Legal alternatives to prop 8

[Alyrium Denryle]

4.8 million people voted against prop 8, and opponents contributed over twenty-six and a half million dollars to the no campaign. The odds of them being all gay are more or less exactly zero. So do they deserve their "sweet comeuppance" too?

Not as individuals no. Much like people who voted for Kerry in 2004 deserved to have the rule of law fucked prison-style up and down Penn Ave. However, voting is a collective decision making process. So, just as the American People as a whole, voted in Bush the Younger for a second term, so to did the People of California acting as an aggregate vote to amend the state constitution and by extension also vote to revoke their own marriage rights. If justice exists, they will not be allowed to have their cake and also consume it.

[Imperial Overlord]

I did not know the dying part...

His health problems and hospitalizations haven't been exactly secret.

As for Proposition 8, it's a loss and a painful one but that's all it is. It has to survive legal challenges and even if it stands there's a Democratic House, Senate, and President in a country where the demographics are showing much stronger support for homosexual rights among the young. It would have been better if we had won, but the struggle isn't over.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Ghetto edit:

Not as individuals no. Much like people who voted for Kerry in 2004 deserved to have the rule of law fucked prison-style up and down Penn Ave.

ought read

Not as individuals no. Much like people who voted for Kerry in 2004 did not deserve to have the rule of law fucked prison-style up and down Penn Ave.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I did not know the dying part...

His health problems and hospitalizations haven't been exactly secret.

As for Proposition 8, it's a loss and a painful one but that's all it is. It has to survive legal challenges and even if it stands there's a Democratic House, Senate, and President in a country where the demographics are showing much stronger support for homosexual rights among the young. It would have been better if we had won, but the struggle isn't over.

I was unaware of terminal status in so far as it exists. I know of the health problems, I did not know they were terminal.

[SirNitram]

I'm dying, below the poverty line, and disabled. I still helped where I could.

And I fucking love you for it Nitram. I really do. But what the fuck else am I supposed to think right now? Ought I just accept it? Cry, wail, gnash my teeth a little bit like a good subdued little victim? Fuck that. I have never been a subdued little victim and never will be.

What a good thing I never suggested you do such stupid things. Then again, you chose the even stupider option, which is spit in the eye of every. Single. Married. Straight. who helped. You get your lazy ass back up and you fight.

Moreover you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not saying that straight couples deserve to have their rights stripped. I am saying that the ones in California have made their choice. They have engaged in their collective decision making process, popular sovereignty and all that. The proverbial bed has been made, and if there is any justice in the world to be had, they will be forced by the courts to sleep in it. Individuals do not deserve it. Most assuredly not that is hideously cruel. But the state of california as an entity does. Maybe the pain inflicted by such a ruling will wake them up. More likely a new amendment will be offered that actually writes an exception to the equal protection clause.

Maybe they'll just persecute you because you will, suddenly, be fighting against their marriage rights. You have declared war on the marriage rights of everyone who voted against Prop 8. Maybe you should fucking think of that before you spout your idiotic bigotry again. Fuck you, once more. You're an angry little boy whose just spewing bigotry.

By the way, cuntscrub, how much work did you put into Prop 102 in Arizona? 2 in Florida? 1 in CT? I'm not going to even entertain the idea you put anything behind 4 in Cali, 48 in Colorado, or 11 in South Dakota. You've made your thoughts on straights clear right here.

You knew the dying part, because I didn't keep the liver disease and it's progression a secret. You just don't care until you're called on it. Should we apply your 'Guilt by association' standard a little bit against you, by the by?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I'm sorry, Martin. And I apologize on behalf of Aly, too.

We're furious and hurt right now. It'll pass. Give us a few days, hmm? The rage does fade, and he'll regret it then.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I actually really hope they can overturn prop 8 without going to the lengths of invalidating all marriage in California, because then you are REALLY going to see what hatred towards homosexuals can look like on a large scale.

You think things were bad before? What do you think central California is going to do when 'The faggots took away our holy right to marriage!' is echoing from the pulpits? A judicial banning of all california marriage would be the first shot in a nuclear war of values, and the Christians have a LOT more nukes. Of course, I may be in Australia by then.

[Justforfun000]

I also want to say thank you to Sir Nitram. It means even more that he's straight and out of State. If more people in the world were like him we'd be a lot better off.

[SirNitram]

I'm sorry, Martin. And I apologize on behalf of Aly, too.

We're furious and hurt right now. It'll pass. Give us a few days, hmm? The rage does fade, and he'll regret it then.

I'm too much of a liberal commie to actually throw in on this. But advocating actually attacking traditional marriage when that's one of the most effective lines of attack of the opposition is enough to drive this straight man batty.

Oh well. Bring on the next fight.

[The Yosemite Bear]

It did not pass by 2/3s majority, therefore it doesn't have enough support to change the constituion from a certain standpoint.

something about discrimination being illegal, there fore you have just made "Marriage" illegal in California, we shall have to call it something else.

[Guardsman Bass]

It's appalling, but if you spend the next year organizing, you might be able to reverse it in a proposition next year. Force the bigots in the LDS Church Leadership and other anti-gay marriage factions to fight the battle over and over again, the way the anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage people do it. It was a very close proposition, after all.

Out of curiosity, did the Federal "Defense of Marriage" Act strip the federal court system from having jurisdiction over any and all suits related to gay marriage, or simply those that invoke the Equal Protection Clause? Either way, it's a fucking travesty, the same as if the racists back in the 1950s and 60s and forced through a "Defense of White Southern Womanhood" Act that banned interracial marriage and enforced segregation while stripping the federal court system of its ability to hear challenges on the matter.

[SirNitram]

Just a comment to those who think boycotting is effective in times like this. I'm not sure if it is. But here's a list of business owners who, well, happen to be good Mormons. Who tithe to the LDS. Who then poured money into Yes On Eight. In short, hit them in the collection plate, if the mood strikes:

Iomega, Marriot, 1-800-CONTACTS, American Express, Pacific Central Bank, Black&Decker..

I have no idea how effective hitting these companies will be. But on the other hand, has anyone ever had a decent Iomega drive?

[General Zod]

Just a comment to those who think boycotting is effective in times like this. I'm not sure if it is. But here's a list of business owners who, well, happen to be good Mormons. Who tithe to the LDS. Who then poured money into Yes On Eight. In short, hit them in the collection plate, if the mood strikes:

Iomega, Marriot, 1-800-CONTACTS, American Express, Pacific Central Bank, Black&Decker..

I have no idea how effective hitting these companies will be. But on the other hand, has anyone ever had a decent Iomega drive?

On the flipside, Apple (and Google) oppose proposition 8. I was planning on buying a new Macbook anyway, but this just reinforces my decision. Nice to see giants like these taking on measures like prop 8.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Aly, trust me when I say I share your pain as well. There are grown men crying over this. It is no trivial loss by any stretch of the imagination. But try to remember the 48% of the straight allies that fought with us. I know straight friends who sacrificed work hours and school to volunteer and help out. These are our closest friends in our darkest hours. Who you should be pissed off at are the people in our community that did nothing to help us. As inconceivable as it sounds, I know gay people who didn't even go out and vote on election day. In the end, it's not the words of our enemies we remember but the silence of our friends.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Aly, trust me when I say I share your pain as well. There are grown men crying over this. It is no trivial loss by any stretch of the imagination. But try to remember the 48% of the straight allies that fought with us. I know straight friends who sacrificed work hours and school to volunteer and help out. These are our closest friends in our darkest hours. Who you should be pissed off at are the people in our community that did nothing to help us. As inconceivable as it sounds, I know gay people who didn't even go out and vote on election day. In the end, it's not the words of our enemies we remember but the silence of our friends.

Indeed you are right. And so is Marina, I am indeed just angry, sad, and bitter. I thought that just once the electorate would throw us a bone. That we might actually win one of these initiatives. I was wrong.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

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.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

And a new battle begins once again.

Gay-rights advocates to challenge Proposition 8 in court
Supporters of the measure, which passed Tuesday by a margin of about 52%, are outraged and say the voters have spoken.
By Jessica Garrison, Maura Dolan and Nancy Vogel
12:25 PM PST, November 5, 2008
After losing at the polls, gay-rights advocates filed a legal challenge today in California Supreme Court to Proposition 8, a long-shot effort that the measure's supporters called an attempt to subvert the will of voters.

Lawyers for same-sex couples said they will argue that the anti-gay-marriage measure was an illegal constitutional revision -- not a more limited amendment, as backers said.

The legal action contends that Proposition 8 actually revises the state Constitution by altering such fundamental tenets as equal-protection guarantees. A measure to revise the state Constitution can be placed before voters only by the Legislature.

Opponents of gay marriage expressed outrage at the move.

"This is exactly the type of behavior that brought us to this position to begin with," said Proposition 8 co-chair Frank Schubert. "The people voted eight years ago overwhelmingly in favor of traditional marriage and they seem to be saying in pretty strong terms again . . . that they favor traditional marriage, and yet this is not accepted by gay-rights activists."

"Now, if they want to legalize gay marriage, what they should do is bring an initiative themselves and ask the people to approve it. But they don't. They go behind the people's back to the courts and try and force an agenda on the rest of society."

Former California Supreme Court Justice Joseph Grodin said the legal challenge will be a "tough battle" for supporters of same-sex marriage.

Gay-marriage proponents see it differently. "A major purpose of the Constitution is to protect minorities from majorities. Because changing that principle is a fundamental change to the organizing principles of the Constitution itself, only the Legislature can initiate such revisions to the Constitution," said Elizabeth Gill, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California.

It is a matter of fairness, said Jenny Pizer, a staff attorney with Lambda Legal. "If the voters approved an initiative that took the right to free speech away from women, but not from men, everyone would agree that such a measure conflicts with the basic ideals of equality enshrined in our Constitution. Proposition 8 suffers from the same flaw: It removes a protected constitutional right -- here, the right to marry -- not from all Californians, but just from one group of us," she said.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Equality California and six same-sex couples who did not marry before Tuesday's election but would like to marry now.

The state high court has twice before invalidated measures as illegal revisions, but some legal analysts expressed doubt that the Proposition 8 challenge would succeed. Similar attempts to overturn anti-gay-marriage measures have failed in Oregon and Alaska.

A spokesman for San Francisco City Atty. Dennis Herrera said he would also file a legal challenge.

With more than 96% of precincts reporting in the state, the measure leads by a margin of 52% to 48%, prompting The Times to call the race. Opponents of the measure have not yet conceded defeat.

The loss was devastating to many in the state.

Paul Waters and Kevin Voecks of Valley Village, who married more than four months ago, were stunned today. "More than half of my fellow Californians still don't get it," said Waters, 53. "They still don't understand that sexual orientation is . . . not a thing that should differentiate."

Waters said he can't know what will happen to the legality of his marriage. But, he says, "what is in our minds and in our hearts will never change, and nobody . . . no matter the fire in their eyes or the coldness in the hearts, will be able to change that."

Proposition 8Early in the campaign, strategist Jeff Flint noted, polls showed the measure trailing by 17 points.

"I think the voters were thinking, 'Well, if it makes them happy, why shouldn't we let gay couples get married.' And I think we made them realize that there are broader implications to society and particularly the children when you make that fundamental change that's at the core of how society is organized, which is marriage," he said.

Elsewhere in the country, two other gay-marriage bans, in Florida and Arizona, also won. In both states, laws already defined marriage as a heterosexual institution. But backers pushed to amend the state constitutions, saying that doing so would protect the institution from legal challenges.

Proposition 8 was the most expensive proposition on any ballot in the nation this year, with more than $74 million spent by both sides.

The measure's most fervent proponents believed that nothing less than the future of traditional families was at stake, while opponents believed that they were fighting for the fundamental right of gay people to be treated equally under the law.

"This has been a moral battle," said Ellen Smedley, 34, a member of the Mormon Church and a mother of five who worked on the campaign. "We aren't trying to change anything that homosexual couples believe or want -- it doesn't change anything that they're allowed to do already. It's defining marriage. . . . Marriage is a man and a woman establishing a family unit."

On the other side were people like John Lewis, 50, and Stuart Gaffney, 46, who were married in June. They were at the San Francisco party holding a little sign in the shape of pink heart that said, "John and Stuart 21 years." They spent the day campaigning against Proposition 8 with family members across the Bay Area.

Today, Lewis was still unwilling to concede defeat. "Stuart and I are not giving up at all at this point," Lewis said. "We are standing true and we are continuing to remain hopeful. . . . You can't take a marriage away from someone like Stuart and me and the thousands of others couples," he said.

The battle was closely watched across the nation because California is considered a harbinger of cultural change and because this is the first time voters have weighed in on gay marriage in a state where it was legal.

Campaign contributions came from every state in the nation in opposition to the measure and every state but Vermont to its supporters.

And as far away as Washington, D.C., gay rights organizations hosted gatherings Tuesday night to watch voting results on Proposition 8.

"This is the biggest civil-rights struggle for our movement in decades," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solomonese, speaking from a Proposition 8 gathering at a brewery in the nation's capital. "The outcome weighs incredibly heavily on the minds of every single person in the room."

Eight years ago, Californians voted 61% to define marriage as being only between a man and a woman.

The California Supreme Court overturned that measure, Proposition 22, in its May 15 decision legalizing same-sex marriage on the grounds that the state Constitution required equal treatment of gay and lesbian couples.

Opponents of Proposition 8 faced a difficult challenge. Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies, said California voters "very, very rarely reverse themselves" especially in such a short time. Both sides waged a passionate -- and at times bitter -- fight over whether to allow same-sex marriages to continue. The campaigns spent tens of millions of dollars in dueling television and radio commercials that blanketed the airwaves for weeks.

But supporters and opponents also did battle on street corners and front lawns, from the pulpits of churches and synagogues and -- unusual for a fight over a social issue -- in the boardrooms of many of the state's largest corporations.

Most of the state's highest-profile political leaders -- including both U.S. senators and the mayors of San Francisco, San Diego and Los Angeles -- along with the editorial pages of most major newspapers, opposed the measure. PG&E, Apple and other companies contributed money to fight the proposition, and the heads of Silicon Valley companies including Google and Yahoo took out a newspaper ad opposing it.

On the other side were an array of conservative organizations, including the Knights of Columbus, Focus on the Family and the American Family Assn., along with tens of thousands of small donors, including many who responded to urging from Mormon, Catholic and evangelical clergy.

An early October filing by the "yes" campaign reported so many contributions that the secretary of state's campaign finance website crashed.

Proponents also organized a massive grass-roots effort. Campaign officials said they distributed more than 1.1 million lawn signs for Proposition 8 -- although an effort to stage a massive, simultaneous lawn-sign planting in late September failed after a production glitch in China delayed the arrival of hundreds of thousands of signs.

Research and polling showed that many voters were against gay marriage but afraid that saying so would make them seem "discriminatory" or "not cool," said Flint, so proponents hoped to show them they were not alone.

Perhaps more powerfully, the Proposition 8 campaign also seized on the issue of education, arguing in a series of advertisements and mailers that children would be subjected to a pro-gay curriculum if the measure was not approved.

"Mom, guess what I learned in school today?" a little girl said in one spot. "I learned how a prince married a prince."

As the girl's mother made a horrified face, a voice-over said: "Think it can't happen? It's already happened. . . . Teaching about gay marriage will happen unless we pass Proposition 8."

Many voters said they had been swayed by that message.

"We thought it would go this way," Proposition 8 co-chair Frank Schubert said. "We had 100,000 people on the streets today. We had people in every precinct, if not knocking on doors, then phoning voters in every precinct. We canvassed the entire state of California, one on one, asking people face to face how do they feel about this issue.

"And this is the kind of issue people are very personal and private about, and they don't like talking to pollsters, they don't like talking to the media, but we had a pretty good idea how they felt and that's being reflected in the vote count.

[Lord MJ]

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.

[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.

[CmdrWilkens]

I can't see the ultra-liberal commie-hippie 9th Court letting this stand. They'll find a way to defeat it. And we might see a prop next time, but I'm sure we can throw more money at it or something. Or just keep defeating it in court. Until the justices die, I guess.

The problem is that unless this is challenged as a 14th amendment case then the 9th will never hear the case.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

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.

[Lonestar]

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

Aroo?

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.

I think your post clearly indicates you started talking about the USA at large, which is why he started talking about Congress.

[Lord of the Abyss]

It did not pass by 2/3s majority, therefore it doesn't have enough support to change the constituion from a certain standpoint.

It takes only a simple majority to change the Californian constitution by initiative. And yes, it's stupid.

[Slacker]

I honestly expect New York'll have gay marriage within the next couple of years. Probably towards the end of Patterson's term, especially now that we have Democratic majorities in both the Senate and the Assembly.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The legal argument is not twisted, it's 100% sound. If you alter something enumerated into the constitution of California, you need a 2/3rds majority in a constitutional convention. Otherwise it is not valid.

Conversely however if it is ruled that gay marriage is not really enumerated into the constitution (which would seem odd seeing the prior California Supreme Court rulings), then it also means that unbanning gay marriage will require the support of 2/3rds in a constitutional convention. That's why I'm saying that it will be 100 years until California has gay marriage, as I fear the justices will cave.