Jump to content

Gay marriage ban passes in California?


ariadne1880
This topic is 5201 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

With 95.5% of the vote reported the ban is passing by 400,000 votes 52% to 48%. I hate to say I told you so ... but I did. I said we would all regret the day that gay marriage was imposed by 4 people in black robes rather than through the democratic process. This is the result. That judicial activism galvanized the opponents of gay marriage.

 

This day need never have happened if we had just worked for acceptance of gay marriage (or been satisfied with civil unions which in California) through the ballot box. I think we would have seen different results.

 

It's a sad day .. the activists on the left and right bring this kind of thing about.

 

My boyfriend and I were hoping to go to our favorite spot in Carmel next summer and "tie the knot." I guess we won't be doing that know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 29
  • Created
  • Last Reply

45 mins ago

LOS ANGELES – California's proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage — and with it the personal lives of thousands of gay couples — hinged on about 3 million absentee and provisional ballots early Wednesday.

 

Sponsors of the ban — widely seen as the most momentous of the nation's 153 ballot measures — declared victory, but the measure's opponents said too many votes remained uncounted for the race to be called.

 

In California, the night had started out optimistically for many who believed that a large Democratic turnout would help defeat the state's proposed ban on same-sex marriage.

 

With 95 percent of precincts reporting early Wednesday, the ban had 5,125,752 votes, or 52 percent, while there were 4,725,313 votes, or 48 percent, opposed. The millions of late absentee and provisional ballots were to be counted after all precinct votes were tallied.

 

x( x( x( x( x( x( x( x( x( x( x( x(

why dont you wait till its officially called

its expected to be extremely close. i hope you are wrong.

3 million votes are still uncounted !!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ReturnOfS

>With 95.5% of the vote reported the ban is passing by 400,000

>votes 52% to 48%. I hate to say I told you so ... but I did. I

>said we would all regret the day that gay marriage was imposed

>by 4 people in black robes rather than through the democratic

>process. This is the result. That judicial activism galvanized

>the opponents of gay marriage.

>

>This day need never have happened if we had just worked for

>acceptance of gay marriage (or been satisfied with civil

>unions which in California) through the ballot box. I think we

>would have seen different results.

>

>It's a sad day .. the activists on the left and right bring

>this kind of thing about.

>

>My boyfriend and I were hoping to go to our favorite spot in

>Carmel next summer and "tie the knot." I guess we

>won't be doing that know.

 

You would not have had the hope of getting married in Carmel if those 4 people in black robes didn't give you that right in the first place. Don't blame their action for you not being able to get married in Carmel. You can put some blame on us for not giving more money earlier to defeat this measure. But to be honest, the overwhelming blame goes to those who let their inner bigotry dictate how they voted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Four people in black robes cannot and should not give me a "right" that I don't have.

 

If I wanted this "right" I would work to change the hearts and minds of my neighbors on the subject and worked through the democratic process to get gay marriage passed.

 

It's hard to put one's biases aside but, the opponents of gay marriage went about this in the correct way ... the democratic process. We didn't. We prefer to do things in a way that doesn't sit well with most of the public and that was our downfall on this issue.

 

I blame the four people in black robes but I blame the activists even more. When people will ever learn that you cannot shove something like this down people's throats when they aren't ready is beyond me.

 

This has set back gay marriage more than anything else possibly could. It's very sad that those whose "bigotry" -- and I mean you crazy lefties -- got in the way of common sense led to the passage of this amendment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And calling the people who voted "for" this amendment "bigots" does nothing to further the process. I don't why we would expect that anyone would want to "join" our side when we continue to call them names.

 

Just because someone voted for this amendment doesn't make them a "bigot." When will you learn that? People can -- and do -- have legitimate reasons for voting for or against something like this that have nothing to do with "bigotry."

 

The left -- and the right -- just doesn't seem to ever learn that demonizing your opponents in this way never, ever works.

 

How do you expect to win hearts and minds when you call names?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ReturnOfS

>Four people in black robes cannot and should not give me a

>"right" that I don't have.

>

>If I wanted this "right" I would work to change the

>hearts and minds of my neighbors on the subject and worked

>through the democratic process to get gay marriage passed.

>

>It's hard to put one's biases aside but, the opponents of gay

>marriage went about this in the correct way ... the democratic

>process. We didn't. We prefer to do things in a way that

>doesn't sit well with most of the public and that was our

>downfall on this issue.

>

>I blame the four people in black robes but I blame the

>activists even more. When people will ever learn that you

>cannot shove something like this down people's throats when

>they aren't ready is beyond me.

>

>This has set back gay marriage more than anything else

>possibly could. It's very sad that those whose

>"bigotry" -- and I mean you crazy lefties -- got in

>the way of common sense led to the passage of this amendment.

>

>

 

You had thought about tying the knot in Carmel. That thought did not exist until after 4 people in black robes gave you that right. You had thought about tying the knot in Carmel.

 

Did you do anything to help change hearts and minds besides hating lefties?

 

We will have to agree to disagree here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest zipperzone

>Four people in black robes cannot and should not give me a

>"right" that I don't have.

 

WRONG - It's their job to make such determinations. It can't be left to the general population to decide what "rights" should be granted to minorities.

 

By your logic blacks would be still riding in the back of the bus.

 

>If I wanted this "right" I would work to change the

>hearts and minds of my neighbors on the subject and worked

>through the democratic process to get gay marriage passed.

 

Good luck - it would never happen in your lifetime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest zipperzone

>And calling the people who voted "for" this

>amendment "bigots" does nothing to further the

>process. I don't why we would expect that anyone would want to

>"join" our side when we continue to call them

>names.

 

If the shoe fits - wear it. What would you prefer to call them? Fair, reasoned and wise people?

 

>Just because someone voted for this amendment doesn't make

>them a "bigot." When will you learn that?

 

See above......

 

>People can -- and do -- have legitimate reasons for voting for or >against something like this that have nothing to do with

>"bigotry."

 

Sure. Such as imposing their stupid religious beliefs on others?

 

>The left -- and the right -- just doesn't seem to ever learn

>that demonizing your opponents in this way never, ever works.

 

>How do you expect to win hearts and minds when you call

>names?

 

Why should we have to win their hearts and minds when they are trying to deny us that which should be ours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WOW just great !!! here is a perfect example of why prop 8 may pass

 

"My boyfriend and I were hoping to go to our favorite spot in Carmel next summer and "tie the knot.

" I guess we won't be doing that know."

 

"If I wanted this "right" I would work to change the hearts and minds of my neighbors on the subject and worked through the democratic process to get gay marriage passed."

 

"I mean you crazy lefties -- got in the way of common sense led to the passage of this amendment."

 

and the best one of all

 

"It's hard to put one's biases aside but, the opponents of gay

>marriage went about this in the correct way "

****************************************************************

ok i guess using children (against there parents permission) to lie and pump 65 million dollars into promoting out right lies about this issue and then wasting everyone's time with hatred and fear mongering makes the the yes on prop 8 people level headed good natured people of the state of California.

NOT!! it make them religious right wing crazy bigots that thrive on the same hypocritical bullshit that you constantly talk about in this thread

thanks for your support

when the day comes that you can go to Carmel and Marry your boyfriend maybe all your newly swayed neighbors and friends that you changed their hearts and minds can be there to watch as you take advantage of a "right" that everyone worked there ass off to obtain for you,

 

after years and years and years of constant fight that you chose to sit back and wait for progress to take place and do nothing to help make happen.

 

kinda takes the meaningful value out of your plans

 

at least we gave it a shot and did our best to protect civil rights

which is what this case is about

prop 8 changes the state constitution

whats next a gay id card a special camp to keep the gays out of your neighborhood.... no that cant happen the property value would drop.

 

enjoy all the good the LGBT community brings but shame on us for making waves in an unfair "BIGOTED" situation

 

mmm interesting

its Unfair and Wrong

to take away anyone's rights

 

Black Gay Straight you name it

 

rights defined by the supreme court and the constitution written to protect people from powerful religious mean spirited assholes to make things fair not bring about more prejudices

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By "tying the knot" I didn't mean an official marriage sanctioned by the State of California but a private ceremony for us after which we would have registered as a civil union.

 

We will still go ahead with those plans.

 

And I'll still work to change hearts and minds. I won't put my hope in illegitimate judicial processes which change nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Four people in black robes cannot and should not give me a

>"right" that I don't have.

>

>If I wanted this "right" I would work to change the

>hearts and minds of my neighbors on the subject and worked

>through the democratic process to get gay marriage passed.

 

Exactly wrong. It is specifically the job of a Supreme Court (whether state or federal) to protect against the tyranny of the majority. Civil rights are fundamental and do note depend on the whim of the populace. Popular rights and privileges do not need courts to protect them; it is specifically unpopular groups that demand civil protection. Constitutional Law 101.

 

Kevin Slater

Link to comment
Share on other sites

meds ? HUH?

oh i see your doing that thing you call naming calling

to the opposition

really log cabin of you

 

oh yeah did i forget to mention California loses not just more civil rights protection but tens of millions of dollars in revenue that gay marriage would bring to our bankrupt economy.

but you probably dont care

as long as you can hide out behind your online persona you can say anything you like

but just keep swaying the hearts and minds of your friends and neighbors thats the way to go

really i agree with that.

but all your backtracking just reminds me of the mcain/ palin ticket

bullshit!

 

btw nice try

you posted your post long before those numbers came out

because they just called it 4 minutes ago.

 

so no big deal but meds really

typical of you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually it is the Congress in our republic form of government that protects the minorities from the majority opinion. Which is exactly why we don't need instant, binding voting on any topics by the populace. Eventually the majority can invoke their will upon minorities or anyone else if they bury their morals and heads in the sand and decide to do it. We all would like to think that will not happen but it is possible. We put Japanese Americans in prison camps during WW II didn't we? That is why we put the responsibility on members of Congress who will deliberate and eventually come to the correct decision. That sounds rather pompous and unreal, doesn't it? Howver that is how it is supposed to work.

 

The Supremes adjudicate the laws passed by Congress as to their consitutionality or that is how that is supposed to work. The Supremes are NOT supposed to be deciding on any new rights which might be "hidden" in the constitution.

 

Best regards,

KMEM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Actually it is the Congress in our republic form of

>government that protects the minorities from the majority

>opinion.

 

No. As an elected body, Congress is responsive to the demands of the voters and thus the majority opinion. Supreme Court justices, who serve for life, are charged with interpreting the Constitution and the protections it affords individuals and groups.

 

Kevin Slater

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we are at an impasse with the interpretation of words.

 

The US constitution can be changed with a majority of the Congress or a majority of state legislatures proposing an amendment. This would have to be ratified by a super majority of the Congress and either the state legislatures or a referendum.

 

After any amendment passed, the Supreme Court would be free to interpret what it means. But, and this has been a legal quandry forever, they are NOT free to "legislate" by decisions. In really silly terms, if an amendment passed that said people with 3 thumbs cannot vote, the Supreme Court could not say it means that people with 3 big toes cannot vote. They also could not say people with 1 thumb or 1 big toe cannot vote. They also could not say the amendment was unconstitutional because an amendment by definition is constitutional, of otherwise legally presented and passed.

 

There is plenty of room for disagreement about what all this means.

 

However, it my strong opinion that an amendment could be passed, whether silly or not, that the Supreme Court could not overturn which would likely mean the majority rules.

 

Best regards,

KMEM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Official position of the "No on Prop 8" organization

 

Nov 05, 2008

 

Statement by No on Prop 8 Campaign on Election Status

 

Roughly 400,000 votes separate yes from no on Prop 8 – out of 10 million votes tallied.

 

Based on turnout estimates reported yesterday, we expect that there are more than 3 million and possibly as many as 4 million absentee and provisional ballots yet to be counted.

 

Given that fundamental rights are at stake, we must wait to hear from the Secretary of State tomorrow how many votes are yet to be counted as well as where they are from.

 

It is clearly a very close election and we monitored the results all evening and this morning.

 

As of this point, the election is too close to call.

 

Because Prop 8 involves the sensitive matter of individual rights, we believe it is important to wait until we receive further information about the outcome.

 

Geoff Kors

Executive Committee NO on Prop 8

 

 

Kate KendellExecutive Committee

NO on Prop 8

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>However, it my strong opinion that an amendment could be

>passed, whether silly or not, that the Supreme Court could not

>overturn which would likely mean the majority rules.

 

Correct, a constitutional amendment, by definition, cannot be unconstitutional. In that instance the supermajority rules.

 

Kevin Slater

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Voting majority v. Supremes

 

Our republican form of government recognizes that the majority is not always right, when it comes to the rights of the minority. Unfortunately, the executive and legislative branches are often responsive to popular views of the majority and disrespect the minority. Thus, it is left to the judicial branch to be "activist" to remind the majority that they are not always right. The Alien Land Law of 1913 restricted the rights of Asian immigrants from owning land in California. The "activist" justices of the California Supreme Court had to remind California that property rights are fundamental to living in these United States, including California.

 

During the civil rights era in 1964, California voters overwhelming passed Propositions 14 and 15. One banned any type of paid television and the other established the right to discriminate in housing. Can you imagine how the entertainment industry would have developed with no cable television - no HBO, no Time Warner? What would California cities look like with legalized housing segregation? It was "activist" judges who overturned those voter-approved amendments to California's constitution.

 

In a larger context, did Eisenhower or the Congress in the 1950s have the courage to tackle the issues of racial discrimination? No, it was the "activist" justices, who pushed the nation forward. Dr. King and the Montgomery Bus Boycott were not helped by Eisenhower or Congress. It was the Warren Court, who reminded us that liberty and justice was for all Americans, not just white Americans! [Yes, there is the irony of Earl Warren. As governor of California, he supported the relocation of the Japanese Americans during WW II. Yet, as Chief Justice, he pushed forward the ideals of civil rights.]

 

Returning to the topic of marriage, it was the activist justices of the California Supreme Court that "invented the novel idea" - a man and a woman did not have to be from the same race.

 

The good news from the new California gay marriage ban is that the ban only applies to marriages, unlike Florida's. Domestic partnerships are still allowed for the time being. So, one can still come to Carmel, California and be joined as domestic partners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Voting majority v. Supremes

 

In a Parliamentary form of government, like the one which the British use, Parliament and Parliament alone decides what is the law. The British do not have a system of judicial review. The only way to change a law passed by Parliament is to vote out, in the next election, those Members of Parliament who passed the law.

 

Nowhere in the United States Constitution is the concept of judicial review delineated. It was the brain child of Chief Justice John Marshall who convinced a bare quorum of four of the six Justice participating that Judicial Review was an implied power granted to the Judiciary by the Constitution. The case being discussed here is, of course, the one many of us studied in our high school civics class – MARBURY v. MADISON, Supreme Court of the United States, 1803. Marbur v. Madison has become virtually holy writ and altering it is unthinkable.

 

Now as regards the passage of Proposition 8. Two major factors can be blamed.

 

1. The organizers of the No on 8 simply did not do a very good job selling their position Please DO NOT tell me that the supporters of Yes on 8 lied. There is only one object in politics and that is to win and they won.

 

2. Studies have shown that the most homophobic minority in this country is African American. Barrack Obama’s candidacy turned out huge numbers of African American voters, many of whom, had never voted before. Research thus far indicates that 75% of African American women voters voted yes of Proposition 8. What is almost unbelievable is that Proposition 8 passed in Los Angeles County by twenty plus thousand votes. There is not way that under normal circumstances Proposition 8 would have passed in L.A. Now what this should tell the organizers of No on 8 is that is they want to attempt to repeal this Constitutional Amendment they should do so in two or six years, definitely not in four when Obama runs for re-election

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Official position of the "No on Prop 8" organization

 

In human terms what I find to be of astonishment is within the state of California, chickens now have more rights than same sex couples do. Just how more embarrasing can it get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This "logic" would have put the civil rights movement back at least 15 years since Brown vs ... was in the mid 50's and most of the significant new legislation wasn't passed until the mid to late 60's. The will of the majority almost never protects the rights of the minority, and parts of the constitution were drafted with that in mind.

 

The 14th amendment to the constitution "requires states to provide equal protection under the law to all persons within their jurisdictions"

 

So whats new about the right to marry. Heteros have been doing it almost forever, inter-racially, only from the 50's. All we're saying is me too. Probably only 20 years earlier in many parts of the country Barack's parents would have had a very difficult time being together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Official position of the "No on Prop 8" organization

 

Last week I took some vacation time in California and drove the PCH from San Francisco to Los Angeles. Besides being a spectacularly beautiful senic dirve, it also offered the opportunity for cultural observation.

 

While in SF it was very clear the Obama and No on 8 signs were very much in evidence. However, once I got south of Monterey, there were McCain signs and Yes on 8 ads everywhere. I spotted yard signs and plenty of TV ads pushing the vote in favor of the propsition. This trend remained the dominat theme all the way through to Ventura and into Los Angeles. I noted three cars in Los Angeles proper with "Yes on 8" bumper stickers.

 

We may need to face facts here in some respects. While many of our "friends" will say to our faces they favor gay marriage but in the privacy of the voting booth they may not necessarily vote that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Official position of the "No on Prop 8" organization

 

>While many

>of our "friends" will say to our faces they favor

>gay marriage but in the privacy of the voting booth they may

>not necessarily vote that way.

 

I don't think that's true. Some here, like purplekow, said there would be a "Bradley Effect" yesterday but that didn't come to pass, did it? I think it's irrelevant, anyway. What we needed was a better, stronger campaign than the deceitful yet successful one run by the Mormons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...