Legal alternatives to prop 8

[Knife]

While I am blisteringly mad that this amendment passed. I'm not buying any of the arguments saying that this nullifies straight marriages as well.

From what I understand, California has an equal protection clause in it's constitution. That same constitution was amended to indicate that only a man and a woman can marry. This goes against the equal protection clause, but since this new amendment was added later, it supercedes the equal protection clause. Now whether it completely repeals the equals protection clause, or it overrides it only in the instance of homosexual marriage, is an interesting issue for the courts to decide. But the fact that the new amendment bans straight marriage because it doesn't explicitly mention the equal protection clause doesn't hold water. It's a bullshit legal argument.

That said, while it's a bullshit legal argument, if a court actually manages to agree with that logic, it could lead to this amendment being repealed, thus in the end, the BS would actually be a good thing. More likely though is that if a court agrees with that reasoning, another vote will take place legalizing straight marriage and banning gay marriage.

The best course of action of thwarting this IMO is to either challenge it on Federal constitutional grounds, or challenge it based on the fact that the amendment didn't satisfy the 2/3rds majority requirements to pass it. I don't think playing legal tricks by saying straight marriage is banned also will do anything good for the cause of defeating Proposition 8.

SEC. 7. (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the
laws; provided, that nothing contained herein or elsewhere in this
Constitution imposes upon the State of California or any public
entity, board, or official any obligations or responsibilities which
exceed those imposed by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th
Amendment to the United States Constitution with respect to the use
of pupil school assignment or pupil transportation.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Martin, you forgot Tandy (Radio Shack & Circuit City) nother big ultra-right mormon owned company, that thinks it's ok to spy on their employees. though I admit to using them for cheap network cables and the lot.

[SirNitram]

Martin, you forgot Tandy (Radio Shack & Circuit City) nother big ultra-right mormon owned company, that thinks it's ok to spy on their employees. though I admit to using them for cheap network cables and the lot.

Thanks for the addition. I'm sure my list is not comprehensive.

[The Romulan Republic]

Their is a very extensive list on the nationstates general forum. I'll post a link if anyone's interested.

[Guardsman Bass]

Washington State might legalize gay marriage now that our governor is on her second term and doesn't have to fear Dino the Dino anymore, and we've got 2/3rds democratic supermajorities in both houses of the legislature. It generally seems that New York and all states in New England to the Northeast of New York will ultimately legalize gay marriage, and their constitutions are far to byzantine for that to ever be undone. I suspect the rest of the country, conversely, will finish completely constitutionally banning it. And it will take a hundred years to undo it there.

That depends on how strong the non-openly-socially-conservative Democrats in Congress turn out to be. If they get strong enough, then they could send through a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, which would open up state gay marriage bans to constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court. From there, it depends on whether or not the Court has enough progressive justices like the Warren Court had - if it does, then there might be a flicker of hope that the homophobic assholes will be put in their place.

I'm talking about the Washington State Legislature, read the damn post before you answer.

I did, but then you started talking about gay marriage in the nation as a whole, what with the comments about it ultimately being legalized in the Northeast with the rest of the nation banning it. I responded to that, and pointed out that there is a window for gay marriage being legalized that wouldn't involve a century (most likely).

[The Yosemite Bear]

and Romulon go ahead and publish away, reminder Retired QB Steve Young and his wife Rebecca donated money to the no on 8 campaign and told the people trying to make them donate the other way, that the Morman Scripture states one must vote their concionse.

[The Romulan Republic]

Link to nation states thread on prop 8. Their's a very comprehensive list near the top of the page of Moron Church run businesses.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?+=571447&page=8

[The Yosemite Bear]

not a member of the forums can't see the info.

[The Romulan Republic]

Nuts. Sorry. I'm busy right now but I'll post the list here later. Or maybe someone else who's on that forum will.

[Wyrm]

The "Prop 8 makes straight marriages illegal" strategy won't fly, but would it work as a legal argument in a larger "taking away established rights" case? After all, if it's an addition to the constitution, rather than an amendment (which would require 2/3 supermajority), then it cannot override the equal rights clause. Therefore, the only ruling compatible with both is to make all marriages illegal in California. This will not happen, so the Court could rule that Prop 8 did not meet the standard as an amendment to the California constitution. (It must also be pointed out that before Prop 8, gay marriage was legal (given that many valid gay marriage licenses were issued prior), and after, illegal, so an enumerated (if implied) right clearly is being taken away, and therefore Prop 8 fails on the 2/3 requirement.)

Do I have a sufficient understanding of a possible strategy here, or am I talking out of my ass?

[The Yosemite Bear]

you know I just thought of an idea...

put up a "Hate Speech" law, cloak it with images of Skinheads, Phelps (piketting the funeral of a soldier) etc. And word it so that organizations that engage in hate speech can be massively fined/Sued.... (basically bankrupt Phelps, The Mormons, etc)

someone see where I'm going with this?

yup, worm that's where my mind is right now.

[The Romulan Republic]

you know I just thought of an idea...

put up a "Hate Speech" law, cloak it with images of Skinheads, Phelps (piketting the funeral of a soldier) etc. And word it so that organizations that engage in hate speech can be massively fined/Sued.... (basically bankrupt Phelps, The Mormons, etc)

someone see where I'm going with this?

yup, worm that's where my mind is right now.

What exactly would the goal of this "hate speech law" be? Laws restricting free speech are a very touchy and dangerous area for a democracy, and they sure as hell shouldn't be vauge, or designed to persecute political opponents.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Well there big complaint was that they could be discriminated for using anti-gay hate speech. Personally it's way past time for the Phelps and Pat Robertson types to get something./

[The Romulan Republic]

Well there big complaint was that they could be discriminated for using anti-gay hate speech. Personally it's way past time for the Phelps and Pat Robertson types to get something./

Do those folks have tax exempt status? That avenue was quite effective with the Mormons on race, if I recall.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Phelps doesn't but he still refuses to pay taxes on those grounds.

[The Romulan Republic]

Phelps doesn't but he still refuses to pay taxes on those grounds.

Then why isn't his ass in a cell? I suppose he could argue civil disobedience, but he's breaking the law if he won't pay taxes.

[Elfdart]

I think boycotting those who supported Prop Hate is a good first step*. Pressuring Congress to repeal DOMA (so California would have to recognize gay marriages from other states) should come next. If all else fails, civil disobedience is in order -including a refusal to pay taxes on the grounds of being treated as less than full citizens.

* I think a politely worded certified letter to the companies explaining that you won't do business with them ever again would work if done in large enough numbers. Or a snide one like this:

Since you have decided that I am not worthy of the rights of full citizenship, then surely you have no use for my business since the money I spend is no doubt infested with Fag Cooties and "TEH GAY!!" is probably contagious.

Boycott those businesses and those who do business with them (i.e. secondary boycotts). Picket their stores and offices, too. But don't give the fuckers one thin dime of your hard-earned money when they shit on you like that.

[Medic]

I think boycotting those who supported Prop Hate is a good first step*. Pressuring Congress to repeal DOMA (so California would have to recognize gay marriages from other states) should come next. If all else fails, civil disobedience is in order -including a refusal to pay taxes on the grounds of being treated as less than full citizens.

* I think a politely worded certified letter to the companies explaining that you won't do business with them ever again would work if done in large enough numbers. Or a snide one like this:

Since you have decided that I am not worthy of the rights of full citizenship, then surely you have no use for my business since the money I spend is no doubt infested with Fag Cooties and "TEH GAY!!" is probably contagious.

Boycott those businesses and those who do business with them (i.e. secondary boycotts). Picket their stores and offices, too. But don't give the fuckers one thin dime of your hard-earned money when they shit on you like that.

Is there any one nice site you've seen keeping track of who threw money for and against Prop 8? I remember hearing Apple threw in a truckload of cash for NO on Prop 8, but it's hard to keep track of the donations tit-for-tat. I'm not, and won't be for a few years, residing in state but I'm sure there are a lot of boardmembers from or currently in California that could use that information.

[Ender]

I suspect the rest of the country, conversely, will finish completely constitutionally banning it. And it will take a hundred years to undo it there.

I disagree. Flip DADT. Gays enter the service and the issue will come up of BAH payments, SGLI payouts, and how to handle remains. EO procedures mean that the military will be required to acknowledge gay marriage and act accordingly, which puts it in conflict with DOMA. Give the politicians the option of being anti-gay or being anti-military and it won't be pretty - I expect that DOMA will be modified or repealed. At the very least it is a financial hardship to challenge DOMA under to have the SCOTUS flip it. End result is a federal agency recognizing the legality of gay marriage. At that point it should be easy peasy to beat it in the states.

[General Zod]

I think boycotting those who supported Prop Hate is a good first step*. Pressuring Congress to repeal DOMA (so California would have to recognize gay marriages from other states) should come next. If all else fails, civil disobedience is in order -including a refusal to pay taxes on the grounds of being treated as less than full citizens.

* I think a politely worded certified letter to the companies explaining that you won't do business with them ever again would work if done in large enough numbers. Or a snide one like this:

Since you have decided that I am not worthy of the rights of full citizenship, then surely you have no use for my business since the money I spend is no doubt infested with Fag Cooties and "TEH GAY!!" is probably contagious.

Boycott those businesses and those who do business with them (i.e. secondary boycotts). Picket their stores and offices, too. But don't give the fuckers one thin dime of your hard-earned money when they shit on you like that.

Is there any one nice site you've seen keeping track of who threw money for and against Prop 8? I remember hearing Apple threw in a truckload of cash for NO on Prop 8, but it's hard to keep track of the donations tit-for-tat. I'm not, and won't be for a few years, residing in state but I'm sure there are a lot of boardmembers from or currently in California that could use that information.

Both Apple and Google threw in against Prop 8, I put up a link on the previous page. Microsoft was against it for awhile but they changed their position to "neutral" on grounds of not wanting to cause divisiveness within their employees or something.

[Samuel]

you know I just thought of an idea...

put up a "Hate Speech" law, cloak it with images of Skinheads, Phelps (piketting the funeral of a soldier) etc. And word it so that organizations that engage in hate speech can be massively fined/Sued.... (basically bankrupt Phelps, The Mormons, etc)

someone see where I'm going with this?

yup, worm that's where my mind is right now.

What exactly would the goal of this "hate speech law" be? Laws restricting free speech are a very touchy and dangerous area for a democracy, and they sure as hell shouldn't be vauge, or designed to persecute political opponents.

Germany. They manage to restrict an entire area of the political spectrum without falling into despotism. So does Canada, the nation of this site's owner. In fact, their hate laws apply to this forum. Seen anyone bundled away by the mounties for ebeing an enemy of the people?

The goal would be to stop hate speech. Simple, no?

[Darth Yoshi]

Ender, how difficult would it be to chuck DADT?

In truth, the "hate speech" knee-jerk is a lot like the "subsidized health care" knee-jerk—never mind that it works everywhere else; it'll never work in the US because I say so.

[The Romulan Republic]

you know I just thought of an idea...

put up a "Hate Speech" law, cloak it with images of Skinheads, Phelps (piketting the funeral of a soldier) etc. And word it so that organizations that engage in hate speech can be massively fined/Sued.... (basically bankrupt Phelps, The Mormons, etc)

someone see where I'm going with this?

yup, worm that's where my mind is right now.

What exactly would the goal of this "hate speech law" be? Laws restricting free speech are a very touchy and dangerous area for a democracy, and they sure as hell shouldn't be vauge, or designed to persecute political opponents.

Germany. They manage to restrict an entire area of the political spectrum without falling into despotism. So does Canada, the nation of this site's owner. In fact, their hate laws apply to this forum. Seen anyone bundled away by the mounties for ebeing an enemy of the people?

The goal would be to stop hate speech. Simple, no?

Did I say "any restriction on free speech is bad", or anything like that? Did I say hate speech laws would cause us to "fall into despotism?" No? Then why the straw man? Oh and I'm well aware of Canada's hate speech laws. I happen to share a home city with the site's owner, and I have followed a number of recent legal cases dealing with the imperfections in Canada's hate speech laws.

I feel that excessive hate speech regulation is counter productive to its supposed goal, which is to reduce hate and discrimination. And I think that in this area especially, but also in general, the laws should be very clear, and should not be used to target political opponents. With that in mind, I asked what the poster in question had in mind when he talked about hate speech laws. If you want to argue that, fine. But do not pretend I said things I did not.

[Elfdart]

Is there any one nice site you've seen keeping track of who threw money for and against Prop 8? I remember hearing Apple threw in a truckload of cash for NO on Prop 8, but it's hard to keep track of the donations tit-for-tat. I'm not, and won't be for a few years, residing in state but I'm sure there are a lot of boardmembers from or currently in California that could use that information.

I haven't found a site yet, but I'm working on it. The sooner we find a list of the miscreants the sooner they can get their just desserts.

[Elfdart]

In one way, the gay-bashers in California are worse than the inbred crackers who supported segregation. While racist peckerwoods didn't want blacks to be served in their preferred restaurants, or enrolled in their preferred schools, or to buy a house in their neighborhoods; they didn't ban black people from eating, buying houses or going to school (though they did their damnedest to shove them into "blacks only" schools, restaurants and neighborhoods). The homophobes won't even allow "ghetto" wedding for gays.

Congrats, voters. California has passed the equivalent of Germany's 1935 Racial Hygiene Laws, which dissolved all marriages between Aryans and Jews.