California Supreme Court votes 6-1 to uphold gay marriage ban

[Tre]

Obama brought out the black vote, Tre, and the blacks told the gays to get fucked.

You ain't honest.

The Mormons and Catholics started the rumor that the Blacks and Latinos were the ones to 'blame' for the measure passing in California.

Truth.

Religious people never want to own their shit. 

Institutions who sow the seeds of prejudice and hate carry a higher degree of liability than individuals who do. 

But even though the battle was lost this time, I'm completely comfortable with the knowledge that a LARGE percentage of voters aged 30-and-under voted overwhelmingly against 8.  It's estimated that that number is somewhere around 70%. 

Eventually, all the dumb old people will be dead and we'll be left with fewer young ignorant people (at least with respect to this issue). 

[The Ugly]

The Mormons and Catholics started the rumor that the Blacks and Latinos were the ones to 'blame' for the measure passing in California.

Religious people never want to own their shit. 

Cuz blacks and browns are religiously unaffiliated, right?

Own your shit, Tre.

[StickStickly]

Tre,

Even if gay marriage becomes the law in all 50 states and Puerto Rico it still will not be normal. There's a difference between legal and legitimate.

Homosexuality is normal. It is observed in nature and was perfectly normal until Christianity came about and soiled it along with sex in general. In ancient Rome there was no difference between homosexual sex and heterosexual sex. Sex was sex.

[The Ugly]

I don't understand homophobia. 

At the same time, I wish gays would stop already with the parades and stuff.   

Some would argue this is homophobic. By some I mean gays.

[Tapeworm]

We should have never let you have your independence. Now you unleashed the monstrous stupidity of people like the Coach, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, George W Bush, the Prop 8 crowd, and Sarah Palin on the world. Oh what we wouldn't give to turn back the clock and have some competent king in place of George III.

It was Parliment that dropped the ball, starting with the Stamp Act although the tea tax is better remembered.  All they had to do was knock off a few patriots and set up a puppet but instead they favoured one legislative confrontation after another until war was inevitable.  They completely screwed the pooch.  

[Tapeworm]

Some would argue this is homophobic. By some I mean gays.

Well... not if they read my whole post!  I don't want to see straight people marching for straight pride either.  Fuck whomever you want, but making a public spectacle about it seems really tasteless to me, straight or gay. 

As a political tool, their march may have been useful in the past, but there's no further message to be conveyed.  There's a lot of gay people - fine, we get it.  Go get married if you want to.  Just quit embarrassing yourself and alienating the voting public with a lot of in-your-face attention whoring.

[StickStickly]

Some would argue this is homophobic. By some I mean gays.

It is homophobia. I don't understand why he would fear a bunch of arvilla's prancing around in the street?

[The Ugly]

Well... not if they read my whole post!  I don't want to see straight people marching for straight pride either.  Fuck whomever you want, but making a public spectacle about it seems really tasteless to me, straight or gay. 

As a political tool, their march may have been useful in the past, but there's no further message to be conveyed.  There's a lot of gay people - fine, we get it.  Go get married if you want to.  Just quit embarrassing yourself and alienating the voting public with a lot of in-your-face attention whoring.

Absolutely.

I think they just like parading.

[Tapeworm]

Absolutely.

I think they just like parading.

There are probably plenty of non-flamboyant gays that believe it does more to harm their political cause these days than to help it.  Not that there are any on Getbig.

It is homophobia. I don't understand why he would fear a bunch of arvilla's prancing around in the street?

  THE HORROR!  THE HORROR!

[drkaje]

We're now living in a society where 'looking like a bodybuilder' equates to probable cause for a search warrant to be served on you.

Is that really the level of government intrusion you want in your life?

I have to push for less government, otherwise the will of the government will dictate the will of the people as we're seeing with the current steroid witch hunt.

You can't argue for less government intrusion and demand it legitimize alternate lifestyles in the same thread, Tre.

[MCWAY]

To be clear, the CA Court didn’t “uphold” Prop. 8. Let’s not forget the nature of this suit. The claim by the plaintiffs was that Prop. 8 was so wide-sweeping in its alleged eliminating of the right to same-sex “marriage” that it was actually a constitutional REVISION, instead of a mere amendment, thus it required approval by a 67% supermajority of the state Legislature (which, of course, is for gay “marriage”).

In other words, gay activists wanted to make California like Iowa and the NE states, where the people can't get an amendment on the ballot, without going through a left-leaning Legislature.

All the CA court said was that Prop. 8 was simply what its proponents intended it to be: a constitutional AMENDMENT. Therefore, the electorate DOES NOT have to get Legislative approval to place it on the ballot. Once there, all it takes is a simple majority, as Drkaje stated, to pass it.

If folks in CA are grieving about the constitution being too easy to amend, then they need to make the appropriate adjustments. Florida had a similar issue; and in 2006, the voters passed a law (against which I voted) which requires all future amendments to be passed by a 60% supermajority of the electorate.

Of course, Florida's marriage amendment (Amendment 2) still passed 62-38, a squeaker by the new standard.

[Tre]

To be clear, the CA Court didn’t “uphold” Prop. 8. Let’s not forget the nature of this suit. The claim by the plaintiffs was that Prop. 8 was so wide-sweeping in its alleged eliminating of the right to same-sex “marriage” that it was actually a constitutional REVISION, instead of a mere amendment, thus it required approval by a 67% supermajority of the state Legislature (which, of course, is for gay “marriage”).

In other words, gay activists wanted to make California like Iowa and the NE states, where the people can't get an amendment on the ballot, without going through a left-leaning Legislature.

All the CA court said was that Prop. 8 was simply what its proponents intended it to be: a constitutional AMENDMENT. Therefore, the electorate DOES NOT have to get Legislative approval to place it on the ballot. Once there, all it takes is a simple majority, as Drkaje stated, to pass it.

If folks in CA are grieving about the constitution being too easy to amend, then they need to make the appropriate adjustments. Florida had a similar issue; and in 2006, the voters passed a law (against which I voted) which requires all future amendments to be passed by a 60% supermajority of the electorate.

Of course, Florida's marriage amendment (Amendment 2) still passed 62-38, a squeaker by the new standard.

I thought these lawsuits were a waste of time and money.  I'm not saying that my plan is the only way to do things, but the campaign for equality should focus its energy on voter education, which will mean spending a lot of time on TV. 

Because the measure was so close to being defeated last year, I think it's worthwhile to bring it back in 2010.  Naturally, we'll need to work much harder the next time around, but there's no use letting the emotions wane until 2012. 

Regarding the process itself, yes, I do agree that it shouldn't be so easy for the majority to legislate discrimination, BUT, those are the rules that we were playing under at the time and the 'yes on 8' people used those rules to their advantage.  It's now the job of the No campaign to do the same. 

[Tre]

You can't argue for less government intrusion and demand it legitimize alternate lifestyles in the same thread, Tre.

One of my constant points has been that the state should be out of the marriage business, BUT since it is in that business (because the majority wishes it to be so), all consenting adults should be treated the same under the laws they are paying for. 

Following this argument to a logical possible conclusion, what happens when a genotypic and phenotypic male walks into the county recorder's office and says that he or she is a female and requests a marriage license to marry his (her??) partner who is also a genotypic and phenotypic male? 

If a person self-identifies as a gender WE (the majority) don't feel they are, do we then have the right to say "You're not a female, even though you consider yourself to be"? 

Keep in mind that gender transitions ARE legal in California.

[timfogarty]

I don't want to see straight people marching for straight pride either.  Fuck whomever you want, but making a public spectacle about it seems really tasteless to me, straight or gay. 

well, don't go to New Orleans for Mardi Gras, or Daytona Beach for Spring Break.   Or the east side of Manhattan on March 17.

[The Ugly]

If a person self-identifies as a gender WE (the majority) don't feel they are, do we then have the right to say "You're not a female, even though you consider yourself to be"? 

No WE don't, Bill says.

[drkaje]

One of my constant points has been that the state should be out of the marriage business, BUT since it is in that business (because the majority wishes it to be so), all consenting adults should be treated the same under the laws they are paying for. 

Following this argument to a logical possible conclusion, what happens when a genotypic and phenotypic male walks into the county recorder's office and says that he or she is a female and requests a marriage license to marry his (her??) partner who is also a genotypic and phenotypic male? 

If a person self-identifies as a gender WE (the majority) don't feel they are, do we then have the right to say "You're not a female, even though you consider yourself to be"? 

Keep in mind than gender transitions ARE legal in California.

Taking the state out of the marriage business means the churches will decide.

Besides, you're deliberately mixing up unrelated concepts to advance the position. Genotype, phenotype, schmenotype it doesn't matter and this wasn't an "equal protection under the law" issue until they allowed the 18,000 or so marriages to remain valid.

People should have been more honest about this from the beginning and left race out of the debate. Now you'll never get a majority of minorities to support it (redefining marriage) idea because gays (and supporters) played the race card.

[The Ugly]

well, don't go to New Orleans for Mardi Gras, or Daytona Beach for Spring Break.   Or the east side of Manhattan on March 17.

Told ya, Tapeworm. Black and white to some.

[Tre]

Taking the state out of the marriage business means the churches will decide.

Which is fine.  Churches who wish to welcome gay couples will exist and those who wish not to welcome them will exist.  People will have the ability to choose.  Over time, it will become less and less popular to be perceived as being anti-gay, so in order to remain competitive, many churches will begin to change their positions. 

Besides, you're deliberately mixing up unrelated concepts to advance the position. Genotype, phenotype, schmenotype it doesn't matter and this wasn't an "equal protection under the law" issue until they allowed the 18,000 or so marriages to remain valid.

People should have been more honest about this from the beginning and left race out of the debate. Now you'll never get a majority of minorities to support it (redefining marriage) idea because gays (and supporters) played the race card.

You know my argument has always been about equal rights, privileges, and protections based on the way the tax code is set up.  Sure, I might *feel* it's important that we move away from being a nation of bigots, but that's not really a way to win the debate, given that so few people in this country really know what it means to be an American, especially since even fewer actually believe in what our country stands for.

The church-affiliated Whites played the race card after the election, essentially trying to say that Blacks and Latinos were to blame.  "Don't boycott our businesses", they said, "it was the Blacks and Latinos who put the measure over the top!  All we did was campaign for our beliefs and that shouldn't be held against us."

Discussions of the history of race ARE important to the conversation, because they provide a reference point.  No one is saying that being black is the same thing as being gay, but we are saying that the same language used as justification to discriminate against Blacks is much the same as is being used to justify the prejudice against gays.  That doesn't mean the issues are the same or equal, but it does mean that, as Americans, we need to know our history and heeds its lessons.

[drkaje]

Which is fine.  Churches who wish to welcome gay couples will exist and those who wish not to welcome them will exist.  People will have the ability to choose.  Over time, it will become less and less popular to be perceived as being anti-gay, so in order to remain competitive, many churches will begin to change their positions. 

You know my argument has always been about equal rights, privileges, and protections based on the way the tax code is set up.  Sure, I might *feel* it's important that we move away from being a nation of bigots, but that's not really a way to win the debate, given that so few people in this country really know what it means to be an American, especially since even fewer actually believe in what our country stands for.

The church-affiliated Whites played the race card after the election, essentially trying to say that Blacks and Latinos were to blame.  "Don't boycott our businesses", they said, "it was the Blacks and Latinos who put the measure over the top!  All we did was campaign for our beliefs and that shouldn't be held against us."

Discussions of the history of race ARE important to the conversation, because they provide a reference point.  No one is saying that being black is the same thing as being gay, but we are saying that the same language used as justification to discriminate against Blacks is much the same as is being used to justify the prejudice against gays.  That doesn't mean the issues are the same or equal, but it does mean that, as Americans, we need to know our history and heeds its lessons.

Then "we" are either silly or pretending to not know what the language is really saying. 

[Sarcastic Deity]

The Mormons and Catholics started the rumor that the Blacks and Latinos were the ones to 'blame' for the measure passing in California.

sorry, but more than 80% of black voters went for prop 8

[timfogarty]

sorry, but more than 80% of black voters went for prop 8

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#CAI01p1

yes on 8 by race:

white - 49%
black - 70%
latino - 53%
asian - 49%
other - 51%

[Sarcastic Deity]

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#CAI01p1

yes on 8 by race:

white - 49%
black - 70%
latino - 53%
asian - 49%
other - 51%

all the exit polls were showing 80 - 85%+ in real time, some as high as 9 out of 10, so perhaps the lower numbers are the result of some misgivings.  but we'll never really know i suppose.

[Tre]

all the exit polls were showing 80 - 85%+ in real time, some as high as 9 out of 10, so perhaps the lower numbers are the result of some misgivings.  but we'll never really know i suppose.

70%, but that's neither here nor there, as Blacks make up barely 10% of California's electorate.  Even if the 'black vote' had fallen along the 50% line with the Whites, the measure still had more than enough votes to pass. 

Nice try with your spin, but you'll need to try again.

[Sarcastic Deity]

70%, but that's neither here nor there, as Blacks make up barely 10% of California's electorate.  Even if the 'black vote' had fallen along the 50% line with the Whites, the measure still had more than enough votes to pass. 

Nice try with your spin, but you'll need to try again.

not saying that blacks were responsible for its passing; only that blacks overwhelmingly supported it

[HTexan]

Poor bay.