Sorry about dropping off the face of…well Harn like that. I’ll get caught up.
Well, just for fun, here you go.
Chief Justice Roberts’ wife’s name is Jane. They have two adopted kids, a son and a daughter.
Stevens first wife was named Elizabeth. He divorced her in 1979 and married a woman named Maryan. He has three daughters, and had a son who died of cancer about 12 years ago.
Scalia’s wife is named Maureen. They have 9 children, the youngest a college student. The rest all have professional careers (One’s an attorney, one’s an English professor, one’s a priest, one’s an army officer, etc)
Kennedy’s wife is named Mary, and they have three children.
Souter is unmarried.
Thomas’s first wife was named Kathy. They had one child and divorced in 1984. He remarried in 1987 to a woman named Virginia.
Ginsburg’s husband is named Martin. They have a son and a daughter.
Breyer’s wife is named Joanna. They have a daughter (who’s an Episcopal priest) and two sons.
Alito’s wife is named Martha. They have two sons.
Okay. As long as there’s no quiz, I should be fine. 
Based on the results, 70% of black voters in CA were happy to keep the gays in the back of the bus.
I think you have a misunderstanding about what prop 8 was all about. Maybe I am making a bad assumption about your understanding, but the California Supreme court had already decided that banning same sex marriage was contrary to the California State Constitution and protected by California law. It wasn’t brought to a federal level. Immutability shouldn’t play into it. The problem is that we in California can amend that constitution by ballot initiative that requires nothing more than a few hundred signatures to get started and a simple majority to pass. It didn’t have to go through the legislature and it didn’t require overwhelming support. Things that on the Federal level are necessary to create a new amendment to the constitution.
(The above contains some gross generalizations, but that’s the basic idea)
The challenge that is being brought against prop 8 is that the amendment changed the state constitution fundamentally enough that adding it in this way was actually illegal. Bricker said in another thread on prop 8 that this doesn’t stand a chance, and he may well be right, but this fight (at the moment) has nothing to do with Federal protection of gay rights, but rather the illegality of striping away basic human rights on a state level by a petitioned ballot initiative.
If it goes to a Federal level there are other issues, but one step at a time.
(And now I will wait to be told that I am dead wrong about all of the above. I hate not being certain of myself.)
Seconded. We can’t hide behind the argument of “it’s just wrong, so ignore what the constitution says.” We have to change things from the inside.
Come back, interesting things are happening. Bring Koldanar with you. Give em hell at the protest.
Nick
Straight against 8*
thanks in advance to EJ’s girl who I hope doesn’t mind me co-opting her sig.
Oh, there’ll be a quiz. You better believe there’ll be a quiz.
More seriously, what happens now? I think it’s safe to say that the lawsuits against Prop.8 aren’t going to go anywhere, so there’s going to have to be another amendment. Is there a new petition drive starting up, or is there any chance that friendly legislators could introduce it?
NAF1138 is spot on, this has nothing to do with Federal law. The California Supreme Court ruled that LGBT are entitled to the same rights and cannot be discriminated against per the California Constitution.
Whether or not the legal challenge wins or not, it is essential that it be made. I think it is incredibly scary that the majority can indeed vote away rights to others.
On the issue of immutability, just frame the question this way, “Hey, if you want to get married just don’t be gay”. Doesn’t that sound like the stupidest thing ever. I actually changed one person’s mind about Prop 8 with that. It sounds corny, but they tried to say, “That’snot what I mean” but then conceded that was what the effect would be.
Another possible, though highly unlikely, unintended effect is that if the CA SC tries to read the new amendment together with the current Constitution (the “only a man and woman” along with the equal protection they based their previous ruling on), that they could rule that it means that all marriage in CA is null, because you cannot have special exclusions, but you also now cannot have same-sex marriage. That means that all marriage has to be nullified to reconcile the state constitution.
It’s very, very unlikely to happen, but it’s possible.
So what?
It seems that most people want and celebrate democracy but cry sour grapes when it doesn’t lean their way. Don’t like it? Get campaigning to get it on the ticket for the next election and effect the change through manipulation of the public, just how everything else passes. If I were gay and looking to get married, I’d be a little upset by it, but I’d accept it nonetheless. It’s the same system from which I reap many benefits – including several things decided by The People. One can’t accept the benefits of a political system and escape the pitfalls.
Previous California court decisions have found a “revision” instead of “amendment” when the change would have added 21,000 words to the then-55,000 word state constitution. This change obviously doesn’t reach that level. And in two other court cases with states with similar distinctions about amendment vs. revision (Bess v. Ulmer, Alaska Supreme Court 1999, and Martinez v. Kulongoski, Oregon Court of Appeals, 2008) both reached the conclusion that similar changes were amendments, not revisions; the Bess decision in particular drew heavily on California precedent as persuasive and concluded that the Alaska opposite-sex-only marriage initiative was an amendment, not a revision.
Correct me if i’m wrong, but that would appear to be what this thread is about. No one seems to be in favour of ditching democracy for it. It’s perfectly reasonable to both celebrate democracy in the general and deplore specific instances of it. Overall it is better, but that doesn’t mean particular examples of it cannot go disliked.
That’s exactly what I said, in different words, except for the fact that **Bricker **addressed a comment by Der Trihs which seems go against your assertion of “[n]o one seems to be in favour of ditching democracy.” It seems that the thread is focused on loopholes to reverse the decision made by The People because it’s “bigoted.”
Brilliant! If enough people point that out, how long can the SC ignore it? Perhaps this should be the next tactic tried, and it’s not impossible that it would work, right? (I’m trying to be optimistic here.)
Oddly, far too many people are riled up now, but didn’t bother to vote, then. SF county had rather poor voter turnout comapred to several counties voting “Yes”. Perhaps, next time, instead of getting riled up after the vote is lost, it’d be better to do something about getting dudes to the polls and voting?
For example LA County- which voted Yes- has about 10% great voter turnout than SF county.
But is that what’s happening here?
It seems to me that the purpose of the legal challenge is not to win so much as it’s to keep the issue in the news… because while it’s a loser on the legal merits, it’s not a loser on the issue of basic equity. Even more so is the value of the fight over whether extant same-sex marriages are erased… that’s almost a fight with no loser. If they are erased, then you have the powerful spectacle of a loving couple who did no wrong – who followed the rules getting punished by the application of this amendment. (Obviously a blow to the individuals, and I’m sorry… but for PR power, it can’t be beat). And if those marriages are upheld, the more subtle question then surfaces: “Isn’t this sort of nonsensical? That those people are married because they happened to luck out as far as picking a date, but other identically situated people can’t be?”
I can’t speak for everyone, but I did. I encouraged everyone to vote, donated money to the No on 8 campaign, volunteered at the phone banks calling people to donate and asking them to vote. Those that didn’t vote will have to live with the fact that they didn’t get involved earlier.
Loopholes? How so? And surely those loopholes would themselves be the result of democratic action?
I do celebrate democracy and I also decry the passage of prop 8. I am campaigning to have this on the ballot in 2010. I hate that we have to do it that way as I will explain a bit in the next paragraph.
That’s just bully for you that you’d just roll over and accept it, but I will not. This is a country founded on the ideal that all men are equal and share equal rights under the law. The idea that 50% plus one of the people can take away rights is wrong. Civil rights should not be decided in this manner.
I suspect you’re likely correct. It will be interesting to see if the extant same-sex marriages are effectively invalidated by the State in the near future.
As a side note, those who oppose the proposition have to tread very carefully, then, and that includes people who post here. Otherwise the result will be the same. Call The People bigots and stupid, instead of swaying supporters of the proposition, will just gain more opponents. That’s the funny thing about voters, isn’t it? People can vote based on whatever reasoning they choose, even if it is irrational.
I obviously implied that I’d accept the decision as it has been handed down, and if I meant that much to me, I’d fight to change it, but within the parameters of the game. Protests and bitching and calling people bigots isn’t the best course of action. That’s all I’m saying.
Question: Are same-sex civil unions still recognized as valid in California? From what I’ve read the Proposition refers only to marriage.