They passed a law similar to Prop 8 here in Wisconsin in 2006

[smoogatz]

in the midst of what was otherwise a historic Dem sweep (almost), further extended by the 2008 election. My sense then, and now, is that though the disconnect was/is weird, it's not entirely unexplainable. In fact, it's simple: like it or not, except in the most progressive regions of the country, it's pretty clear that the majority of voters still aren't ready for gay marriage. I think it's a generational bias, one not shared by the bulk of under-40 voters. I also think that in ten or twenty years you'll see these types of amendments being overturned across the country. And I think it's likely that an Obama Supreme Court may rule, given the opportunity, that such amendments to state constitutions clearly violate the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. That said, I share the GLBT community's disappointment, and empathize with their anger, over these temporary setbacks.

[Ian David]

1. One big flu pandemic would solve this problem.

I'm not saying that everyone should refuse to get a flu vaccine, and then never wash their hands, and then volunteer at nursing homes in Republican districts or anything, though.

Nor am I saying I WANT a flu pandemic.

[smoogatz]

2. Time will solve it, too, most likely.

Only slower. Oh, and the 1917 Spanish flu hit mostly healthy young people between 20 and 40; H5N1 is a close relative of that flu. Just sayin'.

[Ian David]

3. The Spanish Flu was spread disproportionately by young men returning home from WWI.

That would skew the infected people younger- young men returning home from war and the wives who greeted them.

Today, many of our elderly are warehoused in cramped, crowded unsanitary nursing homes.

[smoogatz]

4. Maybe.

There also just weren't as many old people around; they didn't live as long in 1918.

[Independent_Voice]

5. Two big differences...

The Constitutional Amendment that passed in Wisconsin not only defined marriage as between one man and one woman but it also precluded the possibility of same-sex civil unions being recognized in the state (which I'm ashamed to admit is my birthplace).

Proposition 8, while mean-spirited and antiprogressive, only defines marriage (one man, one woman) in the state constitution...it says nothing about civil unions or the domestic partnership registry.

They were trying to pass another proposition (similar to those passed in Wisconsin and Michigan) that would dissolve California's domestic partnership registry on top of banning same-sex marriage, but they didn't get another signatures for that one.

****

Secondly, Prop 8 went on the ballot due to the 600,000 signatures collected from actual voters. The Wisconsin Constitutional Amendment was passed by both houses of the legislature to go before voters; actually, it had to go through both houses TWICE, since Governor Doyle vetoed it the first time around and they needed to approve it a second time to override Doyle's veto and send it before voters. The Assembly and Senate were both controlled by Republicans after the 2002 and 2004 elections...so they really pounced.

Basically, the Wisconsin Constitutional Amendment is much worse, because Proposition 8 can be overturned a lot more easily. In order for the Wisconsin Constitutional Amendment to be overturned, a reversal would need to go through both the Assembly and Senate again, approved by the governor, and then put on the ballot before voters AGAIN.

[smoogatz]

6. Absolutely right.

The Wisconsin amendment went beyond the merely bigoted into the realm of the punitive.