Prop 8 Announcement

[Liar]

Here is a group getting ready to do it-- one of many.

I was just thinking, since you can apparently get any arbitrary opinion (even a discriminatory one) written into the Californian constitution with only a majority vote, what would it take in terms of a flash mob style grassroots movement to get a prop to "make gay marriage mandatory" into the next round of election?

Just to fuck with the system.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Actually, Gays have a lot of allies. The GLBT population of the state may be as much as 10% but it is probably less. Yet, about 48% favored equality in marriage. That's not a majority but it is a very large minority.

 

[freshface]

I was just thinking, since you can apparently get any arbitrary opinion (even a discriminatory one) written into the Californian constitution with only a majority vote, what would it take in terms of a flash mob style grassroots movement to get a prop to "make gay marriage mandatory" into the next round of election?

Just to fuck with the system.

Have I told you recently how much I adore you?

 

[Stella_Omega]

IIr, the original SSC decision in favor of gay marriage was on the basis of equal privileges.

So I would say that the next move might be a bid to forbid all new hetero marriages.

 

[Liar]

Actually, Gays have a lot of allies. The GLBT population of the state may be as much as 10% but it is probably less. Yet, about 48% favored equality in marriage. That's not a majority but it is a very large minority.

You don't have to be an ally of gays to oppose discrimination.

I don't care for California gays more than I care for Italian farmers or Japanese widows or whatever. What I do care for is that all people have the right to not be discriminated against. That the tyrrany of the majority is not allowed to run rampage over a democratic system.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Actually, Gays have a lot of allies. The GLBT population of the state may be as much as 10% but it is probably less. Yet, about 48% favored equality in marriage. That's not a majority but it is a very large minority.

I LOST AN ELECTION BY ONE VOTE, dont hose me with hosannas about large minorities. Votes talk, bullshit walks.

LIAR your head is up your ass. Only Jesus helped people for free. 99 politicians out of 100 wont let you put out their burning hair unless you pay them first.

THESE FOOLS LOST TODAY BECUZ THEY THINK PEOPLE ARE GONNA DO THE RIGHT THING. Nazi Germany fucked THAT theory long ago.

 

[Carnevil9]

MISTY

If it goes to SCOTUS they'll rioll in barrels of KY for the occasion, and I guarantee you wont like the results. BECUZ the issue wont be limited to saqme sex marriage. Polygamy, child brides, and every combination and permutation of union will be at stake.

BECUZ who's to say how old an adult is?

Aint gonna happen.

Don't anyone hold your breath for the SCOTUS to reverse this decision. It can't go to the SCOTUS because this was purely a California issue. The SCOC had to decide if Prop 8 was unconstitutional, according to California's constitution. This is not in the bailiwick of the SCOTUS, so this particular fight is over.

Of course, there are many other fronts on which to fight it......Carney (who is surprised at how few posts this thread has accumulated since the decision was announced)

 

[Boxlicker101]

Don't anyone hold your breath for the SCOTUS to reverse this decision. It can't go to the SCOTUS because this was purely a California issue. The SCOC had to decide if Prop 8 was unconstitutional, according to California's constitution. This is not in the bailiwick of the SCOTUS, so this particular fight is over.

Of course, there are many other fronts on which to fight it......Carney (who is surprised at how few posts this thread has accumulated since the decision was announced)

You might be right. At the same time, SCOTUS has heard a lot of cases that would not have been thought to be in their baliwick, such as Brown vs. Board of Education and the anti-miscegenation laws. The claim would be under the equal protection amendment. We actually don't know how the Supremes would rule if they get the case.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

CARNY Youre being reasonable.

PLESSY V FERGUSON was in the same class of cases as SAME SEX MARRIAGE.

Plessy, who was 1/16th black, bought a train ticket, boarded the train, and revealed his racial heritage. The conductor parked him in the mail car because segregation was the policy of the railroad.

It wasnt a national issue, it was a state issue. But the fanatics wanted it in the Supreme Court because they believed they'd get justice there. And separate but equal happened. It only took 70 more years to work things out.

I dont expect the gay fanatics to heed wise counsel. I expect the issue to go to SCOTUS and for Scalia to ask: IS POLYGAMY OK? ARE CHILD BRIDES OKAY? HOW ABOUT GROUP UNIONS? SHOULD ANY COMBINATION OR PERMUTATION OF CARNAL UNION BE EXCLUDED?

And the gay lawyers will answer MARRIAGE FOR EVERYONE! like the issue is Salvation for all souls.

And it will be over for the gays. They'll go to Canada.

 

[xssve]

Gays forget or ignore a salient point in the debate: IF HEATHER CAN HAVE TWO MOMMIES, THERE'S NO REASON SHE CANT HAVE FIVE. Same-sex marriage opens the door to every commutation and permutation of human relationship. Whatcha gonna do when your life pardner brings home a 3rd party to share the connubial bed?

Prediction: SCOTUS WILL TOSS SAME-SEX MARRIAGE TO THE CURB BECAUSE IT OPENS THE DOOR TO ALL THE OTHER BULLSHIT PEOPLE DREAM UP.

Remember, until 1925 it was legal to marry a child of ten.

Bullshit, emotionally, the issues may be related, legally and technically, they're completely different things.

Plenty of people do that now, you know, including fundamentalist polygynists - the law only recognizes one spouse, however many people you may be involved with, and that is unlikely to change, and that's what this is about, in spite of your hysterics.

 

[Weird Harold]

Of course, it's always best to have some to spare because some may be disallowed for diverse reasons.

Or at least check the signatures collected for obvious rejections: Mickey, Minnie, and Donald may be native Californians, but they still can't vote.

The SCOC had to decide if Prop 8 was unconstitutional, according to California's constitution. This is not in the bailiwick of the SCOTUS, so this particular fight is over.

It is the baliwick of the SCOTUS if the argument is that the California Constitution as ammended by Prop 8 is now in conflict with the US Constitution or Federal Law. It could be argued that it voilates the "full faith and credit" clause or equal protection, or both.

 

[Huckleman2000]

This is pretty much how it works in the UK. Churches perform marriages, registry offices perform civil unions that, due to tradition, most people refer to as marriages between men and women, but are exactly the same as the civil partnerships homosexual couples are entitled to. Using the word 'marriage' or 'civil union/partnership' is a semantic choice over here, not a legal distinction. The churches are left to their own devices as to whether they perform the ceremony of blessing or not, afaia.

Most people of my generation tend to use the words marry and marriage to refer to any binding unions, gay or straight.

I can't remember what tipped the balance to get this to happen, but I am, for once, extremely proud of my country and government for making it happen. Shame about some of the other shit they've been pulling...

x
V

This is how I would expect it to happen. In effect, "marriage", being a subset of "civil union", simply retreats from legal discourse, and everyone uses the word "marriage" however they please.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

And so the battle moves on.

 

[Vermilion]

http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/s/1million
xxx
V

 

[JamesSD]

In 2010 another ballot initiative will go up to reverse Prop 8. Advertisers will make millions more in ad revenue over the fight. Hopefully we'll win that one.

 

[Boxlicker101]

In 2010 another ballot initiative will go up to reverse Prop 8. Advertisers will make millions more in ad revenue over the fight. Hopefully we'll win that one.

Are you sure of that year. There was some discussion on whether to have it coincide with the next presidential election or not. Personally, I think that in November 2010, when there will be a new governor elected, would be a better date, although it might not allow enough time.

As for money, Hollywood has tons of it, and should be prevailed on to cough up some of it.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Are you sure of that year. There was some discussion on whether to have it coincide with the next presidential election or not. Personally, I think that in November 2010, when there will be a new governor elected, would be a better date, although it might not allow enough time.

As for money, Hollywood has tons of it, and should be prevailed on to cough up some of it.

I'm agreeing with you, plus the recentness of the new laws on the eastern seaboard might make a little bit of impact.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I'm agreeing with you, plus the recentness of the new laws on the eastern seaboard might make a little bit of impact.

On the other hand, waiting for a few more over 65's to pass on could give a natural assist in the numbers. The strategy is murky, at best. If you place it on a low-key ballot, only the most conservative voters can be counted on to turn out. If you put it on a high-stakes ballot, they the risk of getting a new influx of rare voters who turn on you is equally great. Not an easy call, no matter which way you want to go.

We will win, eventually, but I must admit to vast sympathy for those who are anxious . I'm glad I'm not a political operative, that's all.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Originally Posted by Stella_Omega
I'm agreeing with you, plus the recentness of the new laws on the eastern seaboard might make a little bit of impact.

On the other hand, waiting for a few more over 65's to pass on could give a natural assist in the numbers. The strategy is murky, at best. If you place it on a low-key ballot, only the most conservative voters can be counted on to turn out. If you put it on a high-stakes ballot, they the risk of getting a new influx of rare voters who turn on you is equally great. Not an easy call, no matter which way you want to go.

We will win, eventually, but I must admit to vast sympathy for those who are anxious . I'm glad I'm not a political operative, that's all.

Oddly enough, I think I'm also in agreement with Stella.

2010 isn't all that low-key of an election, because there will be a new governor elected. The Governator is not eligible, under state law, to succeed himself. In either that year or 2012, all seats in the House will be contested and there will be a senatorial election.

In 2012, Obama willl presumably run for reelection. Very likely, this will bring out a higher percentasgre of black voters than will vote in 2010 and they, by and large, voted FOR Prop. 8.

As for those over 65 dying off, I'm not sure how much difference that would make. People become more conservative as they age, which would mean that some who opposed Prop. 8 last year might change their minds as they get older and oppose the repeal of it in 2010 or 2012.

 

[Stella_Omega]

And also, there will be an awful lot of very motivated people voting to restore same sex marriage.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

And also, there will be an awful lot of very motivated people voting to restore same sex marriage.

That's the real variable. How many people who couldn't be bothered to vote the first time will be so incensed by the result that they come back breathing fire. Should Hollywood really open their wallets and, more importantly, their mouths and should the LDS in Salt Lake City be a bit more chary of offending so many people, the dynamics could really, really shift. Then you will hear howling and gnashing of teeth, rending of robes and wailing in the darkness and one really satisfied bear snickering to himself.

 

[JamesSD]

In 2012, Obama willl presumably run for reelection. Very likely, this will bring out a higher percentasgre of black voters than will vote in 2010 and they, by and large, voted FOR Prop. 8.

As for those over 65 dying off, I'm not sure how much difference that would make. People become more conservative as they age, which would mean that some who opposed Prop. 8 last year might change their minds as they get older and oppose the repeal of it in 2010 or 2012.

People don't generally become more conservative as they age: Old people historically seem more conservative because they are more likely to hold the beliefs that were prevalent when they were young. The Baby Boom generation caused a bit of a hiccup, as they were so liberal in their youth as a reaction against Vietnam, and many moderated those views later in life. Supreme court justices actually become more liberal as they age, as a whole. Most Senators who switched parties did so not out of a shift in their own politics, but as their party moved in a different direction.

Without editorializing: 70% of black voters voted YES on 8. White voters actually voted no, by a margin of 51-49. There's a good chance Gavin Newsom, current SF mayor, will be the Democratic governor nominee, and would help drive the pro-gay rights vote.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

People don't generally become more conservative as they age: Old people historically seem more conservative because they are more likely to hold the beliefs that were prevalent when they were young. The Baby Boom generation caused a bit of a hiccup, as they were so liberal in their youth as a reaction against Vietnam, and many moderated those views later in life. Supreme court justices actually become more liberal as they age, as a whole. Most Senators who switched parties did so not out of a shift in their own politics, but as their party moved in a different direction.

Without editorializing: 70% of black voters voted YES on 8. White voters actually voted no, by a margin of 51-49. There's a good chance Gavin Newsom, current SF mayor, will be the Democratic governor nominee, and would help drive the pro-gay rights vote.

I question Gavin's chances. He can garner the primary in SF but SF and LA don't get along on almost anything and we outnumber them. I'll suspect that, even though he's getting long in the tooth, Gerry Brown will take it. And, even though I really didn't like him when we were both younger, he's mellowed and gained common sense and I've gotten more tolerant . . . I think. He's still pro-gay rights without being in-your-face about it.

 

[Boxlicker101]

People don't generally become more conservative as they age: Old people historically seem more conservative because they are more likely to hold the beliefs that were prevalent when they were young. The Baby Boom generation caused a bit of a hiccup, as they were so liberal in their youth as a reaction against Vietnam, and many moderated those views later in life. Supreme court justices actually become more liberal as they age, as a whole. Most Senators who switched parties did so not out of a shift in their own politics, but as their party moved in a different direction.

Without editorializing: 70% of black voters voted YES on 8. White voters actually voted no, by a margin of 51-49. There's a good chance Gavin Newsom, current SF mayor, will be the Democratic governor nominee, and would help drive the pro-gay rights vote.

Maybe the Boomers have gotten less liberal rather than more conservative. Anyhow, they are usually considered to be people born from 1946 through maybe 1956, which would make the oldest of them 64 in 2010.

I well remember in the 1950's, "gay" meant happy and cheerful and "homosexual" was the nicest way of referring to those we now call gay. We all know the more insulting terms, so I won't repeat them here.

I doubt that Newsom will win the Dem nomination, although I believe he intends to try for it. For one thing, he has no other place to go. He has termed out as mayor, and the two CA senators and the congresswoman from SF are all political allies, so he is unlikely to run for any of those offices, unless one of therm retires or dies in the next year. If he does win the nomination, I doubt that he will be elected. Voters will remember how he flouted the law by ordering City Hall to illegally issue marriage licenses to gay applicants, and that will be enough to defeat him. Jerry Brown has a good shot at it. He was governor a long time ago, which may or may not help. People will still remember his judicial appointments from back then. Voters were able to boot those from the State Supreme Court, but we are still saddled with some of the idiots he appointed to lesser courts.

If it isn't former Governor Moonbeam or Newsom, I don't know who it will be, and I also don't know who the Reps will nominate.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Maybe the Boomers have gotten less liberal rather than more conservative. Anyhow, they are usually considered to be people born from 1946 through maybe 1956, which would make the oldest of them 64 in 2010.

I well remember in the 1950's, "gay" meant happy and cheerful and "homosexual" was the nicest way of referring to those we now call gay. We all know the more insulting terms, so I won't repeat them here.

I doubt that Newsom will win the Dem nomination, although I believe he intends to try for it. For one thing, he has no other place to go. He has termed out as mayor, and the two CA senators and the congresswoman from SF are all political allies, so he is unlikely to run for any of those offices, unless one of therm retires or dies in the next year. If he does win the nomination, I doubt that he will be elected. Voters will remember how he flouted the law by ordering City Hall to illegally issue marriage licenses to gay applicants, and that will be enough to defeat him. Jerry Brown has a good shot at it. He was governor a long time ago, which may or may not help. People will still remember his judicial appointments from back then. Voters were able to boot those from the State Supreme Court, but we are still saddled with some of the idiots he appointed to lesser courts.

If it isn't former Governor Moonbeam or Newsom, I don't know who it will be, and I also don't know who the Reps will nominate.

The State Controller, the one who ran the campaign to kill the attempt to eliminate term limits, Steve Poizner, probably has the inside track. It was a popular move on his part and lets him run against a terminally unpopular legislature. Good strategic position. But of course, he'll have to pander to the homophobes, unfortunately.