Gay Marriage Ban Upheld by California Supreme Court

[deee757]

"The 6-1 decision written by Chief Justice Ron George rejected an argument by gay rights activists that the ban revised the California Constitution's equal protection clause to such a dramatic degree that it first needed the Legislature's approval.

The court said the Californians have a right, through the ballot box, to change their constitution."

Still think African Americans are the most homophobic? Trust me, we cant change state constitutions.

[Solitary Brother]

"The 6-1 decision written by Chief Justice Ron George rejected an argument by gay rights activists that the ban revised the California Constitution's equal protection clause to such a dramatic degree that it first needed the Legislature's approval.

The court said the Californians have a right, through the ballot box, to change their constitution."

Still think African Americans are the most homophobic? Trust me, we cant change state constitutions.

As an "African American" yes....black people are BY FAR the homophobic gay haters on the planet.
And yes black people were the cause of this fiasco....even though 70 percent of them dont want to get married they have break their neck trying to stop others from doing so.
Shameful!

[SarahG]

Usually black voters are no more or less in favor of gay marriage bans than other groups. Proposition8 was unusual in that sense.

To say blacks are THE reason for Prop8 is just short sighted, if not wrong. A factor, yes. Sole reason? Not by a long shot.

[MarkD]

It was the will of the collective people not a certain race.

[deee757]

"The 6-1 decision written by Chief Justice Ron George rejected an argument by gay rights activists that the ban revised the California Constitution's equal protection clause to such a dramatic degree that it first needed the Legislature's approval.

The court said the Californians have a right, through the ballot box, to change their constitution."

Still think African Americans are the most homophobic? Trust me, we cant change state constitutions.

As an "African American" yes....black people are BY FAR the homophobic gay haters on the planet.
And yes black people were the cause of this fiasco....even though 70 percent of them dont want to get married they have break their neck trying to stop others from doing so.
Shameful!

Lol, blacks make up 6 percent of california. California has more white people than any other state in the country. So that 6 percent swayed the vote? Not to mention the judges voted 6-1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California

[deee757]

Usually black voters are no more or less in favor of gay marriage bans than other groups. Proposition8 was unusual in that sense.

To say blacks are THE reason for Prop8 is just short sighted, if not wrong. A factor, yes. Sole reason? Not by a long shot.

how can 6 percent be a factor to 66 percent? And this is assuming all 6 percent voted, and voted against prop 8.

[Alyssa87]

The ballot initiative is a good idea in theory, but i think it gives too much credit to the general public.
people will always vote their religion, wallets, and interests- NEVER objectively (overall).

This is why we have REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT.shesh!

When it comes to the African American community,
well, you can go thru the HA archives and make your own conclusions on that.
Certainly the majority of black voters for the initial prop8 were church-goers to evangelical churches.
Pair that with poverty stricken cities that blacks disproportionately occupy (causing for an aggressive, 'man up' culture where gayness is not okay)...

well :shrug

[deee757]

The ballot initiative is a good idea in theory, but i think it gives too much credit to the general public.
people will always vote their religion, wallets, and interests- NEVER objectively (overall).

This is why we have REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT.shesh!

When it comes to the African American community,
well, you can go thru the HA archives and make your own conclusions on that.
Certainly the majority of black voters for the initial prop8 were church-goers to evangelical churches.
Pair that with poverty stricken cities that blacks disproportionately occupy (causing for an aggressive, 'man up' culture where gayness is not okay)...

well :shrug

Still only make up 6 percent of the state

[BLKGSXR]

anyone remember the 2000 presidential election? how it ended w/ the supreme court ruling...thats what I see here.-2cents

[Mr_Choc69]

So let me get this straight.

You are breaking down the reason why same-sex marriages are banned by looking at specific races and how they voted? Umm..Ok.

Here are the facts:

1. They SHOULD def have the right to marry.

2. The reason it got defeated was due to one major factor:

a. The HUGE amount of money that churches and "political action groups" from ALL over the U.S> dumped into Cali to swing the vote.


Citing a specific race/culture/religion for this is insane.

[deee757]

So let me get this straight.

You are breaking down the reason why same-sex marriages are banned by looking at specific races and how they voted? Umm..Ok.

Here are the facts:

1. They SHOULD def have the right to marry.

2. The reason it got defeated was due to one major factor:

a. The HUGE amount of money that churches and "political action groups" from ALL over the U.S> dumped into Cali to swing the vote.


Citing a specific race/culture/religion for this is insane.

I see what you are saying: But using your premise, how can someone say African Americans are the most homophobic group in the world when u just identified groups from all over the world that far out number African Americans (not to say you made the comment, just saying where the racial questions came from)

[SarahG]

Usually black voters are no more or less in favor of gay marriage bans than other groups. Proposition8 was unusual in that sense.

To say blacks are THE reason for Prop8 is just short sighted, if not wrong. A factor, yes. Sole reason? Not by a long shot.

how can 6 percent be a factor to 66 percent? And this is assuming all 6 percent voted, and voted against prop 8.

Which is exactly my point.

A factor, not THE factor.

Shit, everyone who voted for PropHate was a factor in getting it passed. Everyone who carpet bagged into CA to help lobby for PropHate was another factor- there was a whole lot of things that went wrong in CA that resulted in Prop8 being passed.

[bte]

I don't know if anyone covered this, even though the ban is still in place, the existing gay marriages are still recognized. I guess when it was legal, a lot more people should have gotten married.

[Alyssa87]

I don't know if anyone covered this, even though the ban is still in place, the existing gay marriages are still recognized. I guess when it was legal, a lot more people should have gotten married.

maybe they werent ready.
i'm sure they didnt think this new right was in danger of being taken away so soon.

[SarahG]

I don't know if anyone covered this, even though the ban is still in place, the existing gay marriages are still recognized. I guess when it was legal, a lot more people should have gotten married.

maybe they werent ready.
i'm sure they didnt think this new right was in danger of being taken away so soon.

That and I am sure some thought "we're living in CA, it's not like we have to worry about those fundies here!"

[deee757]

I don't know if anyone covered this, even though the ban is still in place, the existing gay marriages are still recognized. I guess when it was legal, a lot more people should have gotten married.

I forgot the mans name, but i heard him talking on Bill Maher, and he said every attempt to uphold oppressive laws eventually fails. Through out history these laws eventually loose. i say its a waist of money for the state to keep fighting, because one day they will be the last state with a gay marriage ban.

[bte]

I don't know if anyone covered this, even though the ban is still in place, the existing gay marriages are still recognized. I guess when it was legal, a lot more people should have gotten married.

I forgot the mans name, but i heard him talking on Bill Maher, and he said every attempt to uphold oppressive laws eventually fails. Through out history these laws eventually loose. i say its a waist of money for the state to keep fighting, because one day they will be the last state with a gay marriage ban.

Are you talking about the episode when M.I.A. was being interviewed and they had someone from M.I.T. and a Nobel Peace Prize winner?

[bte]

I don't know if anyone covered this, even though the ban is still in place, the existing gay marriages are still recognized. I guess when it was legal, a lot more people should have gotten married.

maybe they werent ready.
i'm sure they didnt think this new right was in danger of being taken away so soon.

True, but it has happened once before, when California passed gay marriage then have it only taken away. The second time it happened, I would have been more anxious to get married. I am saying for the people who have been together for a long time. I hope that gay marriage will finally be legal in California, but there are other states that have legalized gay marriage. Even Iowa has legalized it and I think California and other states are just behind the 8-ball in this issue.

Does it say in the Constitution that marriage is between a man and a woman or are these politicians using their religious views to justify the ban of gay marriage? I would think if it was the latter, then that would violate church and state. Perhaps one day, people will look back on this issue and think "What the hell was people thinking in the 21st century of not letting gay people marry."

[SarahG]

I don't know if anyone covered this, even though the ban is still in place, the existing gay marriages are still recognized. I guess when it was legal, a lot more people should have gotten married.

maybe they werent ready.
i'm sure they didnt think this new right was in danger of being taken away so soon.

True, but it has happened once before, when California passed gay marriage then have it only taken away. The second time it happened, I would have been more anxious to get married. I am saying for the people who have been together for a long time. I hope that gay marriage will finally be legal in California, but there are other states that have legalized gay marriage. Even Iowa has legalized it and I think California and other states are just behind the 8-ball in this issue.

Does it say in the Constitution that marriage is between a man and a woman or are these politicians using their religious views to justify the ban of gay marriage? I would think if it was the latter, then that would violate church and state. Perhaps one day, people will look back on this issue and think "What the hell was people thinking in the 21st century of not letting gay people marry."

Marriage in almost any given state is a very vaguely defined concept if you go back to the original laws & case laws on the subject.

Even if it were specific enough to state "between 1 man and 1 woman" (which is rarely the case in the original laws), I've never heard of a state's statures being specific enough to define what 1 man or 1 woman means. What is a man, legally speaking? Is that a reference to age? Blood? Genitalia? Lifestyle?

[deee757]

I don't know if anyone covered this, even though the ban is still in place, the existing gay marriages are still recognized. I guess when it was legal, a lot more people should have gotten married.

I forgot the mans name, but i heard him talking on Bill Maher, and he said every attempt to uphold oppressive laws eventually fails. Through out history these laws eventually loose. i say its a waist of money for the state to keep fighting, because one day they will be the last state with a gay marriage ban.

Are you talking about the episode when M.I.A. was being interviewed and they had someone from M.I.T. and a Nobel Peace Prize winner?

Yea i think so

[goliath_91710]

I don't know if anyone covered this, even though the ban is still in place, the existing gay marriages are still recognized. I guess when it was legal, a lot more people should have gotten married.

maybe they werent ready.
i'm sure they didnt think this new right was in danger of being taken away so soon.

My sister and her wife (who have a child together) did get married. They had already had a civil union, and even though they're not stereotypically "religious" people (they weren't really too eager to get "married" as it was), they had the foresight to know that this basic human right could be taken away from them, and they decided to get married. (It was very small, and one of the most enjoyable weddings I've been to in my life).

On another note, but in relation to this thread, I've got a friend who lives in San Diego. She just posted a YouTube video regarding the ban. Some of you guys might like it, the link to that video is here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sn4oG88_i4).

[transmaven]

people will always vote their religion, wallets, and interests- NEVER objectively (overall).



I don't agree with your use of "objectively" here Alyssa. To say that people vote their self-interest is pretty much a tautology: of course they do.

I think that many people who imagine themselves voting "objectively" are voting their *self-image* even more than their self-interest. Though it's certainly in their own interest to see themselves as "objective." :P

[deee757]

people will always vote their religion, wallets, and interests- NEVER objectively (overall).



I don't agree with your use of "objectively" here Alyssa. To say that people vote their self-interest is pretty much a tautology: of course they do.

I think that many people who imagine themselves voting "objectively" are voting their *self-image* even more than their self-interest. Though it's certainly in their own interest to see themselves as "objective." :P

Well, me personally, i don't believe in abortion i think it is in humane. But voting wise I am always pro choice, because I think people should have the right to make their own decisions. I know im not the only American that thinks like this

[Silcc69]

I caught a quick glimpse of Bill O'Reilly yesterday (THE HORROR.) and he ended saying something to the extent that this thing is gonna drag out forever and eventually people will get tired of voting for the same thing over and over again hence the ban will be lifted.

[arnie666]

I don't have a problem with them getting married. As it is the biggest swindle for men in history. So if they want to good luck to them. I fail to see how it harms the very fabric of the state to let a few homos marry.


And fucking churches should stay out of preaching on morality. We have just had the catholic church outed as some kind of padeophile headquarters with added immunity from trial in a court of law in Ireland.

[Dino Velvet]

A lot of things chipped away support for gay marriage which allowed Prop 8 to go through. The Blacks were somewhat of a factor but only one. Have there been any demonstrations in front of ghetto churches or are the protests basically in safe places like in front of the Mormon Temple? I feel the Gavin Newsome "Whether you like it or not..." ad struck a nerve with many people and caused them to vote Yes on 8. Newsome is such a cocky, narcissistic, obnoxious douchebag that I would collect footage on him for future propositions too. He's the gift that keeps on giving.

[MacShreach]

What is a man, legally speaking? Is that a reference to age? Blood? Genitalia? Lifestyle?

This is the substance of the infamous Ormrod decision in Corbett v Corbett in 1970. Mrs Corbett was of course better known as April Ashley. I have no idea if or how much this has impacted on statute law in the US, but the decision formed a precedent in Common Law. It certainly had an absolutely catastrophic effect for the rights of transsexuals in all of the UK jurisdictions, and the mess has still not been sorted out.

Essentially, outwith the narrow perspective of a religiously-based viewpoint, there seems to me no logical reason to oppose gay marriage (or for that matter the marriage of transsexuals to partners of their birth sex) unless the argument is that the right of marriage is predicated upon the actual ability to reproduce; but that has never been the case and I really don't believe that outside of the certifiable, anyone is actually arguing for it now.

Not allowing same sex (and however you wish to define transsexual) marriage has all sorts of ramifications, for the lives of legitimate partners in relationships, that go far beyond matters of sex and into finance, support in illness and old age, property, taxation, competency, you name it. It is clearly a gross denial of human rights by the majority against a fundamentally vulnerable minority that can never hope to achieve a numerical representation that could challenge it.

It is said that a nation is judged by the way it treats its minorities. I think, personally, that this means that nations should be judged by the extent to which they allow a group of people, even if they are in a majority, to impact on the lives of others; in other words, democracy has serious limitations. This case, more than any other I have seen recently, illustrates the dangers of rule by plebiscite.

[SarahG]

What is a man, legally speaking? Is that a reference to age? Blood? Genitalia? Lifestyle?

This is the substance of the infamous Ormrod decision in Corbett v Corbett in 1970. Mrs Corbett was of course better known as April Ashley. I have no idea if or how much this has impacted on statute law in the US, but the decision formed a precedent in Common Law. It certainly had an absolutely catastrophic effect for the rights of transsexuals in all of the UK jurisdictions, and the mess has still not been sorted out.

Essentially, outwith the narrow perspective of a religiously-based viewpoint, there seems to me no logical reason to oppose gay marriage (or for that matter the marriage of transsexuals to partners of their birth sex) unless the argument is that the right of marriage is predicated upon the actual ability to reproduce; but that has never been the case and I really don't believe that outside of the certifiable, anyone is actually arguing for it now.

Not allowing same sex (and however you wish to define transsexual) marriage has all sorts of ramifications, for the lives of legitimate partners in relationships, that go far beyond matters of sex and into finance, support in illness and old age, property, taxation, competency, you name it. It is clearly a gross denial of human rights by the majority against a fundamentally vulnerable minority that can never hope to achieve a numerical representation that could challenge it.

It is said that a nation is judged by the way it treats its minorities. I think, personally, that this means that nations should be judged by the extent to which they allow a group of people, even if they are in a majority, to impact on the lives of others; in other words, democracy has serious limitations. This case, more than any other I have seen recently, illustrates the dangers of rule by plebiscite.

Most states in the US have long ago done away with common law marriages. There are few hold outs, but for the most part- if you want a legal marriage you have to get a state issued marriage license.

The reason why I brought up the legal definition of sex-status is because this is one thing California has never truly established. To change your sex status marker all you have to do is get a hearing, go in front of a judge and explain why it should be changed- there is no rhyme or reason to how they grant them either, sometimes you don't even have to be on HRT yet to get them to go along with it (aka really really PRE-op).

There is no consistency state to state on the legal definition of sex, which brings about an interesting legal limbo since all these gay-marriage bans are stating that marriage is between "1 woman and 1 man," without trying to define "man" and "woman"

All states and the feds are supposed to go by what the state of birth issued BC says when it comes to facts about a citizen- DOB, parents, sex status, yet states seem to pick & chose when to follow the sex part of BCs when it comes to stuff like marriage law.

[deee757]

What is a man, legally speaking? Is that a reference to age? Blood? Genitalia? Lifestyle?

This is the substance of the infamous Ormrod decision in Corbett v Corbett in 1970. Mrs Corbett was of course better known as April Ashley. I have no idea if or how much this has impacted on statute law in the US, but the decision formed a precedent in Common Law. It certainly had an absolutely catastrophic effect for the rights of transsexuals in all of the UK jurisdictions, and the mess has still not been sorted out.

Essentially, outwith the narrow perspective of a religiously-based viewpoint, there seems to me no logical reason to oppose gay marriage (or for that matter the marriage of transsexuals to partners of their birth sex) unless the argument is that the right of marriage is predicated upon the actual ability to reproduce; but that has never been the case and I really don't believe that outside of the certifiable, anyone is actually arguing for it now.

Not allowing same sex (and however you wish to define transsexual) marriage has all sorts of ramifications, for the lives of legitimate partners in relationships, that go far beyond matters of sex and into finance, support in illness and old age, property, taxation, competency, you name it. It is clearly a gross denial of human rights by the majority against a fundamentally vulnerable minority that can never hope to achieve a numerical representation that could challenge it.

It is said that a nation is judged by the way it treats its minorities. I think, personally, that this means that nations should be judged by the extent to which they allow a group of people, even if they are in a majority, to impact on the lives of others; in other words, democracy has serious limitations. This case, more than any other I have seen recently, illustrates the dangers of rule by plebiscite.

Most states in the US have long ago done away with common law marriages. There are few hold outs, but for the most part- if you want a legal marriage you have to get a state issued marriage license.

The reason why I brought up the legal definition of sex-status is because this is one thing California has never truly established. To change your sex status marker all you have to do is get a hearing, go in front of a judge and explain why it should be changed- there is no rhyme or reason to how they grant them either, sometimes you don't even have to be on HRT yet to get them to go along with it (aka really really PRE-op).

There is no consistency state to state on the legal definition of sex, which brings about an interesting legal limbo since all these gay-marriage bans are stating that marriage is between "1 woman and 1 man," without trying to define "man" and "woman"

All states and the feds are supposed to go by what the state of birth issued BC says when it comes to facts about a citizen- DOB, parents, sex status, yet states seem to pick & chose when to follow the sex part of BCs when it comes to stuff like marriage law.

I know for citizenship, if your birth certificate says male, than u have to put male (can be challenged though) but this is federal. Within the state I think u have the right to change your sex. I dont know about california

[SarahG]

I know for citizenship, if your birth certificate says male, than u have to put male (can be challenged though) but this is federal. Within the state I think u have the right to change your sex. I dont know about california

It really depends on the state.

Ohio only cares about what the doctor originally put down. If the doctor was drunk off his ass and gave a GG a male BC, they're stuck with it for life.

Texas goes by chromosomes

CA goes by court orders

NJ goes by genitalia.

And so on.

What makes california unique is that its got no real policies on the subject, its all delegated to judges to rule on in hearings on a case by case basis. So it's up to whatever the judge thinks you are. So now, in a state where there is NO consistency as to what "male" or "female" legally means, they have to somehow restrict marriages to between 1 undefined male, and 1 undefined female. Something that vague should be considered unenforceable & stricken from the books, IMHO.

edit-
Even then, the feds for US citizens will ignore what the states say and go by genitalia for stuff like the SSA, passports etc. sometimes. A postop in ohio cannot get a female birth certificate but CAN be considered female under social security. But this gets complicated real fast because some of the fed agencies have really conflicting, or nonexistent policies in place. I posted before a SSA case where a postop who was married to a GG, stayed married, never got female papers after SRS- so the SSA handled the couple's case as if the postop was still male.

[Alyssa87]

people will always vote their religion, wallets, and interests- NEVER objectively (overall).



I don't agree with your use of "objectively" here Alyssa. To say that people vote their self-interest is pretty much a tautology: of course they do.

I think that many people who imagine themselves voting "objectively" are voting their *self-image* even more than their self-interest. Though it's certainly in their own interest to see themselves as "objective." :P

Well, me personally, i don't believe in abortion i think it is in humane. But voting wise I am always pro choice, because I think people should have the right to make their own decisions. I know im not the only American that thinks like this

good point!

and thinking back to women's rights and the abolition of slavery.
if it wasnt for all the people who voted against their own self-interests, who knows where we would be today?

[TommyFoxtrot]

"The 6-1 decision written by Chief Justice Ron George rejected an argument by gay rights activists that the ban revised the California Constitution's equal protection clause to such a dramatic degree that it first needed the Legislature's approval.

The court said the Californians have a right, through the ballot box, to change their constitution."

Still think African Americans are the most homophobic? Trust me, we cant change state constitutions.

Does that come from any survey or statistic? That African-Americans are the most homophobic?

[deee757]

"The 6-1 decision written by Chief Justice Ron George rejected an argument by gay rights activists that the ban revised the California Constitution's equal protection clause to such a dramatic degree that it first needed the Legislature's approval.

The court said the Californians have a right, through the ballot box, to change their constitution."

Still think African Americans are the most homophobic? Trust me, we cant change state constitutions.

Does that come from any survey or statistic? That African-Americans are the most homophobic?

Comes from a consensus of the people on HA. If you look at other threads, the assumption is made that African Americans are the most homophobic

[BrendaQG]

people will always vote their religion, wallets, and interests- NEVER objectively (overall).



I don't agree with your use of "objectively" here Alyssa. To say that people vote their self-interest is pretty much a tautology: of course they do.

I think that many people who imagine themselves voting "objectively" are voting their *self-image* even more than their self-interest. Though it's certainly in their own interest to see themselves as "objective." :P

Well, me personally, i don't believe in abortion i think it is in humane. But voting wise I am always pro choice, because I think people should have the right to make their own decisions. I know im not the only American that thinks like this


good point!

and thinking back to women's rights and the abolition of slavery.
if it wasnt for all the people who voted against their own self-interests, who knows where we would be today?

:-, Uhhh You do know that we had to fight a war to get rid of slavery right? That after 4 score and 7 years of tension on the matter of slavery it all broke down.

As hard as it is to accept the people have spoken. For now this is their will. Why is this their will? IMHO:

1.) The group of people who voted against gay marriage is evident when one looks at an electroal map showing the returns by county (I don't feel like looking one up but they can be found). The counties in the great central valley. The Inland empire etc all voted yes on 8. It seems californias gay rights campaigners have totaly forfieted the rural vote. Iowa is a mostly rural state, there are a few medium small cities...but mostly corn and cows yet they could be convinced to legalize gay marriage.

2)Many gay rights groups just don't know how to campaign. Until one wins the campaign does not end. The way they reacted to loosing last year disgusted allot of people who may have been on their side. I understand their frustrations.. but picking on churches was a strategic error. In the next campaign that video could be used against them to devastating effect.

3.) Perez Hilton....and so many other people like him who get sooooo much media attention. Acting like an over the top queen who has not decided if they are butch or femm yet. As much as it stinks images matter sometimes more than ideas. They need to showcase more effectively all the normal, LGBT's down the street who just want legal recognition of their relationships.

4.) Religion....I alluded to this a bit earlier. They ought to not responsd to religious based ads and arguements with anti-religious arguements and ads. That only acts to reinforce the message of the church groups which seeks to paint gay people as being anti god, anti traditional family. We have to drive home that a relatively small number of gay marriages does not threaten the traditional family.

These are some of the things that could win an election.

Personally I don't see why we cant just define civil unuions as being legally 100% equal to marriage and leave it at that? That is something many national polls show overwhelming support for.

[SarahG]

Personally I don't see why we cant just define civil unions as being legally 100% equal to marriage and leave it at that? That is something many national polls show overwhelming support for.

In other words, "separate but equal" is good enough? :?

[SarahG]

people will always vote their religion, wallets, and interests- NEVER objectively (overall).



I don't agree with your use of "objectively" here Alyssa. To say that people vote their self-interest is pretty much a tautology: of course they do.

I think that many people who imagine themselves voting "objectively" are voting their *self-image* even more than their self-interest. Though it's certainly in their own interest to see themselves as "objective." :P

Well, me personally, i don't believe in abortion i think it is in humane. But voting wise I am always pro choice, because I think people should have the right to make their own decisions. I know im not the only American that thinks like this

good point!

and thinking back to women's rights and the abolition of slavery.
if it wasnt for all the people who voted against their own self-interests, who knows where we would be today?

Your example woks better for suffrage than the abolition of slavery.

The abolition of slavery was nothing more than revenge for the south's succession. That's why originally slavery was going to be allowed to remain in slave states that stayed loyal to the union.

[deee757]

people will always vote their religion, wallets, and interests- NEVER objectively (overall).



I don't agree with your use of "objectively" here Alyssa. To say that people vote their self-interest is pretty much a tautology: of course they do.

I think that many people who imagine themselves voting "objectively" are voting their *self-image* even more than their self-interest. Though it's certainly in their own interest to see themselves as "objective." :P

Well, me personally, i don't believe in abortion i think it is in humane. But voting wise I am always pro choice, because I think people should have the right to make their own decisions. I know im not the only American that thinks like this


good point!

and thinking back to women's rights and the abolition of slavery.
if it wasnt for all the people who voted against their own self-interests, who knows where we would be today?

:-, Uhhh You do know that we had to fight a war to get rid of slavery right? That after 4 score and 7 years of tension on the matter of slavery it all broke down.

As hard as it is to accept the people have spoken. For now this is their will. Why is this their will? IMHO:

1.) The group of people who voted against gay marriage is evident when one looks at an electroal map showing the returns by county (I don't feel like looking one up but they can be found). The counties in the great central valley. The Inland empire etc all voted yes on 8. It seems californias gay rights campaigners have totaly forfieted the rural vote. Iowa is a mostly rural state, there are a few medium small cities...but mostly corn and cows yet they could be convinced to legalize gay marriage.

2)Many gay rights groups just don't know how to campaign. Until one wins the campaign does not end. The way they reacted to loosing last year disgusted allot of people who may have been on their side. I understand their frustrations.. but picking on churches was a strategic error. In the next campaign that video could be used against them to devastating effect.

3.) Perez Hilton....and so many other people like him who get sooooo much media attention. Acting like an over the top queen who has not decided if they are butch or femm yet. As much as it stinks images matter sometimes more than ideas. They need to showcase more effectively all the normal, LGBT's down the street who just want legal recognition of their relationships.

4.) Religion....I alluded to this a bit earlier. They ought to not responsd to religious based ads and arguements with anti-religious arguements and ads. That only acts to reinforce the message of the church groups which seeks to paint gay people as being anti god, anti traditional family. We have to drive home that a relatively small number of gay marriages does not threaten the traditional family.

These are some of the things that could win an election.

Personally I don't see why we cant just define civil unuions as being legally 100% equal to marriage and leave it at that? That is something many national polls show overwhelming support for.

With exception to your slavery reference, these are excellent points.... but this is in contrast of past comments that you made indicated that African Americans are the most homophobic group in the world. The points you brought out have nothing to do with race, which is my point.

[MacShreach]

Most states in the US have long ago done away with common law marriages. There are few hold outs, but for the most part- if you want a legal marriage you have to get a state issued marriage license.



That's not quite what I meant-- I was referring to the precedent set in the matter of the definition of "one man and one woman" by Ormrod.

I have no idea whether Common Law marriages are permitted in England, but last time I checked they were still valid in Scotland (the two legal systems have never been united and differ quite fundamentally.) However the common-law precedent created by Ormrod has been very damaging to transsexuals in both jurisdictions.

[TommyFoxtrot]

"The 6-1 decision written by Chief Justice Ron George rejected an argument by gay rights activists that the ban revised the California Constitution's equal protection clause to such a dramatic degree that it first needed the Legislature's approval.

The court said the Californians have a right, through the ballot box, to change their constitution."

Still think African Americans are the most homophobic? Trust me, we cant change state constitutions.

Does that come from any survey or statistic? That African-Americans are the most homophobic?

Comes from a consensus of the people on HA. If you look at other threads, the assumption is made that African Americans are the most homophobic

Actually I read that African Americans WERE the most homophobic, according to survey leading up the election, I was just wondering if you had read that before you tried to refute what the other HA members were saying.

[TommyFoxtrot]

Personally I don't see why we cant just define civil unions as being legally 100% equal to marriage and leave it at that? That is something many national polls show overwhelming support for.

In other words, "separate but equal" is good enough? :?

Actually I would consider it the difference between bringing a stalemate to and end, and fighting losing battle after battle in order to win a war of Annihilation.

Some gay people want to force their detractors to say "Uncle" rather than getting a solution. TO all those who say "think about gay families" I would say back--Yes, think about gay families. To the guy who just wants to be able to visit his partner in the hospital, or extend healthcare and survivor benefits to his spouse and step-children, I'm sure MANY don't care about the word or the title, as long as they get the benefits.


A lot of this seems to be about triumphing over anti-gay marriage people than about finding solutions for gay couples. Just something I noticed, but it seems a lot of gay folks are just as much about antagonizing straight people as they are about helping their own situation. It reminds me of the Israeli-Palestinian deadlock. Without the suicide bombers and Hellfire missiles of course...


Are Gay Jihadis in the works?? :roll:

[BLKGSXR]

Waiting for the appeal leading to the US supreme court.

[BrendaQG]

Waiting for the appeal leading to the US supreme court.

Since this was not a matter of federal law the US Supreme Court has no jurisdiction here. The state law as it stands does not violate federal law or the federal constitution as written.

The only way to win is to win elections, which means compromise, which means settleing for less than 100% of what we want...but much more than the other side is willing to give.

I see a day when legal marriage becomes obsolete in a secular country. There will just be civil unions for all, and marriage will be left up to the religions. Kind of like the Illinois law which may be soon passed the "Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act". The sticking point is and always will be the fear of some people that a gay marriage law would force their pastor to officiate a gay marriage which they don't belive in. (Which I will remind you they have the right to not believe in it just as we should have the right to unite anyway.)

That's all just MHO. Knowing CA's gay community they'll find a way to loose the next election too.

[BLKGSXR]

thats where I see it ending....CA supreme will not accept it anymore say fuck off then it may or may not become a federal thing where THE US SUPREME court gets its hand on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

[BlkJewels]

Why blks get dragged into every controversy? Its got nothin 2 do with blks being homophobic. Is black Tgirls shrinking or growing? Sorry 2 disappoint, but, blks dont have the monopoly on everything thats 'fucked up' in this country.

I feel better now.

[MacShreach]

Why blks get dragged into every controversy? Its got nothin 2 do with blks being homophobic. .


I'm sure you're right and I have no opinion on whether African Americans in general are more homophobic than anyone else.

However it is absolutely true that within the religious community, some black churches do take a very strong anti-gay stance. This is particularly true within the Anglican or Episcopalian community.

The real problem is not with the fact of who voted for what but with the idea of giving people a plebiscite in cases like this. I think they're fine for things like, for example, whether nations should join perpetually binding constitutional treaties and other things that literally do affect everyone, but in cases like this, minorities always end up getting whipped. No one at all is harmed by gay marriage, after all. Simply no one and it has no effect at all on the wider community. It is a matter of individual choice, which causes no harm to anyone, and therefore it should be allowed as a matter of course.

Furthermore, in a plebiscite in which the majority are fairly ambivalent, which is likely to be the case if the question being asked does not affect them directly, highly motivated minorities have a disproportionate influence. This can be made worse if religious and political leaders use their influence to cause their followers to vote in a particular way, thus undermining the principle of a plebiscite itself, which is that everyone should make their own decision upon weighng the facts.

This effect of religious leaders on their congregations might indeed mean that, while religiously-motivated African Americans are a minority, their vote was instrumental in the final result in the California case.

So in cases like this, plebiscites can be an instrument that causes social division by victimising minorities, and even pitting minorities against each other. This causes conflict and stalemate, rather than harmony and progress. And of course, this particular case gives further good reason to mistrust religions and their leaders.

[MacShreach]

I see a day when legal marriage becomes obsolete in a secular country. There will just be civil unions for all, and marriage will be left up to the religions.

LOL Don't look now but this is already the case in many countries.

[transmaven]

and thinking back to women's rights and the abolition of slavery.
if it wasnt for all the people who voted against their own self-interests, who knows where we would be today?


In the same place as we are. :wink:

It is folly to believe that human nature has changed. Or is changeable. People often scratch their heads and wonder, for example, why are there wars? it seems such a nasty business...

Human purposes are obscure. Human instincts run deep. The sexual and emotional chaos of a place like HA provides a better, truer picture of human beings than any (fanciful) vision of voters "going against their self-interest."

Certainly a person may *pretend* to go against their self-interest -- but perhaps a certain *spiritual vanity* is what's really driving them on. People love to see themselves as noble spirits and agents of progressive change; and it's a pretty harmless indulgence if your name is not, say, Lenin.--