It seems just about as fair. Marriage is between one man and one woman? OK, one man and one woman of color.
In fact, how about defining marriage as between one man and one woman only. The other men and women? Kinda sucks to be them, but that's the way it goes. And picking The Man and The Woman could turn out to be a hit reality TV show.