Quote :

"The whole point of the judicial branch is to overturn decisions that are unconstitutional."

There's no such thing as an unconstitutional amendment to a constitution.

11/9/2008 2:01:32 PM

^

11/9/2008 2:04:45 PM

^^ I was referring to if it violates federal laws. Lower courts have to consider this too, don't they?

11/9/2008 2:06:06 PM

Last I heard, the Supreme Court wasn't going to take any cases deciding whether or not the 14th Amendment covers gay marriage.

^^Dude, don't even ride my coat tails. We're not on the same side of this debate.

[Edited on November 9, 2008 at 2:09 PM. Reason : ]

11/9/2008 2:08:34 PM

there will be new justices under obama who will hear that case

riding your coat tails?

jesus christ son, you are taking this too seriously

[Edited on November 9, 2008 at 2:10 PM. Reason : ]

11/9/2008 2:09:36 PM

Quote :

"I was referring to if it violates federal laws. Lower courts have to consider this too, don't they?"

It's a state constitution.

11/9/2008 2:18:50 PM

I'd argue that it still violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, but I really think that now would be a bad time to try to fight that battle.

11/9/2008 2:22:06 PM

Quote :

""The process by which proposition 8 came about is being challenged right now. What they want to do is amend the constitution by simply going out and gathering signatures. And then a vote of 50% +1, does not amend our constitution. What that requires, to amend the state constitution, what's required is a 2/3 vote of the senate, and a 2/3 vote of the assembly, both houses of the legislature, and then it goes to a ballot. -George Takei"

If this is to be believed (source, Supplanter?), then that means that Prop 8 wasn't a valid amendment to the state constitution. Which means that a court should throw it out regardless of the constitutionality of a ban on gay marriages.

11/9/2008 2:24:36 PM

I wouldn't even fight that battle. Seriously-- no one was complaining before they lost; apparently it wasn't too unconstitutional.

This is as much a battle over winning public opinion as it is winning legal battles.

If this proposition just won a popular vote in California, then more work needs to be done in the realm of public opinion. A winning court battle over this at this point in time would ruin things on the other end of the fight.

11/9/2008 2:27:59 PM

In addition to almost daily protests in San Francisco, San Diego, LA, & many other cities in CA (along w/ protests in most states that anti-gay ballot measures) & some in Chicago, upcoming protests are happening in New York, Cambridge MA, & in Utah.



Protests in a few cities broke the ten thousand plus mark yesterday.

Quote :

""The process by which proposition 8 came about is being challenged right now. What they want to do is amend the constitution by simply going out and gathering signatures. And then a vote of 50% +1, does not amend our constitution. What that requires, to amend the state constitution, what's required is a 2/3 vote of the senate, and a 2/3 vote of the assembly, both houses of the legislature, and then it goes to a ballot."

-George Takei (aka Mr. Sulu)

I wonder how long this process of challenging will take?

11/9/2008 2:39:04 PM

^Could we get a source on that quote?

11/9/2008 2:41:56 PM

Mr. Sulu isn't a lawyer, I take his word on state laws with a grain of salt. And if it takes all that to amend the constitution, it sounds inconceivable that Prop 8 would've been on the ballot in the first place.

11/9/2008 3:09:42 PM

Perhaps my post would have been better phrased as "Could we get his source"... Looking at it now it does look like I'm asking for the quote itself... I meant I was looking for confirmation of what he said.

11/9/2008 3:24:10 PM

From a purely practical standpoint, Mormon headquarters is about 3 miles down the road from my apartment, and all of the protests are backing up traffic to a standstill for 5 miles in every direction. It's pretty ridiculous, and made me glad I bike to work--I'm able to just zip around all the cars and get home, but it's causing big headaches here in Santa Monica and LA.

I hope they throw it out, but the No on 8 campaign here was terribly run, so it's no surprise they lost when up against the massive dollar bucks being pumped into the state by the Yes folks.

11/9/2008 3:36:25 PM

Quote :

"The process by which proposition 8 came about is being challenged right now. What they want to do is amend the constitution by simply going out and gathering signatures. And then a vote of 50% +1, does not amend our constitution. What that requires, to amend the state constitution, what's required is a 2/3 vote of the senate, and a 2/3 vote of the assembly, both houses of the legislature, and then it goes to a ballot."

i think this needs to be reiterated again, and looked into further. I did a bit of searching and could not find the rules for amending the CA State constitution. But if what he said is true, this entire discussion is moot. Completely dead in the water.

I mean, why should it even need challenging in court? What's there to challenged? Whoever is in charge of officially adding amendments should literally have a checklist that says:
- 2/3 vote senate
- 2/3 vote assembly
- 50% +1 ballot initiative

If those 3 points are not met, then the amendment should be just written off, then and there.... no discussion, no judges needed

11/9/2008 6:58:57 PM

Quote :

""I was referring to if it violates federal laws. Lower courts have to consider this too, don't they?" It's a state constitution. "

Right. And a state constitution can't override the federal constitution. But, if Boone is right, that answers my original question, I guess...

11/9/2008 7:01:40 PM

well, here's an equally un-reputable source as Mr. Sulu.... an anonymous posting on craigslist, that says it's either-or - a 2/3 majority in both houses or a ballot initiative
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/pol/911825521.html

Quote :

"There have been a couple of postings, stating that the only way to do so is by a measure being passed by a 2/3 majority in both houses of the State House, and then passed by voter referendum. While that is one way, it is NOT the only way. A citizen can have a referendum placed on the ballot by having petitions signed by a minimum of 10% of all registered voters in the state. If this is done, then the Proposition is placed on the ballot in the next election. If said Proposition passes, it is either made law, or serves as an amendment to the Constitution. Both laws and Constitutional Amendments can be made using this process. "

11/9/2008 7:04:17 PM

If anyone cares to sign an online petition, not that they do much, but it is a very easy step to take...
http://www.eqca.org/petition

11/9/2008 7:16:33 PM

Here's a list of planned protest locations for Sat on this website: http://www.jointheimpact.com/

also here: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/event.php?eid=45356108205

Quote :

"Alabama - Birmingham | Mobile | Dothan Alaska - Sullivan Arena | Fairbanks City Hall Arizona - Phoenix Arkansas - Little Rock California - San Diego | Los Angeles | Bakersfield | Sacramento | San Francisco | San Jose | Moreno Valley Colorado - Denver Connecticut - Hartford Delaware - Dover Washington D.C. Florida - Jacksonville | Miami | Orlando Georgia - Atlanta Hawaii - Honolulu Idaho - Boise Illinois - Chicago Indiana - Indianapolis Iowa - Des Moines | Iowa City Kansas - Kansas City | Wichita Kentucky - Louisville | Lexington Louisiana - New Orleans Maine - Portland Maryland - Baltimore Massachusetts - Boston | Northampton Michigan - Detroit Minnesota - Minneapolis/St. Paul Mississippi - Jackson Missouri - Kansas City | St. Louis Montana - Billings | Missoula Nebraska - Omaha Nevada - Las Vegas | Reno New Hampshire - Manchester New Jersey - Newark New Mexico - Albuquerque New York - Syracuse | Albany | New York City North Carolina - Charlotte | Raleigh - I can’t get google to pull up a link for this so here’s the address: 1 E Morgan St, Raleigh, N Carolina North Dakota - Grand Forks Ohio - Cleveland | Columbus | Cincinnati Oklahoma - Oklahoma City Oregon - Eugene | Portland Pennsylvania - Philadelphia | Pittsburgh Rhode Island - Providence South Carolina - Charleston South Dakota - Sioux Falls | Rapid City Tennessee - Memphis | Nashville Texas - Houston | Austin | Dallas Utah - Salt Lake City Vermont - Montpelier | Burlington Virginia - Richmond Washington - Spokane | Seattle West Virginia - Charleston Wisconsin - Milwaukee Wyoming - Cody | Laramie"

[Edited on November 9, 2008 at 8:04 PM. Reason : .]

11/9/2008 8:03:53 PM

For Gay Civil Unions/Marriages (whatever word appears in law):
BridgetSPK
agentlion
tromboner950
kwsmith2
Supplanter


Against Gay Civil Unions/Marriages:


To be clear, I used both terms, "civil unions/gay marriage," to cover everything. No semantic games are being played. If the law opts to use the term "civil union" to describe the joining of all couples, then that's the word we're settled on. If they pick "marriage," then we're going with that for all couples. No room for distinction by using two different words.

11/9/2008 10:08:11 PM

LOL. A line has been drawn!

11/9/2008 10:50:52 PM

For Gay Civil Unions/Marriages (whatever word appears in law):
BridgetSPK
agentlion
tromboner950
kwsmith2
Supplanter


Against Gay Civil Unions/Marriages:
TKE-Teg

11/9/2008 11:28:08 PM

^^Just trying to get people to say what they think.

We can talk about the Constitution and states' rights forever. There are people who have devoted their entire lives to the discussion. Every other issue we debate on here could revolve around such a discussion, but they don't. It seems to be this particular debate that brings out all the legal scholars, people who freely speak their mind on every other issue but then get all detached and academic about gay marriage/civil union.

My list seeks to set all that aside and say, "Okay, if there was a vote in your state or if you were king of the world or if you could have it your way, what would you like to see done?"

11/9/2008 11:39:30 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/10/gay.marriage.protests.ap/index.html

Quote :

"Church told 'obvious lies,' gay activists allege LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- On the first Sunday after a gay marriage ban passed in California, activists rallied in defiance, including hundreds of protesters outside an Orange County megachurch whose pastor brought Barack Obama and John McCain together last summer for a "faith forum." About 300 gay-rights advocates fanned out along sidewalks leading to Saddleback Church in Lake Forest to voice their anger of the church's support of Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment approved by voters Tuesday that overturns a state Supreme Court decision in May legalizing same-sex unions. Ed Todeschini, a Human Rights Campaign volunteer, accused Saddleback in particular of helping propagate what he called misinformation about the Supreme Court ruling, including that gay marriage would have to be taught to kindergartners. A message seeking comment left at the church's main office, which was closed Sunday, was not immediately returned. "They told such obvious lies. They used their lies to deceive the public," Todeschini said of the church, which gained national attention in August when its pastor, Rick Warren, brought Obama and McCain together to discuss their religious faith. The two candidates embraced during an often-contentious presidential campaign. Todeschini said Sunday's rally was peaceful, with demonstrators waving placards with slogans including "Equality for all" and "Shame on you." The amendment was passed last week with 52 percent of the vote, and backlash at churches over their support swept across California on Sunday after days of protests. In Oakland, a large protest at the city's Mormon temple led the California Highway Patrol to close two highway ramps to ensure pedestrian safety. Protest organizers said they hoped to tone down the anger that has characterized some previous demonstrations. Our intent is not to disturb churchgoers," organizer Tim DeBenedictis said in a statement. "Our goal is to mend fences and build bridges so that all Californians can achieve marriage equality under the law." The pastor of the 4,000-member All Saints Church in Pasadena spoke out against Proposition 8, calling the religious community's support of it "embarrassing." The church announced that while it could no longer legally marry same-sex couples, it would continue blessing gay civil unions. "It's very unfortunate and embarrassing that the (Christian religion) is in large part responsible for this act of bigotry," the Rev. Ed Bacon said after his sermon. In Sacramento, a protest at the state Capitol was boisterous but peaceful as speakers led the crowd in noisy chants. Protesters waved rainbow flags, a symbol of the gay rights movement, and "No on 8" signs as police watched from the side. Speaking on CNN's "Late Edition" Sunday, Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger expressed disappointment at Proposition 8's passage. "It is unfortunate," Schwarzenegger said. "But it is not the end because I think this will go back into the courts. ... It's the same as in the 1948 case when blacks and whites were not allowed to marry. This falls into the same category.""

[Edited on November 10, 2008 at 5:46 AM. Reason : latest CNN coverage of the protests]

11/10/2008 5:44:18 AM

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-144921

Through volunteering for multiple democratic campaigns, and being the marketing person (in as much as we do marketing) at the vet clinic where I work, I've had a little practice now with press releases and made some contact within some local and statewide media agencies. I work up press releases about 20 different NC media outlets, as well as reached out to the LGBT groups at NCSU, Duke, UNC, Meredith, NCCU, as well as groups like the ACLU, and Equality NC, Pride Obama, and shared the information on all the liberal blogs I know of around the triangle area and around the state, and with the specific campaigns I've worked with if they have anyone who wants to get involved (I figure now that the election is over there are some people with volunteering experience out there who suddenly have a gap in their schedules). Within about 15 minutes of doing the press release I already had 1 radio station say they were going to most likely run the story.

The little ad I posted there goes along with a nationwide press release for the effort at large, but I've been effectively drafted into helping organize the protests in North Carolina in Raleigh & Charlotte.

1:30 pm at 1 E Morgan St, Raleigh should be an interesting time and place this Saturday.

[Edited on November 10, 2008 at 10:53 PM. Reason : http://www.new.facebook.com/event.php?eid=46087994571]

11/10/2008 10:48:11 PM

ugh, I'll be sure to avoid that location on Saturday

11/10/2008 11:08:44 PM

^^^ They did, but a responsible voter should do research on their own if it is important to them.

That said, you can add me to the side against Prop 8... I just don't see how it affects me or anyone in my life, so in that case I see no reason to limit their rights.

Quote :

"Ed Todeschini, a Human Rights Campaign volunteer, accused Saddleback in particular of helping propagate what he called misinformation about the Supreme Court ruling, including that gay marriage would have to be taught to kindergartners."

Anyone who believed that is a moron...

[Edited on November 10, 2008 at 11:20 PM. Reason : x]

11/10/2008 11:19:19 PM

I wasn't aware so many gay people didn't have jobs and could go protest all day...

















I kid, I keed...kinda.

11/10/2008 11:24:42 PM

I see people protesting at all times of the day when I go into the city for work meetings. Most of them look like hobo's anyway...

Don't even get me started on the stupid fucking tree sitter on Cal's campus protesting the football stadium construction.

If they don't cut those trees down with the people in them, I'll be disappointed...

11/10/2008 11:27:57 PM

Quote :

"More than 40 state legislators, including Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, Senate President pro Tem Don Perata, incoming Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, and Speaker Emeritus Fabian Núñez, today filed a friend of the court brief in the case to void Prop 8, claiming it should be invalidated because it was not enacted under the proper procedures for changing the state Constitution. "The citizens of California rely on the Legislature and the courts to safeguard against unlawful discrimination by temporary, and often short-lived, majorities," said the legislators. "Our state's few deviations from this duty have proven, with the perspective of historical distance, to be the most abhorrent chapters in our State's history... The Legislative Amici urge this Court to prevent the momentary passions of a bare majority from compromising the enduring constitutional promise of equal protection under the law. Proposition 8's radical change to our constitutional protections cannot be considered a mere 'amendment.' The California Constitution -- 'the ultimate expression of the People's will' -- requires the involvement of the Legislature in a constitutional revision of this magnitude." "

11/11/2008 12:08:37 AM

Obstructionary lawsuits, what California does best.

Quote :

"Proposition 8's radical change to our constitutional protections cannot be considered a mere 'amendment.' The California Constitution -- 'the ultimate expression of the People's will' -- requires the involvement of the Legislature in a constitutional revision of this magnitude."

What a bunch of self-absorbed little bitches. Will they file a brief to void every proposition they disagree with? And how the fuck is Fabian Nunez still in power? That corrupt little bastard should have been gone by now.

11/11/2008 12:34:04 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/11/baptizing.dead.jews.ap/index.html

Quote :

"Holocaust survivors to Mormons: Stop baptisms of dead Jews # Story Highlights # Holocaust survivors say they are through trying to negotiate with Mormon church # Church elder: Ending practice outright would be asking Mormons to alter their beliefs # Baptism by proxy allows faithful Mormons to have ancestors baptized into church # Using genealogy records, church also baptizes the dead of other religions NEW YORK (AP) -- Holocaust survivors said Monday they are through trying to negotiate with the Mormon church over posthumous baptisms of Jews killed in Nazi concentration camps, saying the church has repeatedly violated a 13-year-old agreement barring the practice."

Off topic, but it looks like the Mormons are rubbing everyone the wrong way these days

11/11/2008 5:47:54 AM

^

11/11/2008 6:32:03 AM

Quote :

"1:30 pm at 1 E Morgan St, Raleigh should be an interesting time and place this Saturday. "

sure will be. I will be tailgating.

11/11/2008 8:13:13 AM

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_10949922

Quote :

"Forty-four members of the California Legislature filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support one of the three lawsuits seeking to invalidate Proposition 8. The case, brought on behalf of gay couples who have not yet married, argues the ban should be tossed out because voters did not have the authority to make such a dramatic change in state law. "

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/11/09/Calif_gov_We_will_maybe_undo_Prop_8/UPI-22871226279859/

Quote :

"In an appearance Sunday on CNN, Schwarzenegger said the state Supreme Court might overturn Proposition 8, the Los Angeles Times reported. He also said it is likely Proposition 8 will have no effect on the estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages already recorded in California. "It's unfortunate, obviously, but it's not the end," Schwarzenegger told CNN. "I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area.""

Looks like this thing might not last very long, with the state legislators and governor on board to get it overturned.

11/11/2008 11:34:19 AM

What was the point of this whole Proposition 8 in California? About $140 million was spent on its vote in the election and now seemingly every politician in CA is against it.

What, people felt like taking $140 million and just lighting it on fire for the fuck of it?

11/11/2008 12:00:01 PM

this internet connection is killing me

[Edited on November 11, 2008 at 12:05 PM. Reason : k]

11/11/2008 12:02:14 PM

How did the proposition even get on the ballot if it was an invalid method of changing the state constitution?

11/11/2008 12:16:24 PM

^ It's not.

This is just typical political maneuvering by entrenched politicians who can't respect the will of the people when it doesn't go their way. Expect the "friends of the court brief" to get shot down summarily, because it's nonsense. How could a gay marriage ban be considered a "radical change to the Constitutional protections" of Californians? Typical grandstanding and underhanded tactics by the state legislature.

[Edited on November 11, 2008 at 12:31 PM. Reason : 2]

11/11/2008 12:26:31 PM

*shrug*

Sometimes the will of the people isn't the right thing to do, especially when it oppresses a minority. I would have be that "the will of the people" in 1920 would have been to restrict Blacks from voting, but we can all agree now that would have been a mistake, right?

11/11/2008 12:38:16 PM

If it shouldn't be left up to the will of the people (not necessarily disagreeing with you) why the hell was it left up to them then?

I mean, you can't let people vote on it, and then when it doesn't go your way, say, "Oh, you don't know what's best anyways, so your majority vote doesn't mean shit." Seems pretty stupid to me.

[Edited on November 11, 2008 at 12:49 PM. Reason : .]

11/11/2008 12:48:42 PM

^Exactly. California has a proposition system set up to create referendums on certain issues. If they don't like it, they can change the proposition process. But trying to nullify the will of the people and invalidate the results simply because they didn't go your way reeks of the kind of breathtaking arrogance and self-righteousness that we've come to expect from California liberals.

[Edited on November 11, 2008 at 12:59 PM. Reason : 2]

11/11/2008 12:58:52 PM

The wiki article about the proposition seems pretty well-sourced. If you guys are really interested, y'all should check it out.

Some key points:

To get on the ballot, the proponents of Prop 8 just had to get enough signatures on a petition. They did that, but then they changed the wording of the initiative to supposedly be more inflammatory. Then the proponents of Prop 8 harassed businesses that opposed it and tried to extort money from them by threatening to reveal their donations to the NO on 8 group.

Once they were on the ballot, they just needed a majority. And obviously they got one--a small one. So "will of the people" is a little over the top. And "quit your bitching" is bullshit. There's nothing "arrogant" or "self-righteous" about wanting to live free of discrimination. You might as well call them uppity and tell them to get in their place. Seriously, if I'm reading you right, I think you're saying, "Too bad. You lost at democracy. Get over it." Don't you think that's fucked up?

[Edited on November 11, 2008 at 2:21 PM. Reason : sss]

11/11/2008 2:14:03 PM

Quote :

"And "quit your bitching" is bullshit."

Because the side you support lost? Would it be bullshit if you were saying the same to the other side if they were taking this to courts?

Quote :

"There's nothing "arrogant" or "self-righteous" about wanting to live free of discrimination. You might as well call them uppity and tell them to get in their place."

I'm not saying they shouldn't be upset or that they should just shut up and deal with it for the rest of their lives. They knew the stakes going into the vote and they tried the courts before the vote... it's not like this is just coming out of nowhere. Re-group, gather support, educate the masses, and try again on a vote at a later date.

I personally don't care about it, so I'm not speaking from a gay-rights opponent point of view.

11/11/2008 2:27:50 PM

Quote :

"I personally don't care about it, so I'm not speaking from a gay-rights opponent point of view."

You don't care about equal rights. That's awesome.

11/11/2008 2:33:08 PM

Quote :

"You don't care about equal rights. That's awesome."

11/11/2008 2:47:50 PM

Didn't the proposition pass 52% to 48% ? 4% is not a small amount of voters for a state like CA.

11/11/2008 3:15:26 PM

Quote :

"There's nothing "arrogant" or "self-righteous" about wanting to live free of discrimination. You might as well call them uppity and tell them to get in their place. Seriously, if I'm reading you right, I think you're saying, "Too bad. You lost at democracy. Get over it." Don't you think that's fucked up?"

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying a couple of things:

1) The protesters are annoying, and their assertion that the Mormon Church manipulated voters or "rigged the vote" with money is laughable and stupid, especially in light of the fact that the No on 8 side spent more money overall, and that a court found that they overstated on their ballot argument against 8.

2) We have rules in this country. California allows for propositions to be placed on the ballot. It is an established procedure. You cannot supercede democracy whenever it suits you. For the state legislature to try to get Prop 8 thrown out because of some ridiculous argument that it is too radical, shows a distain for democracy and self-righteousness bordering on zealotry.

3) If opponents of Prop 8 want it overturned, they should do so through established democratic and legal channels. Challenge the legality of a ban on gay marriage in the Supreme Court. Get another referendum on the next ballot. But trying to get their way through this huge bitchfest that they are throwing is not the way to do it. You can draw all the parallels you want to suffrage and the civil rights movement, but the reality is that we have a democratic system in place and it's time for the "No on 8" to stop with the obstructionary lawsuits, misinformation and protesting, and focus on constructive methods to fight for their cause.

[Edited on November 11, 2008 at 3:41 PM. Reason : 2]

11/11/2008 3:40:08 PM

1) Protesters may be annoying but again it's their constitutional right to bitch and moan. Whereas the Morman Church is on a grey line of legality for lobbying to get this passed in my opinion. I'd say a full review of their IRS standing is called for (as well as any other religious groups).

2) You have a point, unfortunately citizens should not be allowed to supercede civil rights of other citizens, period. So on to

3) This needs to be overturned by the Supreme Court, it's clearly a discriminatory act.


I really feel sorry for the people who got married and then had this proposition shit on them. It's not just about legal validation, it's also about legal rights to your spouse in times of emergency, death, etc. which they just lost. I couldn't imagine that happening to me on a personal level, I'd probably be so outraged that if in the unlucky chance that something did happen to my spouse, anyone who publicly supported such a ban would find themselves in a world of hurt if they crossed my path.

11/11/2008 3:47:52 PM

Quote :

"Didn't the proposition pass 52% to 48% ? 4% is not a small amount of voters for a state like CA."

It's sufficiently small that if Obama hadn't of run for President, the proposition wouldn't have passed.

11/11/2008 3:59:12 PM