What do we do now? (Prop 8)

[Nikki Stone1]

I am just so heartsick I can't focus. Now these haters want to go after every gay marriage performed this past year and nullify each one. They are HATEFUL rotten people.

I am just stunned and numb. It's now a constitutional amendment. Hate.

Now what?

[wryter2000]

1. I'm so sorry

How perfectly ghastly this is.

I'm wondering if the state supreme court can't overturn it again. OTOH, the next election we put civil rights back on the ballot. The right side was so far ahead at first. I can't help but feel we'd get it right the next time.

In the meantime, we may get a federal Court that can fix this.

[Nikki Stone1]

2. The only thing I can think of is a Supeme Court challenge

And with the current court, it's unlikely.

The Mormons, the Knights of Columbus, and Dobson ran a slick campaign. GOD DAMN THESE PEOPLE.

[NorthCarolina]

10. Since when in America do you put the equal rights of a minority to popular vote?

The LGBT community needs to hire High Power DC Lobbyists and fund them with barrels of $$CASH$$. That's how you get things done in America today. Don't depend on the good graces of the public to "do the right thing" because it won't happen.

[keepCAblue]

13. Equality for sale to the highest bidder? Is this how blacks won THEIR equality? n/t

[NorthCarolina]

17. Blacks didn't have to win their rights that way because their rights were never put to popular vote

Had equal rights for blacks BEEN on a ballot, I can just about guarantee you we'd still have separate washrooms, separate dining areas, and designated seating on public transportation for the black community here in the South.

[EFerrari]

19. The right wing still doesn't want black people to VOTE

for pete's sake.

[keepCAblue]

22. That was my point, exactly.

Why were the feds willing to step up to the plate 40+ years ago, as a matter of moral conscience, and force all 50 states to accept racial equality, while all we get from our current national leaders, Obama included, is ..."oh, THAT is a state issue!"

[NorthCarolina]

25. Good question, and the answer is that (a) there was a national movement afoot in the 60's

and (b) that movement had monumentally effective leaders and advocates who could so very eloquently convey the real hardships and consequences associated with prejudice in a way that would tug on the heartstrings of open minded and progressive thinking (comparatively speaking) Americans.

The LGBT community (a) has no such national movement, and (b)has no leaders or advocates on the magnitude of a MLK. I'll even add a (c) which is that the "numbers" needed to stage a National Level movement the likes of which was effective against Jim Crow Laws just aren't there in the LGBT community like it was in the black community.

There were roughly 17.6 million blacks in America in the 1960's, and there's about 9-13 million (3-4% of 300mil) LGBT citizens in American today. While number of gays in the US may actually be comparable to those of the black community in the 60's, the blacks had a huge advantage in getting masses of people to their rally's for the simple fact that black people can't hide the fact that they are black.

[bluedawg12]

26. Yup, that's what I have said in other threads

we need organization, leadership, a national position that spells out our reasons clearly, and we need to stick together and present a unified voice.

[Betsy Ross]

3. Fight it in court.

We cannot give up to fight against descrimination, ever. The election of an African American stands as proof that we can be sucessful in the fight. Just so sorry that we lost this battle.

[GodlessBiker]

4. The way I understand it...if the CA Supreme Court determines that this language...

is a revision of the CA Constitution and not an Amendment to the Constitution, it would need to have passed by 2/3 instead of by 1/2.

The Court might say that since it had already decided that the Constitution provided for marriage equality, any change would be a revision.

I imagine a lawsuit will be filed and it will be in the Court's hands.

At least that's the way I understand it.

[Nikki Stone1]

6. So we're hoping for a technicality?

Rights stand on a technicality. GOOD FUCKING GOD.

[keepCAblue]

14. The lawsuit has already been filed and was rejected by the CA Supreme Court.

No on 8 lawyers filed back in July or August and the CA Supreme Court unanimously declined to even review the lawsuit.

[GodlessBiker]

21. Yes, because the issue was not ripe. Now that the initiative passed, the Court can hear it.

[NorthCarolina]

20. The duty of the CA Supreme Court is to uphold the State Constitution

that constitution has now been re-written, and it will be the duty of the courts to uphold that constitution as re-written. I doubt there will be any "technicalities" that will invalidate prop 8. Just a guess.

The bottom line is that access to equal rights for a minority group should never, EVER, be put to a popular vote. If ballot initiatives to determine that access of a minority group to equal rights was the norm, is there anyone here who thinks blacks would have been granted such access here in the South?

[GodlessBiker]

24. Not so fast. THere is a difference between an amendment and a revision...

Is The Proposed ‘Limit On Marriage’ Initiative Too Late?

By KEVIN NORTE

. . .

As noted in McFadden v. Jordan (1948) 32 Cal.2d 330, 333: “The initiative power reserved by the people by amendment to the Constitution in 1911 (art. IV, s 1) applies only to the proposing and the adopting or rejecting of ‘laws and amendments to the Constitution’ and does not purport to extend to a constitutional revision.”

The proposed initiative appears to now attempt to revise the California Constitution to remove the fundamental right to marry and equal protection that gays and lesbians are now afforded under the California Constitution.With that in mind, the Secretary of State must be aware of the following case:

Rippon v. Bowen (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1313:

Article XVIII of the California Constitution allows for amendment of the Constitution by the Legislature, or initiative and revision of the Constitution by the Legislature, or a constitutional convention. There is no other method for revising or amending the Constitution. (Livermore v. Waite (1894) 102 Cal. 113, 117, 36 P. 424 (Livermore).)

“ ‘mendment’ implies such an addition or change within the lines of the original instrument as will effect an improvement, or better carry out the purpose for which it was framed.” (Livermore, supra, 102 Cal. at pp. 118-119, 36 P. 424.) The “revision/amendment analysis has a dual aspect, requiring us to examine both the quantitative and qualitative effects of the measure on our constitutional scheme. Substantial changes in either respect could amount to a revision.” (Raven v. Deukmejian (1990) 52 Cal.3d 336, 350, 276 Cal.Rptr. 326, 801 P.2d 1077 (Raven).) “n enactment which is so extensive in its provisions as to change directly the ‘substantial entirety’ of the Constitution by the deletion or alteration of numerous existing provisions may well constitute a revision thereof. However, even a relatively simple enactment may accomplish such far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision also.” (Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 223, 149 Cal.Rptr. 239, 583 P.2d 1281 (Amador).)

According to the In Re Marriage Cases (May 15, 2008) 2008 WL 2051892: “Although our state Constitution does not contain any explicit reference to a “right to marry,” past California cases establish beyond question that the right to marry is a fundamental right whose protection is guaranteed to all persons by the California Constitution.... In light of the fundamental nature of the substantive rights embodied in the right to marry — and their central importance to an individual’s opportunity to live a happy, meaningful, and satisfying life as a full member of society — the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all individuals and couples, without regard to their sexual orientation. “

[bluedawg12]

27. Isn't the problem that in cali and other states Props can be

placed on ballot about anything?

How can one stop Props from appearing on ballots?

[NorthCarolina]

31. An issue concerning "civil rights" of the individual should not be permitted to be on a Prop

in the first place.

[But....]

5. We begin again...

and we keep going:grr:

[Nikki Stone1]

7. How can you fight an amendment?

Sorry if I sound like a broken record. I am just more heartsick than I can say. It is ruining my happiness at the election. (And I am thrilled about the Democratic wins)

[But....]

18. Talked to my sister this morning...

I love her to death, but she's a massive repug, and all she kept saying was how scared of Obama she was. All the 'bad things' he was going to bring to our country. Like a good brother I did my best to reassure her, although I'm not sure how successful I was.

Why am I talking about sis? Its because this election has left you both hurting. And I don't like that, can help it. Like most guys I want to fix things, even when I know that I can't. It not right that people should so cavalierly trample over some one else's life, why is your marriage any one else's business? I really don't know.

But this morning, more then any other morning I remember in my life, I...REFUSE...TO...GIVE...UP!

There is nothing we can't do as long as we work together, this is important to you, and damn it it's the right thing to do so we will kept going!

First we'll take them to court, and there's a good chance of overturning it. If that fails then it on to the next election.

The important thing to remember is this-Don't stop moving!

[billyoc]

8. I believe that the CA Supreme Court will determine Prop 8 to be a modification of,

rather than an amendment to, the State Constitution. It just won't work out the way the Mormons want it to.

[Nikki Stone1]

9. What business is it of the Mormons how non-Mormons live their lives?

I know, I know.

I'm just upset.

[nichomachus]

33. They just want to be accepted as Christian

this is their bid to be allowed to join the club -- sort of like having to kill someone in order to get into the gang.

[keepCAblue]

16. See #14.

[HERVEPA]

11. Questions

Can this be brought up as a proposition next election (assuming required # of signatures) in reverse form to again allow marriage?

When does the ban officially go into effect. (I assume when results are certified) When does that happen?

[keepCAblue]

15. the ban goes into effect immediately. do not pass go, do not collet $200.

[One_Life_To_Give]

12. Come to Mass!

I know you don't care for Snow. But we would be happy to have you join us. :hug:

If the high tech companies that supported "No on 8" could be persuaded to relocate to a place that does not discriminate against their employees. It might also put some real pressure on anybody else thinking about taking away basic human rights from people.

[Duncan Grant]

23. Let's start by finding legal methods to RESTRICT DIVORCE.

It's time to leverage heterosexuals into a little pain and discomfort.

[ScreamingMeemie]

29. Beautiful.

I was talking, a long time ago, to my husband about that very thing. Well, about the fact, since a license is needed to marry, there should be points applied for cheating, abuse etc. Turn the screws a bit and see how worried people are about it then.

[Beam Me Up]

28. There are still uncounted votes many likely from progressive voters

AND there will be a court challenge.

This isn't over yet.

Edit to add link to DU thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3585209

[jgraz]

30. First we get it overturned. Then we get even.

I hope Catholic and Mormon bishops like filling out tax returns.

[Duncan Grant]

34. Now we're cooking with gas. Even if that only becomes part of the discourse - it's worth it.

:thumbsup:

[nichomachus]

32. One thing that needs to happen

is that someone needs to get hold of the petitions that allowed the question and post all the names and addresses on the Internet.

I have a feeling there are thousands -- maybe hundreds of thousands -- of names on there of people who didn't sign it or were duped into signing it.

If the lawyers can prove that the original petitions were invalid, that may be a good was to overturn the measure.

Also, if people know their names and addresses are going to be published on the Internet when they sign a hate petition, they may be more careful in the future.

This was done for the Massachusetts votes -- and you should have heard the screaming from the anti-gay crowd when they knew they were going to be exposed for the bigots they are.

http://www.knowthyneighbor.org/

[1776Forever]

35. I am not a lawyer but when I heard Rachel Maddow say this "right" was being taken away, I agree!

My question is once a "right" is given how can an election over turn it? It should be a grandfathered in right and those that were married under this law should be left alone and their rights should not be tampered with. Does that make sense to anyone?

Also I think it should be challenged and this time those that didn't vote should be chastised and told their rights could be next.

[NorthCarolina]

38. There will be a lawsuit by the AFA or one of those group to overturn existing CA gay unions

as allowing them to stand would create a separate class of LGBT citizens...those married, and those who cannot be legally wed. This duality could not be permitted to exist under a constitutional form of government based on equal rights, and so these marriages performed after the court ruling and prior to the enactment of the constitutional amendment will likely be invalidated.

[1776Forever]

42. That is terrible news. I also thought CA was a forward moving state - what happen here?

Best to all this has touched and I am sorry for what I hear about little Democrat support!

[mitchtv]

36. I doubt if I will vote again,The democrats betrayed us

No votes for schools, hospitals, veterans, or anything that helps strait people. We are quite comfortable and don;t have any need for schools. I will vote for out gay candidates only. I have been in this battle for many years, I am through.

[dickthegrouch]

37. We take away the State conferred benefits of Marriage

The California Supreme Court said in no uncertain terms that the Constitution guaranteed Equal Treatment. Since Domestic partnerships are not equal, it follows very nicely that in getting their (still not certified) victory, they were willing to give up any rights that constitute unequal treatment. TAX the "winners" as if their marriages didn't exist. Make them document their relationships, as we have to, to get hospital visitation rights. Make them show paperwork to get those State funded pensions and other benefits.

Remove every single benefit conferred by marriage.

I had advocated a commercial along the lines of "Are you willing to risk losing the state benefits conferred by Marriage? Support all marriages, Vote No on Proposition 8" .

That is the way we get redress. We WILL be treated equally.

[AntiFascist]

39. I agree with your points...

Proposition 8 does not really address the conflict pointed out by the CA Supreme Court with the Equal Protection Clause. What the Religious Right is likely hunting for is a way to undo the Equal Protection clause. Does this sound crazy? Not when you consider that Howard Ahmanson was one of the big billionaires sponsoring Prop 8, and that he is also a Dominionist who believes in Religious Law (only) and likely also believes that only certain privileged right-wing "Christians" (as they like to refer to themselves) should be in charge. Like President Ahmadinejad, he also believes that practicing homosexuals should be put to death.

[NorthCarolina]

41. The religious right is working around the equal protection clause through their insistence that

being Gay is a Choice, with no basis in genetics.

[AntiFascist]

43. I'm starting to see it all as a matter of projection....

being in the religious right is a matter of choice, and even if they are in the majority, we should not all be subjected to their unfair laws. It's fine for the Mormons and Catholics if they want to punish members of their respective churches with excommunication and whatnot. It's not fine if they want to extend their beliefs to the state constitution. This is where the line needs to be drawn, and I really hope the CA Supreme Court understands this!

[NorthCarolina]

44. The single lynchpin of the religious right that the LGBT community must challenge

is Nurture vs Nature. That one thing, nurture not nature, represents the singular support that keeps the entire fundie anti-gay house of cards from falling.

Nurture not nature is the single reason for the existence of Ex-Gay ministries. Nurture not nature is the sole justification for their actions taken against the gay community, and making these actions "justifiable in the eyes of their Lord".

Only when the comfort of nurture not nature is replaced by the reality of nature not nurture will their anti-gay house of cards fall.

Identifying "Gay" as a naturally occurring genetic variation would create immense complications for the religious right. Their members would immediately want genetic testing of their unborn to see if they carry "demon seed", and if found to be carrying a child with gay genetic markers they'd undoubtedly want to eject it faster than a cannon ball out of the muzzle of a cannon. But wait, they can't have abortions either so....a conundrum, the ultimate Catch 22.

Attacking the notion of "nurture not nature" is clearly the only way forward.

[AntiFascist]

45. The other problem is that it does not occur as a binary condition in nature....

there is a spectrum from gay to straight and, unfortunately for the gay community, there are some people who can choose either lifstyle. I happen to be at the extreme end of the gay spectrum so I know that I do not have a choice, and there are plenty of others like me.

[Omnibus]

40. oooh, that's cruel.

:evilgrin:

And yet, it logically follows from the judgment and the proposition.