Proposition 8 in California

[pbans]

I think his point about the redefinition of marriage is particularly powerful; in more than half of this country, in 1967, President-elect Obama's parents could not have legally married....

And Brad, I agree; people need to take a hard look at the way they live their own lives before they throw stones at others. I wonder how many of the people advocating the passage of Prop 8 are divorced.......

I have a friend who has a great tag line: "Is there so much love in the world that we can afford to deny any of it?"

I love that.....I might steal it!

[Lightning Bolt]

After this heated, and divisive election,
I did not want to start another huge debate that would clearly divide folks here again
This election, when a mirror is held up to society, was like two steps forward/one step back.

I'm not going to get riled up again, because while I support ALL persons right to marry,
this apparent "popular judgement" will very soon be overturned in the State Supreme Court.

..because it's educated lawmakers who create laws and amendments to the Constitution... not voters.

[jonesbeach10]

After this heated, and divisive election,
I did not want to start another huge debate that would clearly divide folks here again
This election, when a mirror is held up to society, was like two steps forward/one step back.

I'm not going to get riled up again, because while I support ALL persons right to marry,
this apparent "popular judgement" will very soon be overturned in the State Supreme Court.

..because it's educated lawmakers who create laws and amendments to the Constitution... not voters.

Can I ask how the California SC is going to overturn this amendment? Is there another step it has to go through before Prop 8 becomes part of the CA Constitution that the CA Supreme Court would have to follow? I don't see how a state supreme court can overturn an amendment to that state's constitution.

Also another point that bothers me about Prop 8. Where was all of the outcry before the election??? It seems to make little difference to protest this after it's already passed when you had ample opportunity to campaign against it prior to last Tuesday. Trust me, I wanted Prop 8 to fail, I just wish this outcry over it had happened much much sooner.

[ragtopW]

After this heated, and divisive election,
I did not want to start another huge debate that would clearly divide folks here again
This election, when a mirror is held up to society, was like two steps forward/one step back.

I'm not going to get riled up again, because while I support ALL persons right to marry,
this apparent "popular judgement" will very soon be overturned in the State Supreme Court.

..because it's educated lawmakers who create laws and amendments to the Constitution... not voters.

Can I ask how the California SC is going to overturn this amendment? Is there another step it has to go through before Prop 8 becomes part of the CA Constitution that the CA Supreme Court would have to follow? I don't see how a state supreme court can overturn an amendment to that state's constitution.

Also another point that bothers me about Prop 8. Where was all of the outcry before the election??? It seems to make little difference to protest this after it's already passed when you had ample opportunity to campaign against it prior to last Tuesday. Trust me, I wanted Prop 8 to fail, I just wish this outcry over it had happened much much sooner.

the S/C can overturn it.. if it's not a Constitutional law it can (and I think ) has been overturned..

I will take the outcry question.. I was born and raised in
California..
the people who lost.. took it for granted everyone was "smart"
enough to see things their way..

they Ass/U/ME/D...

I haven't seen the numbers.. but I am (just gussing)
that for once in the history of California..
the City got out voted... the Country won..

[Lightning Bolt]

After this heated, and divisive election,
I did not want to start another huge debate that would clearly divide folks here again
This election, when a mirror is held up to society, was like two steps forward/one step back.

I'm not going to get riled up again, because while I support ALL persons right to marry,
this apparent "popular judgement" will very soon be overturned in the State Supreme Court.

..because it's educated lawmakers who create laws and amendments to the Constitution... not voters.

Can I ask how the California SC is going to overturn this amendment? Is there another step it has to go through before Prop 8 becomes part of the CA Constitution that the CA Supreme Court would have to follow? I don't see how a state supreme court can overturn an amendment to that state's constitution.

Also another point that bothers me about Prop 8. Where was all of the outcry before the election??? It seems to make little difference to protest this after it's already passed when you had ample opportunity to campaign against it prior to last Tuesday. Trust me, I wanted Prop 8 to fail, I just wish this outcry over it had happened much much sooner.

the S/C can overturn it.. if it's not a Constitutional law it can (and I think ) has been overturned..

I will take the outcry question.. I was born and raised in
California..
the people who lost.. took it for granted everyone was "smart"
enough to see things their way..

they Ass/U/ME/D...

I haven't seen the numbers.. but I am (just gussing)
that for once in the history of California..
the City got out voted... the Country won..

Back in the '90's the people of California voted to deny public services to all illegal immigrants... Prop. 187

The courts ruled it unconstitutional ... can't discriminate against minorities.

It will probably be on those same grounds that they'll throw out this attempt to amend.
You just can't legislate discrimination.

[Salukulady]

There WAS public outcry against prop 8 prior to the election. We were sure it would not pass. It was very unpopular to everyone I spoke with. And then about a week before the vote, I noticed my first yes on 8 bumper sticker. I couldn't believe it. All of a sudden we were barraged with really deceptive ads on T.V. regarding how we must protect our children. The ads were on constantly. You'd see a no on 8 sign on the street and an hour later when you drove past it, it would be replaced with 15 yes on 8 signs. The proponents of 8 were unrelenting. They had the churches behind them and no limitation on money or man power. The mormon church had their minions plastering my community with placards, signs and bumper stickers daily. This was all about money. More money was spent on yes on 8 than any proposition in California's history. It truly was the H8te campaign.

Anyone remember a little book called 1984? Or how quickly Hitler's propaganda turned a whole country against a group?

[Salukulady]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and- ... /?sem=1/2/

[chippewa]

Another case of the polls not reflecting the actual outcome:

[flipflopgirl]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and- ... /?sem=1/2/

[CrznDnUS1]

Is there a possibility of election corruption, vote flipping? I understand it was widespread in 2004 throughout the country. Paperless voting booths are very bad.

[ragtopW]

Is there a possibility of election corruption, vote flipping? I understand it was widespread in 2004 throughout the country. Paperless voting booths are very bad.

that would require that the elected officials of California had their
Stuff together...

eh... not gonna happen...

[FunkHouse9]

Second guessing or questioning something is a great thing and what keeps us honest, but someone who has the power of the media should report the news and not use it to voice their own views. That's the main issue I have with Fox News. They feel it's their duty to ram their views down my throat. I don't need Fox News or MSNBC to give me their views, just report the facts and I will decide on my own.

I do agree with you in principle. However, I have to support someone who uses their public voice to throw their support behind a cause they truly believe in that has little or no effect on their day-to-day lives. I'd be annoyed if he were ranting about higher taxes for the rich. He's using his public visibility to promote equal rights for all.

[Salukulady]

Second guessing or questioning something is a great thing and what keeps us honest, but someone who has the power of the media should report the news and not use it to voice their own views. That's the main issue I have with Fox News. They feel it's their duty to ram their views down my throat. I don't need Fox News or MSNBC to give me their views, just report the facts and I will decide on my own.

I do agree with you in principle. However, I have to support someone who uses their public voice to throw their support behind a cause they truly believe in that has little or no effect on their day-to-day lives. I'd be annoyed if he were ranting about higher taxes for the rich. He's using his public visibility to promote equal rights for all.

This was not Fox's opinion, it was Keith's. It's called a commentary.

[CrznDnUS1]

Second guessing or questioning something is a great thing and what keeps us honest, but someone who has the power of the media should report the news and not use it to voice their own views. That's the main issue I have with Fox News. They feel it's their duty to ram their views down my throat. I don't need Fox News or MSNBC to give me their views, just report the facts and I will decide on my own.

I do agree with you in principle. However, I have to support someone who uses their public voice to throw their support behind a cause they truly believe in that has little or no effect on their day-to-day lives. I'd be annoyed if he were ranting about higher taxes for the rich. He's using his public visibility to promote equal rights for all.

I agree with you on the equal right part.

[green1]

Second guessing or questioning something is a great thing and what keeps us honest, but someone who has the power of the media should report the news and not use it to voice their own views. That's the main issue I have with Fox News. They feel it's their duty to ram their views down my throat. I don't need Fox News or MSNBC to give me their views, just report the facts and I will decide on my own.

I do agree with you in principle. However, I have to support someone who uses their public voice to throw their support behind a cause they truly believe in that has little or no effect on their day-to-day lives. I'd be annoyed if he were ranting about higher taxes for the rich. He's using his public visibility to promote equal rights for all.

So he is going to begin actively campaigning for gay marriage ammendments in this country? Or did he just simpky take a shot at the people of CA because he could, with no intention of backing his words up with actions? Just curious. If it is the first than kudos to him. If it is the second than he should keep his trap shut.

For the record, I don't care whether there is an amendment or not, I don't think marriage is an inherrent right, but likewise I think that anyone who wants to get married should be allowed to. My thinking on this issue has chnaged fairly recently. But it has changed.

[blackjack]

OK, I'll be the whipping boy conservative.

My belief is that "marriage" is a religious sacrament in which a man and a woman are united. And should not be divided.

That said, I am for "civil unions" or whatever other term you would like to identify for gay couples or non-religious hetero couples. I believe in partner benefits, child adoption and on the flip side, alimony, custody battles and everything else that comes along with marriage, both the good and bad.

Fire away.

[buffettbride]

OK, I'll be the whipping boy conservative.

My belief is that "marriage" is a religious sacrament in which a man and a woman are united. And should not be divided.

That said, I am for "civil unions" or whatever other term you would like to identify for gay couples or non-religious hetero couples. I believe in partner benefits, child adoption and on the flip side, alimony, custody battles and everything else that comes along with marriage, both the good and bad.

Fire away.

I completely agree.

[pbans]

OK, I'll be the whipping boy conservative.

My belief is that "marriage" is a religious sacrament in which a man and a woman are united. And should not be divided.

That said, I am for "civil unions" or whatever other term you would like to identify for gay couples or non-religious hetero couples. I believe in partner benefits, child adoption and on the flip side, alimony, custody battles and everything else that comes along with marriage, both the good and bad.

Fire away.

I don't have any problem with your position at all......could care less what it's called.

I think it's up to the individual religious organization to add the "religious" element to it.....the legal side is what need to be assured and protected.

[redwinemaker]

Just an observation: The largest "new" voting block in California is the Hispanic community. While they vote overwhelmingly Democratic, they are also Catholic and very traditional. I have had many conversations with my Hispanic friends and neighbors and have been told that they voted heavily in favor of Prop 8.

[NYCsharkling]

I love gay people. Gay people should be able to have raunchy married sex just like I do and pay married-people taxes just like I do. It's a win, win really.

well said Mal....