# CA/AZ/FL Gay Marriage Balloting Reaction Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 4, 2008, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-az-fl-gay-marriage-balloting-reaction-thread/471073 "2008-11-04T16:40:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-az-fl-gay-marriage-balloting-reaction-thread/471073/1 "2008-11-04T16:40:18Z")
CA has [Prop. 8](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)), AZ has [Prop. 102](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_Proposition_102_(2008)), and FL has [Amendment 2](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Amendment_2_(2008)). 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. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-az-fl-gay-marriage-balloting-reaction-thread/471073/2 "2008-11-04T16:43:18Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Tristan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tristan/32/18058_2.png) [@Tristan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tristan)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-az-fl-gay-marriage-balloting-reaction-thread/471073/3 "2008-11-04T17:05:16Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![5-HT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/5/f19dbf/32.png) [@5-HT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/5-HT)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-az-fl-gay-marriage-balloting-reaction-thread/471073/4 "2008-11-04T17:11:30Z")
> [@Tristan](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![beowulff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beowulff/32/542_2.png) [@beowulff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beowulff)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-az-fl-gay-marriage-balloting-reaction-thread/471073/5 "2008-11-04T17:12:06Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > 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’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. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-az-fl-gay-marriage-balloting-reaction-thread/471073/6 "2008-11-04T17:15:14Z")
> [@beowulff](#): > > 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?😕 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. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-az-fl-gay-marriage-balloting-reaction-thread/471073/7 "2008-11-04T17:15:40Z")
[Here’s the trending for Prop 8 polling](http://www.pollster.com/polls/ca/08-ca-prop8.php?xml=http://www.pollster.com/flashcharts/content/xml/08CAProp8.xml&choices=No,Yes&phone=&ivr=&internet=&mail=&smoothing=&from_date=&to_date=&min_pct=&max_pct=&grid=&points=&trends=&lines=). Encouraging for sure, but not a slam dunk by any means. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-az-fl-gay-marriage-balloting-reaction-thread/471073/8 "2008-11-04T17:21:50Z")
In the meantime, [good news from Connecticut](http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/6092566.html): > [@](#): > > Gay marriages in Connecticut can start Nov. 12. > > Superior Court Judge Jonathan Silbert on Monday scheduled a hearing on that date to enter the final judgment in the case that allows same-sex marriages in the state. > > The proceeding is scheduled for 9:15 a.m. Attorneys in the court case say that once the hearing ends, couples can pick up marriage license forms at town and city clerk’s offices. > > The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled last month that same-sex couples have the right to wed rather than accept a civil union law. Massachusetts and California already allow gay marriages but a question on Tuesday’s ballot in California seeks to ban them. ---
**Author:** ![pepperlandgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f17d59/32.png) [@pepperlandgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pepperlandgirl)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-az-fl-gay-marriage-balloting-reaction-thread/471073/9 "2008-11-04T17:25:19Z")
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! ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-az-fl-gay-marriage-balloting-reaction-thread/471073/10 "2008-11-04T17:27:30Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Troy\_McClure\_SF](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/troy_mcclure_sf/32/4150_2.png) [@Troy\_McClure\_SF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Troy_McClure_SF)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-az-fl-gay-marriage-balloting-reaction-thread/471073/11 "2008-11-04T17:28:56Z")
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](http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/prop8/) it’s safe to say that Castro (94114) voters are a Good Thing. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-az-fl-gay-marriage-balloting-reaction-thread/471073/12 "2008-11-04T17:33:33Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-az-fl-gay-marriage-balloting-reaction-thread/471073/13 "2008-11-04T17:38:08Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-az-fl-gay-marriage-balloting-reaction-thread/471073/14 "2008-11-04T17:47:53Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Full faith and credit doesn’t apply to marriage law. 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. > [@](#): > > 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. Mind boggling. Seems patently obvious to me. Nevertheless the SCOTUS does seem to apply a higher level of scrutiny to sexual orientation cases. > [@](#): > > Much as in City of Cleburne, though, the Court’s decision in Romer v. Evans (1996), on which O’Connor also relied in her Lawrence opinion, and which struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment aimed at denying homosexuals “minority status, quota preferences, protected status or [a] claim of discrimination,” seemed to employ a markedly higher level of scrutiny than the nominally applied rational-basis test. > > SOURCE: [Equal Protection Clause - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause#Suspect_classes) ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-az-fl-gay-marriage-balloting-reaction-thread/471073/15 "2008-11-04T17:54:09Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > 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. 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. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Mind boggling. Seems patently obvious to me. 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. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Nevertheless the SCOTUS does seem to apply a higher level of scrutiny to sexual orientation cases. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-az-fl-gay-marriage-balloting-reaction-thread/471073/16 "2008-11-04T17:59:30Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-az-fl-gay-marriage-balloting-reaction-thread/471073/17 "2008-11-04T18:06:33Z")
> [@](#): > > Not saying you are wrong but how could it not be? 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. ---
**Author:** ![TWDuke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e495f1/32.png) [@TWDuke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TWDuke)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-az-fl-gay-marriage-balloting-reaction-thread/471073/18 "2008-11-04T18:21:48Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > I’ve seen signs claiming yes on 8 means "less govern 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!” 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. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-az-fl-gay-marriage-balloting-reaction-thread/471073/19 "2008-11-04T18:35:14Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > 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 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. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-az-fl-gay-marriage-balloting-reaction-thread/471073/20 "2008-11-04T18:42:39Z")
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. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-az-fl-gay-marriage-balloting-reaction-thread/471073.md?page=2)