California passes prop 8

Lifeisshort · Post by **Lifeisshort** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 11:03 am

Who would have guest that California would change their consitution in order to discriminate..... I guess California is not as inclusive as it would like the rest of the country to believe.

VelcroChicken · Post by **VelcroChicken** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 11:11 am

I would've guessed that would be one of the places with the best chance of taking something like that down. Could be a lot of different things though, voter apathy maybe.

Does anyone know if gay marriage has ever been sanctioned by legislature? Or only by courts? I was wondering that earlier.

It looks like it'll be up to Obama to select a few supreme court justices, hopefully his picks will be sympathetic to gay rights.

lonestoner916 · Post by **lonestoner916** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 11:45 am

Post by **Elderberry** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 12:26 pm

I was at the rally last night with all of the leaders and organizers of No on Prop 8. (I'm still hung over.) The attornies were there too; and they will be filling for an injunction today.

I posted elsewhere here that it is ironic that Prop 2 passed providing rights for farm animals, yet those same people couldn't reject Prop 8 and provide equal rights for marriage.

The largest group of supporters for Prop 8 were minority women--blacks and hispanics--go figure.

JK

misfit · Post by **misfit** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 1:02 pm

SF measure K went down also,,,, the decriminalization of prostitution. 58% no.............

Post by **Elderberry** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 1:18 pm

misfit wrote:SF measure K went down also,,,, the decriminalization of prostitution. 58% no.............

Too bad.

JK

Post by **Elderberry** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 1:20 pm

Lifeisshort wrote:Who would have guest that California would change their consitution in order to discriminate..... I guess California is not as inclusive as it would like the rest of the country to believe.

Another little side note is that most of the money for Prop 8 came from the Mormons and other out-of-state religious organizations and interest groups. More money was spent on this Proposition both for and against than any other Prop in CA history.

JK

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 1:24 pm

jkisha wrote:
Lifeisshort wrote:Who would have guest that California would change their consitution in order to discriminate..... I guess California is not as inclusive as it would like the rest of the country to believe.
Another little side note is that most of the money for Prop 8 came from the Mormons and other out-of-state religious organizations and interest groups. More money was spent on this Proposition both for and against than any other Prop in CA history.

JK

seems that's the way of things doesn't it?

It's not always the message, just, how often you hear it.........

Box Burner · Post by **Box Burner** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 1:49 pm

VelcroChicken wrote: It looks like it'll be up to Obama to select a few supreme court justices, hopefully his picks will be sympathetic to gay rights.

Hopefully his picks will be sympathetic to the Constitution. Supreme court justices are supposed to be impartial to party politics. they are only supposed to interpret the Constitution and its meanung according to the founding fathers. The constitution does not say who can or cannot get maried. But it does say that every one has the right to persue happiness.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 2:24 pm

Box Burner wrote:
VelcroChicken wrote: It looks like it'll be up to Obama to select a few supreme court justices, hopefully his picks will be sympathetic to gay rights.
Hopefully his picks will be sympathetic to the Constitution. Supreme court justices are supposed to be impartial to party politics. they are only supposed to interpret the Constitution and its meanung according to the founding fathers. The constitution does not say who can or cannot get maried. But it does say that every one has the right to persue happiness.

well said, BB......

also, the right to pursue happiness, but, no right or guarantee to catching it..........

VelcroChicken · Post by **VelcroChicken** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 2:25 pm

Box Burner wrote:
VelcroChicken wrote: It looks like it'll be up to Obama to select a few supreme court justices, hopefully his picks will be sympathetic to gay rights.
Hopefully his picks will be sympathetic to the Constitution. Supreme court justices are supposed to be impartial to party politics. they are only supposed to interpret the Constitution and its meanung according to the founding fathers. The constitution does not say who can or cannot get maried. But it does say that every one has the right to persue happiness.

Well, that's the beauty of the Constitution, it's a living document, so it's interpretation depends on those who interpret it, which is the Supreme Courts job. Yes, the position is supposed to be apolitical, and usually that is the case. What I'm saying is that hopefully he has the sense to choose justices that understand gay civil rights as something protected by the Constitution. Many of the candidates for the position do not, unfortunately.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 2:30 pm

VelcroChicken wrote:
Box Burner wrote:
VelcroChicken wrote: It looks like it'll be up to Obama to select a few supreme court justices, hopefully his picks will be sympathetic to gay rights.
Hopefully his picks will be sympathetic to the Constitution. Supreme court justices are supposed to be impartial to party politics. they are only supposed to interpret the Constitution and its meanung according to the founding fathers. The constitution does not say who can or cannot get maried. But it does say that every one has the right to persue happiness.
Well, that's the beauty of the Constitution, it's a living document, so it's interpretation depends on those who interpret it, which is the Supreme Courts job. Yes, the position is supposed to be apolitical, and usually that is the case. What I'm saying is that hopefully he has the sense to choose justices that understand gay civil rights as something protected by the Constitution. Many of the candidates for the position do not, unfortunately.

what's the difference between gay civil rights, and, any other civil rights?.......
A pure interpretation would not be colored by orientation, color, etc.........
no, IMHO, the constitution is not a living document, if I understand you correctly. It is as written. again, IMHO, not to be changed, but, taken at face value.

Post by **Elderberry** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 2:44 pm

ygmir wrote: It is as written. again, IMHO, not to be changed, but, taken at face value.

Ammendments??

Don't forget, it was changed allmost immediately after it was written with the top ten.

Now how many are we up to?

Isn't that what "living document" means? Interpretations are different based on the times.

JK

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 2:46 pm

jkisha wrote: The largest group of supporters for Prop 8 were minority women--blacks and hispanics--go figure.

Figure on the church. They turned out for Obama, and forgot about civil liberties.

Why doesn't it require a 66% to amend the constitution?

VelcroChicken · Post by **VelcroChicken** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 3:12 pm

There are limits, of course on what kinds of changes can be made, but I think it was intentionally vague in certain areas, and intentionally very clear in others. I personally think it's clear in its saying that all humans deserve equal civil rights. But, even at the time of writing it people owned slaves and it was legal to do so.

So yes, being a living document means that it can be amended and interpreted to fit with the society of the country as that changes over time. Writing a static document that worked 1787, obviously wouldn't work perfectly today.

So, that's why we need interpreters, the justices, who are moving toward societal progress and accepting the civil rights of gays, and all others for that matter. I didn't mean to say that gay civil rights are the only ones at stake or the only important ones... those are just what were talking about with Prop 8.

Why doesn't it require a 66% to amend the constitution?

That's just the requirement for amending the US Constitution (plus having to be ratified by 3/4ths of the states), states set their own rules for amending their own constitutions. I dunno California's though.

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 3:21 pm

Very amusing that this issue brings out so many against the institution of marriage.
You'd think they'd be thrilled.

I guess sex outside of marriage really is okay.
Always figured that was the real story.

Post by **Elderberry** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 3:23 pm

I think that the area that it was least clear in was civil rights, hence the Bill of Rights. If I am wrong here, please correct me.

JK

Apollonaris Zeus · Post by **Apollonaris Zeus** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 3:49 pm

You have the right of religious freedom

You don't have the right to be free of religion

Post by **Elderberry** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:22 pm

Apollonaris Zeus wrote:You have the right of religious freedom

You don't have the right to be free of religion

No, but shouldn't the separation of church and state preclude me having to say 'under god' when I recite the pledge of allegiance? I would consider that the right to be free of religion.

JK

VelcroChicken · Post by **VelcroChicken** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:36 pm

jkisha wrote:I think that the area that it was least clear in was civil rights, hence the Bill of Rights. If I am wrong here, please correct me.

JK

Civil rights are pretty much left out of the original constitution, but yes that was the purpose of the bill of rights, still part of the constitution.

The point I'm making is that today, I think the Constitution, with its amendments should provide me with some basic rights that are not given to me. What I hope for is some justices that interpret it the same way I do.

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:50 pm

The pledge didn't come from the government, it came from a magazine.
God wasn't in the first version.

Reciting of the pledge is accompanied by a salute. An early version of the salute, adopted in 1892, was known as the Bellamy salute. It ended with the arm outstretched and the palm upwards.

"I Pledge Allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:52 pm

jkisha wrote:
ygmir wrote: It is as written. again, IMHO, not to be changed, but, taken at face value.
Ammendments??

Don't forget, it was changed allmost immediately after it was written with the top ten.

Now how many are we up to?

Isn't that what "living document" means? Interpretations are different based on the times.

JK

Perhaps, I miss spoke. When I refer to the constitution/bill of rights, I also include the amendments........just to clarify. I'd think it's one document, including amendments.

I understand changing it, too, through the amendment process.
I was trying to say, IMHO, it's not a living document as written. I feel it should be taken literally. I'm not sure I'd agree with differing interpretations based on the times......I'd say, if it doesn't fit, amend it. But, don't change meanings.......

I guess I don't trust subjective opinion. If it's clear, and objective, then, leave it alone......

But, if by living document you mean changeable by amendment, then, I'll agree.

Dr. Pyro · Post by **Dr. Pyro** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:53 pm

Full disclosure: I voted No on 8. Now that said, call back the lawyers and get back to work. You people are sore losers, get over it. I've never seen a bigger bunch of babies and whiners than the people who are upset that this proposition passed. So gays can't marry in California. Oh no, what next, we're going to repeal the 13th Amendment and bring back slavery? Jesus, you people need to either get a life or find something truly important to stand up to. Domestic partnerships. It could be a whole lot worse.

Box Burner · Post by **Box Burner** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 5:03 pm

the ten amendments to the constitution did not change it and were not intended to. They were added because it was felt that there were issues that needed to be specifically defined in the constitution. It was felt, (and rightly so), that if these rights were not specified that Gov would try to take them away.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 5:30 pm

jkisha wrote:
misfit wrote:SF measure K went down also,,,, the decriminalization of prostitution. 58% no............. :shock:
Too bad.
:cry:
JK

I don't know. I'm not well aquainted with the particulars, but I voted against it when it was up in Berkeley. Not that I don't think that sex workers don't deserve a fair shake, but because that one wouldn't have given it to them.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 5:32 pm

VelcroChicken wrote:There are limits, of course on what kinds of changes can be made, but I think it was intentionally vague in certain areas, and intentionally very clear in others. I personally think it's clear in its saying that all humans deserve equal civil rights. But, even at the time of writing it people owned slaves and it was legal to do so.

And such slaves were counted as 3/5s people, who voted at the convienince of their masters, not their own. And it was in the document itself.

We better be damn glad that we outgrew that one.

Post by **Elderberry** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 6:57 pm

Dr. Pyro wrote:Full disclosure: I voted No on 8. Now that said, call back the lawyers and get back to work. You people are sore losers, get over it. I've never seen a bigger bunch of babies and whiners than the people who are upset that this proposition passed. So gays can't marry in California. Oh no, what next, we're going to repeal the 13th Amendment and bring back slavery? Jesus, you people need to either get a life or find something truly important to stand up to. Domestic partnerships. It could be a whole lot worse.

First, thanks for your NO vote. Now that being said; I think we have the right to be sore losers on this issue. I won't defend it to you except to say that if you were gay you would feel differently.

JK

ALICEtheGOON · Post by **ALICEtheGOON** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:45 pm

BOXBURNER 2012!!

wedeliver · Post by **wedeliver** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 9:06 pm

Dr. Pyro wrote:Full disclosure: I voted No on 8. Now that said, call back the lawyers and get back to work. You people are sore losers, get over it. I've never seen a bigger bunch of babies and whiners than the people who are upset that this proposition passed. So gays can't marry in California. Oh no, what next, we're going to repeal the 13th Amendment and bring back slavery? Jesus, you people need to either get a life or find something truly important to stand up to. Domestic partnerships. It could be a whole lot worse.

Could we pass a proposition that says that crippled people cannot marry, or dwarfts or people with downs syndrome should not be able to marry like "normal" people.

I don't think a proposition that restricts marrage to a particular group will withstand court challanges. I don't think Prop 8 can withstand court challanges.

I don't think it matters if you are young or old, white, black, yellow..etc. Tall, short, can read or graduated from high school. Marrage is about love, the love between two people. How can any one person pass judgement and say that some peoples love is not same as other peoples. I believe the courts will invalidate any admendment, resolution, propositon, law etc. that resticts a persons rights because of their sexual orientation.

There was a time when black people could not marry as they wish and I guess back them someone said "it could be a whole lot worse". (quote from above)

lurker · Post by **lurker** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 7:00 am

And such slaves were counted as 3/5s people, who voted at the convienince of their masters, not their own. And it was in the document itself.

Slaves were counted as 3/5s of a person at the behest of anti-slavery advocates. This was done in reference to apportioning of representatives. Slave owners wanted them counted as people--despite the fact that they were treated as livestock.

Originally the anti-slavery folks didn't want slaves counted at all. That's why it's called the 3/5s Compromise.

That little bit of history, so often trotted out to show how racist this country is, was created to LIMIT the power of slave owners.

How sad the state of our education is.

California passes prop 8

California passes prop 8

Re: California passes prop 8

Re: California passes prop 8