There were people dancing in the streets of California last night...

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

There were people dancing in the streets of California last night celebrating a symbolic advance of human rights after voting earlier in the day for a very non-symbolic stripping of human rights from someone else.

I don't care what color they are. Anyone who voted for prop 8 who is walking around today beaming about how we struck a blow against intolerance in electing Obama is beneath my contempt.

And everyone on DU, and there are many today, who complains that mentioning the fact that Democrats lined up around the block to strip a class of citizens of an existing right interferes with their celebratory buzz can go to Hell.

And the DU apologists who want to "put it in perspective" by talking about church traditions and acculturation might as well spin their gibberish defending the KKK because the KKK people are also operating within a cultural and religious tradition and following the values with which they were raised.

And president elect Obama, thanks for taking our money to help fund efforts to get out the pro Prop 8 vote. That was awesome. Funny how you could inspire people to stand in the rain for hours to vote, or whatever, but couldn't inspire them to not vote for bigotry. Or is it "wouldn't"? (Like when you "couldn't" cancel a certain SC fund-raiser.)

I think that covers it.

I am delighted that Mister Obama will get to make some court appointments but I think I'm done following politics for a while.

Bye.

[msongs]

1. they got theirs and took away yours. well religious believers are like that nt

[tekisui]

2. It's not over.

I am shocked that bill passed. It likely won't get ratified, but it is offensive that as many voted for it did.

[TomInTib]

7. I think some people were simply confused. I know I was.

Since I am not registered to vote, I don't follow the Props on the State slate.

I was astounded and pissed off by all of my neighbors and their "No on 8" stickers and signs.

I thought they were against same-sex marriage and common rights.

But I kept it to myself until we were driving along and I mentioned it to GF.

Hell, I had it ass-backward the whole time.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

3. .

[dubeskin]

4. I'm actually viewing it quite positively and am pleased

Just hold on a second before you flame me. Clearly, now that Prop 8 has passed, people are pissed and are going to sue. Now, since it's an amendment to the State Constitution, the California Supreme Court can't touch it. HOWEVER, the SCOTUS can. I'm quite optimistic though about this. Obama was nominated, and we all know we're going to get, minimum, another Supreme Court Justice in there. Now, assuming that the suit takes long enough, by the time it gets to the SCOTUS, it will be heavily in our favor. Now, what I'd assume would happen, is revolutionary, something as big as Brown vs. Board.

The SCOTUS comes out and says something like "Proposition 8, as passed by the voters of California, is illegal. It violates the Constitution by restricting the fundamental rights to citizens of this great country. Therefore, Proposition 8 and it's effects have been repealed. Likewise, in conjunction with similar lawsuits currently in our justice system, we hereby revoke the power of the state to determine issues of marriage, and in doing so, assume those powers to the Federal Government. In such a way, marriage for people of any color, race, language, sexuality, gender, or name are hereby entitled to the pursuit of happiness and equality under the law. Hence forth, marriage for any person is legal in these United States."

It's the ultimate "Fuck you" to states's right-people, and it nullifies any bans on gay marriage anywhere else.

[FreeState]

5. No the CA Supreme Court CAN over rule it

ITs not over on a state level at all yet. It does not matter what the electorate votes for the CA Supreme Court has in the past ruled them invalid and will again if fairness rules the day...

Edit to add:

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/upload/Autumn/LegalGroupsFileLawsuitChallengingProp8.pdf


Legal Groups File Lawsuit Challenging Proposition 8, Should it Pass
Legal Papers Claim Initiative Procedure Cannot Be Used To Undermine the Constitution’s Core Commitment To
Equality For Everyone

SAN FRANCISCO – The American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights filed a writ petition before the California Supreme Court today urging the court to invalidate Proposition 8 if it passes. The petition charges that Proposition 8 is invalid because the initiative process was improperly used in an attempt to undo the constitution’s core commitment to equality for everyone by eliminating a fundamental right from just one group – lesbian and gay Californians. Proposition 8 also improperly attempts to prevent the courts from exercising their essential constitutional role of protecting the equal protection rights of minorities. According to the California Constitution, such radical changes to the organizing principles of state government cannot be made by simple majority vote through the initiative process, but instead must, at a minimum, go through the state legislature first.

The California Constitution itself sets out two ways to alter the document that sets the most basic rules about how state government works. Through the initiative process, voters can make relatively small changes to the constitution. But any measure that would change the underlying principles of the constitution must first be approved by the legislature before being submitted to the voters. That didn’t happen with Proposition 8, and that’s why it’s invalid.

“If the voters approved an initiative that took the right to free speech away from women, but not from men, everyone would agree that such a measure conflicts with the basic ideals of equality enshrined in our constitution. Proposition 8 suffers from the same flaw – it removes a protected constitutional right – here, the right to marry – not from all Californians, but just from one group of us,” said Jenny Pizer, a staff attorney with Lambda Legal. “That’s too big a change in the principles of our constitution to be made just by a bare majority of voters.”

“A major purpose of the constitution is to protect minorities from majorities. Because changing that principle is a fundamental change to the organizing principles of the constitution itself, only the legislature can initiate such revisions to the constitution,” added Elizabeth Gill, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California.

[dubeskin]

6. I was under the impression, as were my close friends and moms

That amendments to the State Constitution could only be "considered" by the SCOTUS, not the state Supreme Courts.

But if what you say is true, it kind of makes me disappointed. I was hoping for an across the board sweep from the Justice Dept.

[TechBear_Seattle]

10. Wow

Maybe, just maybe, something can be done. Thank you for posting this.

:hug:

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

8. The battle's just started. You might want to keep in it for a bit longer.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.