Gay marriage ban qualifies for California ballot

[PageOneQ]

Source: Associated Press

An initiative that would again outlaw gay marriage in California has qualified for the November ballot, the Secretary of State announced Monday.

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen said a random check of signatures submitted by the measure's sponsors showed that they had gathered enough names for it to be put to voters.

The measure would amend the state constitution to "provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Read more: http://pageoneq.com/news/2008/Marriage_initiative_qualifies_in_Ca_0602.html

[proud patriot]

1. crap

[hokies4ever]

31. I thought I saw a poll a few weeks ago showing that the ban wouldn't pass

Defeating this proposed ban on gay marriage at the ballot box might actually be a good thing. It'll set back the effort to repeal it big time.

[slackmaster]

54. Wording is everything, hokies4ever

If you ask people if they support a woman's right to control her reproduction, most people say yes.

If you ask the same group of people if they support a ban on killing babies, most of them will say yes to that too.

With marriage, the question can be phrased as "banning" one thing or "protecting" something else. Protecting sounds nicer than banning.

[Tesha]

55. I posted such a poll (by way of the SF Chron) last week or so.

It wasn't definitive, but it was strongly suggestive
that the ban wouldn't pass.

Tesha

[slackmaster]

57. You are correct that the result is not definitive

DUers surely do love poll results when they go our way. When they don't, a lot of us hasten to paint the pollster as biased.

The problem with the recent Field poll, as is often the case, is that the questions asked are not exactly what voters are going to see in their information pamphlets and sample ballots. It cannot account for unpredictable future effects of propaganda and advertising from both sides of the issue.

Here are the actual questions that were asked, and a link to Field's analysys:

As you know, there has been a lot of news lately about gays and lesbians, that is, men and women who are
homosexuals.

Do you approve or disapprove of California allowing homosexuals to marry members of their own sex and
have regular marriage laws apply to them? (WORDING IDENTICAL TO PREVIOUS FIELD POLLS CONDUCTED
SINCE 1977)

Which of the following most closely resembles your own view about state laws regarding the relationships of
two people of the same sex: a) gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to legally marry; b) gay and
lesbian couples should be allowed to form civil unions or domestic partnerships, but not legally marry; c)
there should be no legal recognition of a gay or lesbian couple’s relationship?

Do you approve or disapprove of the recent California State Supreme Court ruling declaring the state's ban
on same-sex marriage as being unconstitutional, thus allowing same-sex couples to marry?

(VERSION A: ASKED OF RANDOM SUBSAMPLE OF VOTERS) Do you favor or oppose changing the California
State Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman, thus barring marriage between gay and
lesbian couples?

(VERSION B: ASKED OF RANDOM SUBSAMPLE OF VOTERS) There may be a vote on this issue in the November
election. Would you favor or oppose having the State Constitution prohibit same-sex marriage, by defining
marriage as only between a man and a woman?

http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2268.pdf

Since the Field organization has been very careful to use the same wording across time, their polls are often good indicators of voter trajectories. What will actually be on the ballot and how people will react then is a different set of questions.

[hokies4ever]

59. I think it will be interesting how it is phrased on the ballot

You make a great point about question phrasing. I think groups on both sides of this issue will be fighting tooth and nail to get the wording that they want. A great example is the Defense of Marriage Act. Of course people want to defend the institution of marriage, but the name was kind of disingenuous and biased against same-sex marriages.

[rocktivity]

2. It's already unconstitutional--it's a civil rights, not a majority rules issue.

:headbang:
rocknation

[hokies4ever]

30. That's the problem with these ballot initiatives

By definition they're majority rules decisions.

[sam sarrha]

47. they keep forget'n the Constitution was written to protect the minorities from people like them..

[slackmaster]

56. LGBT people are not yet recognized as minorities under federal employment law

They are in the state of California, but there are states where a job interview question that would get you sued here wouldn't put an employer at risk.

[QC]

46. Nope--sexual orientation is not a protected class under federal law. n/t

[David__77]

64. It is under California constitution.

Rights are more extensive here than federally, and sexual orientation is definitely a protected class.

[Trillo]

67. Very interesting. One poster says 'sexual orientation' is not a protected

class, another poster says it is.

Anyone got any court-ruling links to back up their assertions?

Most employment disclaimers I've seen use language similar to 'does not discriminate based upon race, national origin, or sex.' So what is meant by the single word "sex"? Is it gender? Is it the act of sex? Is it sexual orientation?

Why it strikes me that the single word used, "sex", is broad instead of narrow in usage, and is likely inclusive of all of those, perhaps more. Unfortunately, I haven't studied any pertinent case law, so I don't know what rulings have said.

[David__77]

73. Sex means biological sex, not orientation.

That's a federal thing. Under California law, "sexual orientation" is also clearly a protected class, explicitly delineated. In my work break room, the poster on the wall says "sexual orientation" along with the other categories. In different sections of state legal code, sexual orientation was added over the last ten years or so. And the courts have affirmed that under the state constitution, sexual orientation is also a protected class. That was the basis for the court ruling on marriage in fact.

[QC]

83. U.S. federal law is not the same thing as California state law. n/t

[rusty quoin]

3. I find this arguement against gay marriage remarkable.

"Why should I have to put up with them getting married. Don't I have rights."

[sam sarrha]

48. every Fascist needs a Scapegoat..

[SharonRB]

4. That really sucks

I hope the voters of California are smarter than to pass this.

:hi: How are you?

I almost called you the other day -- I heard you on Ed Schultz, but just the tail end of your call.

[marshall]

58. I trust the people

In the end they will make the proper choice. That's what it's all about.

[katerinasmommy]

5. It's not surprising

Afterall, gay marriage is so much more important than thousands dead in Iraq, the economy going to hell, and McCain aiming to bomb Iran

[slackmaster]

52. In all seriousness, it is not surprising if you consider California's demographics

Despite our blue results in national elections (post-Reagan, anyway), the liberal population is concentrated in two of the three largest urbanized areas. San Diego is Democratic on balance but not by much.

We have large rural populations that are both conservative and Christian. Our largest minority, which isn't even technically a minority, consists of people (Latinos) who are mostly observant Roman Catholics.

Latest Field poll results suggest this measure will have a hard time. I hesitate to say it will be defeated, because how people answer the question is heavily influenced by the wording they see on their poll or ballot.

This will be a tough fight, and now we who support equality in marriage are on the defense.

[xxqqqzme]

72. It is changing though.

My mom & dad have lived in Palm Spring since 1965. They are extremely conservative. Their next door neighbors for the first 30 years was a couple who were not great neighbors; their property declined; home repairs and maintenance were not a priority. The gay couple who bought the house bought a real fixer-upper and they have done that. It is now one of the stunners on the block. One man volunteers at the hospital. When my dad had his heart attack and subsequent surgery, he always stopped in to chat when he was on duty. My parents, because of this contact, have completely changed their attitudes toward homosexuals. They now know they are just like everyone else w/ searching for solutions to life's problems & hurtles. I view it as a step forward even though it took years to accomplish.

Someone can correct me but I believe the current mayor of Palm Springs is gay.

[FreeState]

6. We need every single person on DU to fight this

be it financial support, calling friends in CA or knocking on doors - its vital to an equal society that this Amendment not pass.

[Maat]

15. We are coordinating the effort to defeat it at ...

www.equalityforall.com - please go over there and sign up. Both PFLAG and the Unitarian Universalists (I'm highly active in both) are part of the coalition (please take a look at the names).

[LeftyMom]

29. Yes, Californians should go get involved with EFA.

We're gonna beat this thing. :bounce:

[Anywho6]

34. Just signed up to volunteer! n/t

[LeftyMom]

41. Thanks!

I'll probably see you then- I'm over on the other side of the causeway. :)

[Maat]

80. Great news (n/t)!

[Maat]

79. Yes we are!!!!

Yes we can (defeat it)!!!

Onward, eh, LeftyMom!

Onward, California Progressives!

[YvonneCa]

35. The problem is that this is what happened in the 2004...

...election. Gay marriage on the ballot brings out the Republican base to DEFEAT THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL candidate. In 2004 they used it in swing states...in 2008, it's California.

It's important to defeat it, but it will lead to a higher turnout of Repubs in California in November. :(

[jody]

68. Excellent point. n/t

[Maat]

78. You are quite correct, BUT ...

I'm hoping to be able to appeal to my nutty neighbors ... they are mightly angry right now, and somewhat pliable. I might not be able to get them to vote for or against certain things or people, but I believe that I can get them to take a pass on certain votes.

[truedelphi]

23. There is something much more sinister abt this

And here it is - when whacked out initiatives like this are on the ballot, the whacked out come out in force.

With this on the ballot, it is much more likely that the Repugs will take the state for McCain.

With CA being the most populous state in the Union, we can't afford to lose the state!

[YvonneCa]

36. And that's the real goal...

...just like in 2004.

[Frances]

7. I'm sure this will be another of those initiatives that are almost

impossible to interpret. In other words, you won't know if you are voting for it or against it, unless you check with someone who understands legalise.

I'll watch DU to see how to vote so that gay marriage remains legal.

[FreeState]

8. Surprisingly its easy to read this time....

http://ag.ca.gov/cms_pdfs/initiatives/i737_07-0068_Initiative.pdf

SECTION 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution to read :
Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California .


However there is still hope that even if it does pass it wont hold up because it would need to be revised not ammended:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x75554

"Article XVIII of the California Constitution allows for amendment of the Constitution by the Legislature, or initiative and revision of the Constitution by the Legislature, or a constitutional convention. There is no other method for revising or amending the Constitution. (Livermore v. Waite (1894) 102 Cal. 113, 117, 36 P. 424 (Livermore).)
“ ‘Amendment’ implies such an addition or change within the lines of the original instrument as will effect an improvement, or better carry out the purpose for which it was framed.” (Livermore, supra, 102 Cal. at pp. 118-119, 36 P. 424.)"

[Runcible Spoon]

9. Didn't Aaaaahnold say he was gonna veto it if it passed?

not to defend that sleaze, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[LeftyMom]

11. Initiatives don't work that way.

It's direct decision making by the people, and only the courts can overrule it. Initiatives are pretty commonly overruled without ever taking effect, notably with prop 187 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prop_187

[tidy_bowl]

26. This is an amendment to the Ca lifornia's state consitution .....

....it cannot be overturned buy the courts.

[LeftyMom]

28. As explained above, it could be

as there's a good chance they'd decide it's a revision (change of intent) rather than a revision (clarification of language) in which case the qualifications are higher.

[tidy_bowl]

24. The Governor can't veto an voter approved amendment....nt

[LeftyMom]

10. Fuck, I really thought they wouldn't have enough sigs.

:(

Oh well, guess that means I'll be doing more voter education between now and November.

[sakabatou]

12. I want it to be defeated

[bluestateguy]

13. Bring it on MoFo's

They are going to lose this time.

[Journeyman]

14. Well, the conservative State Court succeeded in getting California in play for November. . .

let's hope it doesn't have an impact in too many races. . .

[FreeState]

39. The court did no such thing - the signatures were turned in before they ruled /nt

[Journeyman]

42. And the Court's decision adds greater urgency to the backer's efforts. . .

more interest equates to larger turnout which brings additional contests into play.

[David__77]

65. Nonsense.

California is not "in play" for the Republicans. GOP registration is down and California has never been more progressive than now. Even Schwarzenegger opposes than amendment.

[Journeyman]

70. Excellent. You guarantee then this will have no impact on the tight races. . .

in conservative areas such as San Diego, or Orange or Fresno counties? Good to know those lands are now solidly progressive and the wingnuts won't be inspired in a bleak election year to come out against a favored shibboleth. Have you been so kind as to inform them of this, or do you need me to spread the word?

[David__77]

74. No of course than cannot be guaranteed.

I did not say that either. Indeed there will be people who will vote on both sides of this issue who otherwise would not vote at all.

This is a fight worth fighting. As I said, this was going to be on the ballot regardless of the court ruling, which was a correct one under the state constitution.

[msongs]

16. too bad obama supports it - he says leave it up to state bigots to decide nt

[davidinalameda]

27. he supports the amendment?

do you have a link or are you just blowing smoke out your ass again?

[Divine Discontent]

43. well... in effect, yes, he says that marriage is only between a man and a woman

so did my fave for president, John Edwards. Only Gravel and Kucinich were candidates for full legal rights for everyone. Both Obama and Edwards say they're for states to decide it however, and that civil unions should be law everywhere. This issue is the only one I really disagreed with Edwards, and now with Obama on. But I still strongly support him compared to McCain, as we all should!

[Maat]

81. You are quite correct to question that, Dwickham.

Obama has been a ConLaw instructor. He knows that this is a state issue, and that he cannot do anything as president to ensure marriage equality. The Supreme Court has held repeatedly that marriage matters fall within a state's power ("the police power" is what the concept is called)(see the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution).

Obama has NEVER said that he backs an amendment of this kind; he has merely said that this is a state issue. He is for extending federal rights to same-sex couples.

By the way, in law school, I went through the Code meticulously. Currently, for every right/responsibility a hetersexual married partner has, a registered domestic partner has that same right/responsibility. We have equalized the California Family Code, and Arnold completed that equalization (no matter what you think of him). What we are now fighting over is the term, "married," which has social meaning. I'm going to be out there fighting against this amendment wholeheartedly.

As to Federal benefits/rights/responsibilities (equalization at the Federal level), that is going to be a different fight; and, as I've said, Obama advocates for equalization at the Federal level. He just tends to use the term, "civil union."

[Iwillnevergiveup]

17. A lesson for all of us

Look how quickly these freaks got organized to fight this initiative. These are the ass-roots, not the grass roots, and we better get crackin'.

[saigon68]

20. Looks like a right wing Christian Hate Group

Another bunch of Fundy Nut-Jobs

Rove and his ilk are behind shit like this.

[gateley]

25. That's so true. nt

[FreeState]

40. The signatures were turned in weeks before the court ruled - it had nothing to do with it

and more to do with a 2004 type plan to spoil the presidential election.

[tomreedtoon]

18. California isn't that loving a place, is it?

The "little old ladies in tennis shoes" who used to come out for Barry Goldwater are continuing in a new generation. This time they're fed by Pat Robertson and the Republicans. They didn't learn anything about tolerance in school back in the 60's, but then, nobody learns anything in American schools anyway.

[LeftyMom]

33. It only takes 600,000 or so sigs to qualify for the ballot.

Out of howevermany million people, it isn't hard to find 600K bigoted assholes.

Outside of two counties (Orange in the south, and Placer in the north) California's real short on bigots and fundamentalpatients, most of them moved to cheaper, whiter places- usually Colorado- decades back.

[Tektonik]

84. Don't forget Fresno

I'm sure LOTS of the 600K are from the Fresno area.

[Freddie Stubbs]

19. Let the voters decide

[Solon]

38. Why should they decide on a civil rights issue involving minorities?

If voters decided on interracial marriage, it wouldn't have been legal in most states in this nation until the 1990s. If civil rights legislation wasn't strong armed by Johnson, it wouldn't have passed, and if left to the(White) voters of the South, Jim Crow would STILL be in effect today. Civil Rights should not be decided at the whim of the majority when it adversely affects a minority.

[Freddie Stubbs]

49. Then who should decide?

:shrug:

[slackmaster]

53. Ultimately it is the voters who decide

But it's a long process. Yes, LBJ pushed through civil rights legislation but if Congress had been less amenable he never would have been able to do that. Court decisions like the Loving case eventually ended bans on mixed-race marriage, but those judges were ultimately chosen by the people either through election or being appointed by elected officials.

The fight is far from over.

[Solon]

71. I think that's an oversimplification...

granted local judges are elected, even some state level judges, however federal level judges are appointed, and while the voters get to decide who gets to appoint judges, usually, after the decision, the judges are removed from the political process, at least, that's how its supposed to work, theoretically. This is part of the reason why the Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment, where the only way to remove a Judge is through impeachment, retirement(resignation), or death. This was designed so that the judges are removed from the current political climate so they can judge on the law and Constitution without consideration for the political ramifications.

[Solon]

69. The courts, as they have in the past...

Unless you think the courts shouldn't get involved in civil rights cases at all, from Brown vs. Board of Education to Loving vs. Virginia. There's also the relatively recent Sodomy ruling and many others that have expanded the civil rights of Americans over the years. This wasn't decided by the voters in a direct way, so it must be wrong, right?

[Freddie Stubbs]

75. Courts often make bad decisions like Plessy v. Ferguson

[Solon]

77. True, but voters make just as many bad decisions as well...

That doesn't mean Democracy or Judicial oversight of the same are completely negated, they both have a role to play in our Democracy, to prevent excesses from occurring in one direction or the other. Its part of checks and balances in this country, after all.

[Bluebear]

76. Should we be able to vote whether to ban your posting priveleges?

After all, majority rule, right?

[Freddie Stubbs]

82. The owners of this site can do that without any type of judicial review

[Towlie]

21. I told you so!

I predicted this a couple of weeks ago, and noted that it might help McCain in California by drawing out Republican voters.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3310962#3311498

[Beregond2]

22. This is a surprise?

I'm so weary of it all.

[Q3JR4]

32. I'm not all that worried.

If the California Supreme Court decides to stay its ruling, then we may have a bit of a fight on our hands. If not (I'm leaning on this end of the spectrum), then Californians have a couple of months to get used to the idea of two people who are in love marrying each other. We only need 50.1% of voters to vote against the amendment. With the support of the governor, campaign money from all across the nation pouring into California, and given enough time for people to get used to the idea I'm sure we'll get at least the 50.1%.

Q3JR4.
"The sky is not falling until I say it is." :P - Q3JR4

[YvonneCa]

37. But it's not about gay marriage...

...really...it's about turning out the Republican base in November. This was done in 2004...they are USING the gay marriage issue to win the presidential race.

[Divine Discontent]

44. Okay, but if McSame were to win California, and thus the presidency, I certainly

wouldn't stay in this country. It is going to be very unlikely that he wins in California. At best he gets 46, MAYBE 47%, because even if some people are going to vote for it, a large segment, whether it be 30% or 50% are going to vote for Obama, for even he says he believes marriage is between a man and a woman. I'm not worried, but California Democrats still have to work and GOTV in November, but that's everywhere - and beating McSame is gonna be sweet.


new Obama items weekly!
www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable

[sam sarrha]

50. that is how W got elected Governor, Rove had fly'n monkeys put fliers on every car in every church

parking lot, the weeks before the election, that said his opponent was a lesbian with an agenda to turn every child in public school into a homosexual.. so they elected a wet brain alcoholic, burnt out drug addict, AWOL DESERTER.. who never had a job in his life.. or earned anything on his own merit.. Governor of Texas... good thing the government only meets every 2 years or he really could have F'd everything up.

[Divine Discontent]

45. me either... if McSame wins Cali, our nation is over - so I know CA Dems will work to prevent that!

[xchrom]

51. ...

:grr: :nuke: :grr:

[dysfunctional press]

60. this could turn california bright red come november...

this is NOT a good thing.

[mike_c]

61. that was even faster than I expected....

I expect it will pass, too. If it doesn't, it will go back on the ballot next year, and the year after, and so on until the wing nuts are too exhausted to sign petitions.

[HockeyMom]

62. On Florida ballot also

Given this state, it will probably pass.

[Freddie Stubbs]

63. It will likely fail in Florida

The state constitution was changed last year so that any constitutional amendment needs to get 60% of the vote to be ratified.

[David__77]

66. What's with all the defeatism on this thread?? This was gonna be on the ballot anyway.

They had gotten the signatures for this prior to the state court ruling. The righties would have mobilized on it regardless. Now we can countermobilize there are millions in this state who support equal rights and will do the right thing. Many new voters will vote FOR equal rights.

[slackmaster]

85. But the prospect of the ruling provided impetus for the ballot measure

It works both ways, and will continue to do so for some time (i.e. until the problem is resolved at the federal level).