At least 18,000 couples are still married, if that's any comfort. ::)

Good. Thhe Supreme Court shouldn't supercede the majority.

At least 18,000 couples are still married, if that's any comfort. ::)


It's not, because I'm sure the next thing for the supporters of Prop 8 will be to try and nullify these marriages. :-\\

I just looked at CNN's story about it.  They have a picture of a Prop 8 supporter holding a sign that says, "The people voted to protect the children."  Seriously, WTF?  The sign just baffles me.

Good. Thhe Supreme Court shouldn't supercede the majority.


Therefore no minority is safe.  Yep, that's a good thing. *note sarcasm*

It's not, because I'm sure the next thing for the supporters of Prop 8 will be to try and nullify these marriages. :-\\

I just looked at CNN's story about it.  They have a picture of a Prop 8 supporter holding a sign that says, "The people voted to protect the children."  Seriously, WTF?  The sign just baffles me.


Yeah, I know.  Those 18000 thosand marriages are a thorn in their side.  They wanted no gay-marriages recognized.

I can just imagine it know some little old lady running around screaming "Would someone please think of the Children."  Now wait wasn't that Ned Flanders wife's . . .

Therefore no minority is safe.  Yep, that's a good thing. *note sarcasm*


Maybe the Supreme Court should start having say in everything we vote on. In fact, perhaps the Supreme Court should rule in favor of John McCain, even though the majority selected Barack Obama.

Maybe the Supreme Court should start having say in everything we vote on. In fact, perhaps the Supreme Court should rule in favor of John McCain, even though the majority selected Barack Obama.


That's how Bush got into the White House the first time.

Despite that, you should do yourselves a favour and keep a strong judicial. It's the only thing standing in the way of mob rule.

Maybe the Supreme Court should start having say in everything we vote on. In fact, perhaps the Supreme Court should rule in favor of John McCain, even though the majority selected Barack Obama.


Read article 7 of the California State Constitution.  Why are you referring to a national issue that has nothing to do with this issue?

All I can say is that I'm glad I don't live in California.

The more I learn about that state, the more it appears that liberals and conservatives are nutjobs over there.

The conservatives seem to be religious nuts, while the liberals are often part of crazy groups like Code Pink.

No wonder people are moving out of there and into places like Arizona, Washington, Oregon, Texas, and Colorado.

Perhaps someone can clarify the legalese of all this.  Back in the day before Prop 8, the CA Supreme Court said that gay marriages cannot be banned because it was unconstitutional...then the Prop 8 people voted in the ban, so does that mean the ban is now part of the constitution, or is it an unconstitutional law?  :-\\  It almost seems to me that the CA Supreme Court was handcuffed by the voters in this instance...

Regardless, they should be able to appeal this to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, right?

Perhaps someone can clarify the legalese of all this.  Back in the day before Prop 8, the CA Supreme Court said that gay marriages cannot be banned because it was unconstitutional...then the Prop 8 people voted in the ban, so does that mean the ban is now part of the constitution, or is it an unconstitutional law?  :-\\  It almost seems to me that the CA Supreme Court was handcuffed by the voters in this instance...

Regardless, they should be able to appeal this to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, right?


Prop 8 is another form of law making separate (or supposable) from the judicial system based on taxation with representation.  The voters pretty much have the last say on everything including what goes in or out of the state constitution.  However I don't think that Prop 8 was in the spirit of what the proposition system is there for.  By leaving the 18,000 marriages legal they made sure the door wasn't closed for the gay-marriage fight.  Also pro-gay marriage people have the option of developing a Proposition to overturn Prop 8.  I would have to check about the 9th Circuit of Appeals thing.

My prediction is that eventually ALL states and the Federal Government will recognize same-sex marriage. Some day people will look back at this time and say, "What was the big deal about?" Unfortunately, we are not there yet. Yes, this is a set back but there have been gains in Iowa, Vermont, & Maine (if only New Hampshire could be added to that) this year alone to add to Massachusetts & Connecticut.



Cat

Prop 8 is another form of law making separate (or supposable) from the judicial system based on taxation with representation.  The voters pretty much have the last say on everything including what goes in or out of the state constitution.  However I don't think that Prop 8 was in the spirit of what the proposition system is there for.  By leaving the 18,000 marriages legal they made sure the door wasn't closed for the gay-marriage fight.  Also pro-gay marriage people have the option of developing a Proposition to overturn Prop 8.  I would have to check about the 9th Circuit of Appeals thing.


I think propositions just add to the existing list of laws but they don't actually change the Constitution...I don't know how easy it is to change CA constitution but I heard there were a buttload of amendments to the CA state constitution.

It makes sense to appeal to the 9th Circuit first, since that is the logical stepping stone before they go all the way to the US Supreme Court.  Plus it'll give time to confirm Obama's new appointment.

I think propositions just add to the existing list of laws but they don't actually change the Constitution...I don't know how easy it is to change CA constitution but I heard there were a buttload of amendments to the CA state constitution.

It makes sense to appeal to the 9th Circuit first, since that is the logical stepping stone before they go all the way to the US Supreme Court.  Plus it'll give time to confirm Obama's new appointment.


Propositions can be Constitutional amendments.  You're right they don't change the original articles.  It was back in the 90's when their was a Proposition ballot to deny illegal immigrants access to things such as medical care and education.  It didn't pass but it cost Republicans a lot of clout in California.    I suppose they could appeal it to the 9th Circuit while drafting a Proposition to overturn it.  BTW, it'll probably come up either next year or 2012.  So, it ain't over by a long shot!!!

All I can say is that I'm glad I don't live in California.

The more I learn about that state, the more it appears that liberals and conservatives are nutjobs over there.



Thus its status as "the land of fruits and nuts"...  ;D

All I can say is that I'm glad I don't live in California.

The more I learn about that state, the more it appears that liberals and conservatives are nutjobs over there.

The conservatives seem to be religious nuts, while the liberals are often part of crazy groups like Code Pink.

No wonder people are moving out of there and into places like Arizona, Washington, Oregon, Texas, and Colorado.


We're glad you don't live there, either. :)

We're glad you don't live there, either. :)


How's Chicago?

As sad as this is. . .It's not exactly a surprise  :(  Times are changing though, it's only a matter of time before the 'anti-gay' mind set is a minority

It's not, because I'm sure the next thing for the supporters of Prop 8 will be to try and nullify these marriages. :-\\

I just looked at CNN's story about it.  They have a picture of a Prop 8 supporter holding a sign that says, "The people voted to protect the children."  Seriously, WTF?  The sign just baffles me.


Don't want the kids to grow up and accept people for who they are!  Can't have that, now can we?
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/11/cwm10.gif

How's Chicago?


Doesn't compare to my homestate, although I'll give it props for the museums.

Don't want the kids to grow up and accept people for who they are!  Can't have that, now can we?
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/11/cwm10.gif


Lord, no way.  They might catch some of that tolerance disease that's been running amok lately.

Doesn't compare to my homestate, although I'll give it props for the museums.


Heh...  I bet Colorado is better than both....  ;)

Heh...  I bet Colorado is better than both....  ;)


When you travel a lot around the country, you always think you love some place.  I love New Mexico just as much.  I LOVED North Carolina.  I would move to any of these states, but my home IS California.  It always will be.

And the last time I looked, I wasn't a nutjob.  Liberal, yes.  Anxiety sufferer, yes.  Bitch, yes.  Nutjob.....not so much.

When you travel a lot around the country, you always think you love some place.  I love New Mexico just as much.  I LOVED North Carolina.  I would move to any of these states, but my home IS California.  It always will be.

And the last time I looked, I wasn't a nutjob.  Liberal, yes.  Anxiety sufferer, yes.  Bitch, yes.  Nutjob.....not so much.


Well, perhaps, I should clarify...  California seems to be ruled by nutjobs.

Then again, North Carolina has had some nutjobs as well, like Elizabeth Dole and Jesse Helms.

It just seems like California always goes to one extreme or another on a lot of decisions.

For the record, NC has been my home for a long time, but the only reason I haven't left is because of friends and family.  This state has been going downhill for a while.  We are more exciting than we used to be (and are becoming more politically moderate, thankfully), but our crime is going up faster than anything else.

^ Probably because lots of people are moving in.  The Raleigh-Durham area is pretty densely populated now because of low cost-of-living and the fact that it's an awesome area.

^ Probably because lots of people are moving in.  The Raleigh-Durham area is pretty densely populated now because of low cost-of-living and the fact that it's an awesome area.


Raleigh's not bad.  It's got a decent nightlife and a good professional job market.

Durham...  not so much.  Durham has the worst crime rates of the entire state.  Fayetteville is almost as bad.

The problem with NC is that we're pretty poor.  A lot of Northerners move down here because the weather is nicer and houses are relatively cheap, but they quickly find out that the local poverty equals more crime than what many of them are probably used to.

Georgia and Florida are much of the same story.  Basically, if you're looking to move somewhere, pick a state like Colorado or Texas.  Texas has a considerable amount of poverty and crime, but they have a large enough job market in places like Dallas in combination with cheap housing that it's worth it.  Colorado is even better, since it has relatively low crime, good job markets (like in Denver), and a relatively low cost of living.  You just have to be willing to deal with a lot of snow.

Perhaps someone can clarify the legalese of all this.  Back in the day before Prop 8, the CA Supreme Court said that gay marriages cannot be banned because it was unconstitutional...then the Prop 8 people voted in the ban, so does that mean the ban is now part of the constitution, or is it an unconstitutional law?  :-\\  It almost seems to me that the CA Supreme Court was handcuffed by the voters in this instance...

Regardless, they should be able to appeal this to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, right?


Proposition 8 makes it part of the constitution, which takes the issue out of the hands of either the legislature or the judicial branches.  The SCOTROC ruling affirms that Prop 8 is now formally ensconced in the California State Constitution.

This is all in synch with the prior SCOTROC ruling that invalidated the pro-hetero-marriage law of a few years ago, which struck that law down as unconstitutional.  So the people simply changed the constitution.  Wa-la.

If anyone were to appeal this to the 9th Circuit Court, it could not be on the basis of California law.  They would have to appeal it on the basis of some sort of Federal law.  Federal courts do not make decisions basedon State law (that is up to State courts).  They only apply Federal law.

I used to think direct democracy was a great idea. Then I took a look at California. Now I'm glad that in my state (Pennsylvania), a minority can't be deprived of basic human rights just because of the votes of a slim majority. The founding fathers were always worried about this kind of tyranny of the majority, and here it is, on display in California. This is also why the state is going bankrupt, by the way - another proposition kept taxes low a while back. If they'd raised taxes, California wouldn't be in so much trouble. But no one's going to vote against their pocketbook. ::) I think Macphisto's got it right: California's got some really, really right-wing conservatives and some really, really left-wing liberals, and all of them seem to be pissed off at each other more or less constantly. (Fun fact: According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, no state has more hate groups than California. You'd think with all that sunshine, people would be more laid back.)

This decision was sort of expected. Opponents of Prop 8, once it was passed, were always on shaky legal ground. Their argument was basically that because Prop 8 violated the equal protections clause, it didn't actually count as an amendment, but as a revision. The court determined that it was an amendment, and made it clear that this was not a ruling on the legality or morality of gay marriage. They seemed to know what they were doing - they made sure that Prop 8 would be interpreted as narrowly as possible. If you read the statement, they basically interpret Prop 8 to mean that gays can't use the word "marriage" - but they simultaneously uphold the equal rights of gays and lesbians. So they did uphold Prop 8 on legal grounds, but they also reduced it to a semantics issue. I get the feeling they really wish they could restore gay marriage to California, but they couldn't do that in this case without making a mockery of the law. They did the best they could. And they kept those 18,000 couples married, which leaves the door open for people to ask, "Wait... so they have the right to use the word 'marriage' because they got married in this specific 6-month span... but screw everybody else?" ??? And those 18,000 married gay couples will be living reminders to everyone in the state that gay marriage hurts no one, and yet is still illegal. Which is why the H8ers are now trying to divorce those couples.

I figured this would happen, and I was bracing myself for it, but it still kind of feels like a punch in the face. :-Why do you care?!

I used to think direct democracy was a great idea. Then I took a look at California. Now I'm glad that in my state (Pennsylvania), a minority can't be deprived of basic human rights just because of the votes of a slim majority. The founding fathers were always worried about this kind of tyranny of the majority, and here it is, on display in California. This is also why the state is going bankrupt, by the way - another proposition kept taxes low a while back. If they'd raised taxes, California wouldn't be in so much trouble. But no one's going to vote against their pocketbook. ::) I think Macphisto's got it right: California's got some really, really right-wing conservatives and some really, really left-wing liberals, and all of them seem to be pissed off at each other more or less constantly. (Fun fact: According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, no state has more hate groups than California. You'd think with all that sunshine, people would be more laid back.)

This decision was sort of expected. Opponents of Prop 8, once it was passed, were always on shaky legal ground. Their argument was basically that because Prop 8 violated the equal protections clause, it didn't actually count as an amendment, but as a revision. The court determined that it was an amendment, and made it clear that this was not a ruling on the legality or morality of gay marriage. They seemed to know what they were doing - they made sure that Prop 8 would be interpreted as narrowly as possible. If you read the statement, they basically interpret Prop 8 to mean that gays can't use the word "marriage" - but they simultaneously uphold the equal rights of gays and lesbians. So they did uphold Prop 8 on legal grounds, but they also reduced it to a semantics issue. I get the feeling they really wish they could restore gay marriage to California, but they couldn't do that in this case without making a mockery of the law. They did the best they could. And they kept those 18,000 couples married, which leaves the door open for people to ask, "Wait... so they have the right to use the word 'marriage' because they got married in this specific 6-month span... but screw everybody else?" ??? And those 18,000 married gay couples will be living reminders to everyone in the state that gay marriage hurts no one, and yet is still illegal. Which is why the H8ers are now trying to divorce those couples.

I figured this would happen, and I was bracing myself for it, but it still kind of feels like a punch in the face. :-Why do you care?!


http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/yelclap.gif

Lord, no way.  They might catch some of that tolerance disease that's been running amok lately.


You know if you are exposed your kids to gay people they become gay and better dressed than their parents. :o

I used to think direct democracy was a great idea. Then I took a look at California. Now I'm glad that in my state (Pennsylvania), a minority can't be deprived of basic human rights just because of the votes of a slim majority. The founding fathers were always worried about this kind of tyranny of the majority, and here it is, on display in California. This is also why the state is going bankrupt, by the way - another proposition kept taxes low a while back. If they'd raised taxes, California wouldn't be in so much trouble. But no one's going to vote against their pocketbook. ::) I think Macphisto's got it right: California's got some really, really right-wing conservatives and some really, really left-wing liberals, and all of them seem to be pissed off at each other more or less constantly. (Fun fact: According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, no state has more hate groups than California. You'd think with all that sunshine, people would be more laid back.)

This decision was sort of expected. Opponents of Prop 8, once it was passed, were always on shaky legal ground. Their argument was basically that because Prop 8 violated the equal protections clause, it didn't actually count as an amendment, but as a revision. The court determined that it was an amendment, and made it clear that this was not a ruling on the legality or morality of gay marriage. They seemed to know what they were doing - they made sure that Prop 8 would be interpreted as narrowly as possible. If you read the statement, they basically interpret Prop 8 to mean that gays can't use the word "marriage" - but they simultaneously uphold the equal rights of gays and lesbians. So they did uphold Prop 8 on legal grounds, but they also reduced it to a semantics issue. I get the feeling they really wish they could restore gay marriage to California, but they couldn't do that in this case without making a mockery of the law. They did the best they could. And they kept those 18,000 couples married, which leaves the door open for people to ask, "Wait... so they have the right to use the word 'marriage' because they got married in this specific 6-month span... but screw everybody else?" ??? And those 18,000 married gay couples will be living reminders to everyone in the state that gay marriage hurts no one, and yet is still illegal. Which is why the H8ers are now trying to divorce those couples.

I figured this would happen, and I was bracing myself for it, but it still kind of feels like a punch in the face. :-Why do you care?!


In PA, it's nearly impossible to chance or amend the Constitution.  Yeah, I too notice that the only thing that upholding Prop 8 did was muddied the waters.  Pretty much no one wins in this situation.  Which may have been the courts intent.  To punt the problem to someone else.  Now people are saying it way too easy to amend the California Constitution.  Which means their preparing for a prop to overturn prop 8.  Then a prop to overturn that.  When does it end?

In PA, it's nearly impossible to chance or amend the Constitution.  Yeah, I too notice that the only thing that upholding Prop 8 did was muddied the waters.  Pretty much no one wins in this situation.  Which may have been the courts intent.  To punt the problem to someone else.  Now people are saying it way too easy to amend the California Constitution.  Which means their preparing for a prop to overturn prop 8.  Then a prop to overturn that.  When does it end?

Well, if Nate Silver is right (and he usually is), California is likely to vote against a ban on gay marriage in 2010. That doesn't necessarily mean they'll vote for a pro-gay marriage initiative (which is already being prepared), but it's worth a shot.

If we're lucky, the 2010 proposition to overturn Prop 8 will succeed, and any future propositions to overturn that will fail as the electorate continues to become more and more liberal on this issue. If support for gay marriage continues to climb in California, 2008 may have been the bigots' last chance to ban it.

In PA, it's nearly impossible to chance or amend the Constitution.  Yeah, I too notice that the only thing that upholding Prop 8 did was muddied the waters.  Pretty much no one wins in this situation.  Which may have been the courts intent.  To punt the problem to someone else. 

Or perhaps... the court did its job and properly applied the laws and the constitution of the State of California.

A court does not need to "like" a law to enforce it.  And changes to a constitution which follow due process are the most difficult ones for a court to overturn, because a state's constitution is the "rosetta stone" for law.

Direct democracy is a good thing when the public is mostly educated (see Norway).

Since the public of most states isn't that educated, referendums should be limited to certain things.

Having more referendums in the Northeast and Pacific Northwest wouldn't be bad though, since those areas do tend to be better educated.