CA has Prop. 8, AZ has Prop. 102, and FL has Amendment 2. We won’t get results for a while, but I thought I’d create a thread for anyone who wants to talk about the issue as well as how the final results pan out.
I really hope Prop 102 goes down in flames, but I’m not optimistic. The campaign has been really aggressive in favor of it, and it’s disingenuous to boot. I’ve seen “Yes on Prop 102 and marriage!” signs all over the place; they may well be the most prolific sign around and I’m concerned that it’s going to stick in a lot of people’s heads whatever their opinion is regarding the actual proposition.
I expect Prop 8 to pass, which is a bad thing, imo.
But folks in Cali tend to think that San Francisco and LA are the bellweathers, and tend to forget the 1/3 of the population of the state that live in more conservative rural areas.
There’s more to it than that though, lots of other states have similar rural/urban divides without having such schizophrenic results. California politics are just plain weird.
I’ve read some of the anti-102 propaganda, and some of it is just mind-numbingly ridiculous (“Activist judges have caused 20,000 divorces in the last 10 years”) bwuhh?
Still, I suspect it’s going to pass.
Off-hand, I’d say that’s because 102 is being touted as preserving marriage by limiting it to a man and a woman. The usual response to that is that men and women don’t hold marriage any more sacred than gays would, and the divorce rate is an example. I don’t know where activist judges come into it.
Here’s the trending for Prop 8 polling. Encouraging for sure, but not a slam dunk by any means.
In the meantime, good news from Connecticut:
If Prop 8 passes, it sets a pretty scary precedent, in my opinion. I doubt the LDS Church will be happy to stop meddling in state Constitutions if they’re victorious in CA. If the thought of Mormons covertly adding discriminatory amendments to your state constitution doesn’t scare you, I don’t know what will!
I expect Prop 8 to narrowly pass, but I will be delighted if it fails.
The thing is, regardless of whether it passes or fails, it’ll be on the ballot again in two years, won’t it? It’s not like the issue is going away, so we’ll just see an endless re-fighting of this battle in the years to come. Now, the way public sentiment is trending, it’s likely that once the people vote for allowing SSM, they’ll continue to vote that way. So, even if 8 passes this year, it’s likely to be overturned in 2 years, or 4, or 6. I know that’s small comfort to the people who would be prohibited from being married in the intervening years, but at least it’s not forever.
It seems that we ought to amend the CA Constitution to require a 60% vote to amend the Constitution. Anyone think we could get an initiative like that passed?
I live & vote on the edge of the Castro. Got in line at 7:15, left a few minutes before 8. While I was there, I heard one of the workers say “We’re gonna need more ballots.” The polling place on the next block had a line down the sidewalk as well.
SF isn’t quite as politically homogeneous as you might think, but based on Prop 8 contributions it’s safe to say that Castro (94114) voters are a Good Thing.
Sorry if this constitutes a hijack but can any of these withstand federal Constitution scrutiny?
Seems to me they easily fly in the face of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause (which looks pretty unambiguous to me) and the Full Faith and Credit Clause which likewise seems pretty clear on this issue.
Looks to me like a remarkably similar version of laws designed to restrict interracial marriages which were struck down in Loving v. Virginia. I do not see this as fundamentally different.
Full faith and credit doesn’t apply to marriage law.
Sexual Orientation is not a suspect class under 14th Amendment jurisprudence. Hence laws discriminating based on it require only a rational basis to pass federal muster. Interestingly enough, a Colorada amendment did fail rational basis scrutiny, with the Court (Kennedy I think) writing that it was motivated by nothing other than animus towards homosexuals (the case was Romer). But a marriage amendment simply isn’t going to hit that requirement.
Not saying you are wrong but how could it not be?
“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
Seems to me a marriage is a public record and, I’d think technically, a judicial proceeding (certainly you can have a judge marry you). Certainly when I was married in Illinois I was by default married everywhere in the US. I never had to do anything extra to gain that legal status.
Mind boggling. Seems patently obvious to me.
Nevertheless the SCOTUS does seem to apply a higher level of scrutiny to sexual orientation cases.
I believe it has to do with states inherent powers over certain areas, such as “morality” or public health issues. I am not an expert in FFC law, but I think those areas are exempt.
To qualify as a suspect class, certain characteristics have to be met under present interpretations. I think sexual orientation meets them, but the Court doesn’t. Go figure. I also think most EP analysis is fundamentally flawed, but there you go.
In Romer, Kennedy specifically says he is applying Rational Basis analysis. That’s what makes the case potentially so useful to the gay rights movement. Kennedy states that he is only looking for a rational basis, but still finds the law invalid. Admittedly, the analysis he performs is more like “Rational Basis with Teeth” but that should, in effect, kick up the analysis of all discrimination under EP jurisprudence, not create a higher level of scriutiny based on sexual orientation.
My non-lawyerly understanding is that “Full Faith and Credit” doesn’t compel states to recognize laws from other states if they don’t have them in their own. If two states have the same sort of licensing (say, to drive a car) then FF&C says that getting a lincense from one state is valid in another. But if Ohio suddenly up and bans automobiles, the fact that every other state is still handing out drivers licenses doesn’t mean Ohio is forced to accept them, too.
Right-wing activist judges interpreted in a “public policy exception” back in the day to allow states to prohibit miscengenation (marriage between the races). And of course the current crop of right-wingers, who are absolutely opposed to activist judges, and are of course not racist, are all too happy to use that exception against gay marriage.
I’ve seen “Yes on 8 means less government” and “Yes on 8 means free speech.” Well, shoot, I’ like free speech. Guess we can’t let the gays get married.
Yesterday a skywriter tried to write a campaign message in the sky, twice. Unfortunately for whoever paid for this, it was an unusually windy and cloudy day, and both times it came out something like “Yes on Prop. #”. Maybe God isn’t on your side, bub.
I really wonder how someone like Scalia would contort himself over this. He is a textualist and the text seems rather clear. Yet somehow I bet he’d find a way to rationalize it to himself.
Welcome to the fundamentally flawed world of textualism. It’s amazing how the clear meaning of the text can be read through a lot of different tints of glasses.