Day of Decision: CA Supreme Court on Prop 8
- Thread starter Etoile
- Start date
sugaredwalls
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- May 14, 2009
- Posts
- 360
Gay rights activists are already making plans to make another go of putting it on the ballot again. It'll be tough because Prop 8 is a constitutional amendment.
Ca Atty Gen Jerry Brown tried to block it off the ballot by saying the wording of the measure was unconstitutional, so perhaps opponents will try that tactic as well to overturn the ban. They also may go big and try to get the word "marriage" removed from Ca laws pertaining to marriage.
The sad thing is that it was the 2nd costliest campaign in 2008, second only to the presidential campaign. All that money, over 20 million dollars, used to deny the rights of a certain group. That's just fucking wrong.
Ca Atty Gen Jerry Brown tried to block it off the ballot by saying the wording of the measure was unconstitutional, so perhaps opponents will try that tactic as well to overturn the ban. They also may go big and try to get the word "marriage" removed from Ca laws pertaining to marriage.
The sad thing is that it was the 2nd costliest campaign in 2008, second only to the presidential campaign. All that money, over 20 million dollars, used to deny the rights of a certain group. That's just fucking wrong.
Safe_Bet
No she's not back I'm Amy
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2008
- Posts
- 8,663
Okay, round 2... Here we go!
They are hearing it on July 2nd!
New Same-Sex Marriage Appeal
They are hearing it on July 2nd!
New Same-Sex Marriage Appeal
guy_thing60
Experienced
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2008
- Posts
- 42
I hadn't read where the decision applied the previous court decision - leaving those who married under that decision still married under CA law. If that is the case, the problem is that other states may be under no obligation to recognize those marriages, unless Prop 8 and the consequent court decision is overturned. It will make for an interesting legal situation, as Constitution of the United States, reads: "Article IV: Section 1
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. <...deleted>
Section 2 Clause 1:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
So if the current CA law does not allow same-sex marriages, it may be uncharted legal territory regarding the obligation of other states to recognize those marriages. So the CA proposition issue will go national, state-by-state. Which is exactly what the right-wing and religious crazies have wanted. The issue is really unimportant to them - those who have funded the anti-gay issues. It is the conflict and their ability to manipulate it for other public policy purposes that is the real reason for the huge amount of money provided to the Yes on Prop 8 groups. Very sad, considering how many other really significant issues face this nation; it is another deliberate, fabricated "divide-and-conquer" issue
Powertone
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2006
- Posts
- 11,607
religious crazies include most of the black community...hardly a bastion of right wing politics.
you're not going "to win hearts and minds" by insulting those who oppose your cause.
Netzach
>semiotics?
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2003
- Posts
- 21,732
Again, I think this is actually creating enough chaos to show the impracticality of different laws for different classes of people. It's simply going to be too legally ponderous for the patchwork approach of state by state to work.
If anything, this is going to be a catalyst for the end of the whole thing in favor of marriage for everyone. We're not going to be some kind of backwater country when it comes to this, with the entire rest of the western world off in the distance.
It's not a question of religious nutjobs versus everyone else, it's a question of no compelling legal precedent or interest in preventing it, and nothing horrible coming to pass in any of the places it exists.
I haven't seen any Canadians marrying their pets yet, though it is a bit less population dense up there. I haven't seen their marriage and birth rates plummet, and in fact the whole thing is kind of a yawn inducing who cares?
It's true, insulting the opposition at least those who are rational and yet reluctant because it just tweaks them somehow, isn't the way to go. Rational discussions of different laws for different classes of people and how well that's worked historically are actually bringing people around. Countering the hype that their church is going to be forced into liking it, and asking them about how forcing churches that DO like it into worshipping a certain way makes them feel.
Most people may not love the idea of gay marriage, but they like the interference of legislation BANNING it far less. Again, bringing this around to the basic issues of marriage (what I can do with my property and an adult I select) and the ultimate nanny-state tinkering that a ban represents on what I can and can't do with my property - there are enough rational, dispassionate, intellectual arguments rooted in law and precedent, where the only arguments on the other side are religious, emotional, lacking data.
If anything, this is going to be a catalyst for the end of the whole thing in favor of marriage for everyone. We're not going to be some kind of backwater country when it comes to this, with the entire rest of the western world off in the distance.
It's not a question of religious nutjobs versus everyone else, it's a question of no compelling legal precedent or interest in preventing it, and nothing horrible coming to pass in any of the places it exists.
I haven't seen any Canadians marrying their pets yet, though it is a bit less population dense up there. I haven't seen their marriage and birth rates plummet, and in fact the whole thing is kind of a yawn inducing who cares?
It's true, insulting the opposition at least those who are rational and yet reluctant because it just tweaks them somehow, isn't the way to go. Rational discussions of different laws for different classes of people and how well that's worked historically are actually bringing people around. Countering the hype that their church is going to be forced into liking it, and asking them about how forcing churches that DO like it into worshipping a certain way makes them feel.
Most people may not love the idea of gay marriage, but they like the interference of legislation BANNING it far less. Again, bringing this around to the basic issues of marriage (what I can do with my property and an adult I select) and the ultimate nanny-state tinkering that a ban represents on what I can and can't do with my property - there are enough rational, dispassionate, intellectual arguments rooted in law and precedent, where the only arguments on the other side are religious, emotional, lacking data.
Last edited:
Similar threads
