Prop 8, what I understand, and what I don't...

[Peacetrain]

Prop 8 was the ballot initiative to stop gay marriages after the courts in California overturned the last election results, when they voted no to gay marriage.

I think I understand that part.

This is the part I do not understand.

If the courts overruled one election results, will they overrule this second one and will it go to another vote by the public?

Seems to me that it would.

Things in California seem to be going in a circular firing squad.

Or do I have this thing totally bass ackwards??

[amdezurik]

1. the equal protection clause in our state constitution

will require the courts to strike it down.

[Peacetrain]

2. Then it is back to another vote?

That is what I thought, but was trying to see where that would end

[amdezurik]

4. at least until the morman church gets it's tax exemtion yanked,

it might stop then, but bigotry has a way of rearing it's head in new guises...

[Peacetrain]

7. I was reading some of the threads, and trying to get a feel for what

happened, and it seems to me, much more of a religious confrontation.

[dems_rightnow]

8. Can courts strike down a Constitutional provision?

Is it not the highest law? I suspect that they cannot.

[amdezurik]

12. AFAIK the existing clause would have to be

invalidated first, since they are in direct conflict.

[tsuki]

3. What I cannot understand is this:

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/c-status08/total_unprocessed_ballots08.pdf

2,738,695 uncounted votes

How can you call anything this close with 2,738,695 uncounted votes

[Peacetrain]

5. Oh my God that is a lot of uncounted votes!!

[tsuki]

68. I thought so. In LA, there were 239,096 provisional ballots.

Sounds awfully high to me, but I live in a more or less rural area.

[Unvanguard]

10. Because they have a several hundred thousand vote lead.

And the proportions are not going to radically switch with the new votes.

[EFerrari]

69. Thank you! I'm very disappointed in the No on H8 leadership

for conceding before our votes are even counted.

[tsuki]

72. But, isn't that a lot? Maybe even enough to change the election?

[EFerrari]

73. We need more than half a millions votes IF the totals are correct

as they are.

[AntiFascist]

6. Check into the lawsuits by Lambda Legal, Gloria Allred and others...

if Prop. 8 is deemed to be a revision to the state constitution then it must be passed by 2/3 majority of both houses of the state legislature (or in a constitutional convention) before being put to a popular vote. This was not done.

[dems_rightnow]

11. Not true

California voters can put a Constitutional amendment on the ballot by initiative, without legislative approval. They would have to gather signatures equal to 8% of the votes for governor in the previous election.

Was it put on the ballot by gathering signatures? I don't know, not from California.

[Peacetrain]

16. If they had 5% signatures, do they have to verify those names

before the initiative can be put on the ballot?

[Unvanguard]

18. Yes, and I'm fairly sure they did. Those legal battles are over. n/t

[dems_rightnow]

20. I was wrong, it's 8%

So I changed my post.

The names are put available to challenge in my state, prior to putting it on the ballot. Once it's on the ballot, it's too late to challenge them. That's my state, but I suspect California is similar.

[AntiFascist]

25. Not in the case of a REVISION to the constitution...

The Prop 8 people were operating under the assumption that this is only an amendment to the constitution. Since gay marriage was established by the CA Supreme Court under the Equal Protection clause, the case is being made that Prop. 8 must then revise the meaning of the constitution. This really is pretty straightforward. Amendments are only meant to clarify the existing Constitution.

[Peacetrain]

13. So let me make sure I understand..

So this needs to go through the legislature first, then the ballot.

If the courts ruled one way, and it was supposed to go to the legislature, it should have never been on the ballot yet?

Am I understanding that correctly?

[Unvanguard]

17. If the courts rule that it is a "revision", then it will be invalidated.

And the legislature would never vote two-thirds to put a new proposition on the ballot; this is the same legislature that twice attempted to legalize same-sex marriage, but was stopped by the governor's veto.

[Peacetrain]

19. So no matter if the votes were there or not, then prop 8

could not become part of the state constitution?

[Unvanguard]

21. Yes. IF the courts rule that way.

They may not. My "somewhat knowledgeable amateur" opinion is that they won't.

[Peacetrain]

22. Thank you for your patience and answering all these questions

It really helps

[Unvanguard]

26. You're welcome. Glad to help. n/t

[Unvanguard]

9. It's a constitutional amendment. The courts can't overrule it.

Unless they rule that it's a "revision" instead of an "amendment"--different and steeper grounds that the ones under which they overturned Prop. 22, which banned same-sex marriage but wasn't a constitutional amendment.

And if they did that, the court's ruling couldn't be stopped through initiative, only through a proposed revision by two-thirds of the legislature, which would never happen.

(But it probably won't. Prop. 8 will almost certainly pass legal scrutiny.)

[Nikki Stone1]

14. That is depressing as hell

:(

[Unvanguard]

15. It is, yes. But don't give up hope.

We may lose this battle. But we will continue fighting, and in the end we will win.

Four years ago, we had one state where it was legal--Massachusetts--and it was under threat there. Now we have two states where it is legal--Massachusetts and Connecticut--and it is probably secure in both of them. And we have thousands of same-sex couples in California who may well keep their marriages (that one could go either way), and a fourth state, New York, that now recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

We're making progress. They will not stop us.

[dems_rightnow]

24. I agree with that

Eventually this war will be won. It's not easy, the way the Civil Rights Amendment was not easy. In our lifetime people will look back with wonder that it was ever "illegal".

[Nikki Stone1]

30. Will we have to put another proposition with an amendment to counter this one?

Lordy, it could be amendment after amendment. The issue needs to be decided for once and for all, LEGALLY. This back and forth is frustrating.

[Unvanguard]

33. Yes, we will. But that's easy in California, as our opponents have proven.

Time is on our side. And ultimately, whether through federal constitutional amendment or Supreme Court decision, we will get it done nationally.

[Nikki Stone1]

34. True enough

Sigh

[AntiFascist]

28. I don't agree...

the CA Supreme Court ruled that there was a conflict with the Equal Protection clause. That conflict still remains, so the CA Supreme Court would have to rule that the meaning of the Equal Protection clause also gets changed, thus it becomes a revision.

[Unvanguard]

32. Unfortunately, that's not how the standard works.

All amendments change constitutions; that's the point. Previous amendments, declared valid by the courts, have gone so far as to restrict court interpretation of particular rights in the California Constitution.

The thing that would make it a "revision" is not that it changes something about the California Constitution, but that it changes it in a way that constitutes a far-reaching change to the government plan of California.

The precedent people are citing in this case is Raven v. Deukmejian, where the Court struck down an amendment that restricted defendants' rights protected by the California Constitution. But the Supreme Court of California ruled in that case that it was illegitimate NOT because it reduced the rights provided by the Constitution, but because it was a broad restriction on court authority to interpret the individual rights in the California Constitution. Narrow restrictions are another matter entirely: they had passed scrutiny before.

Prop. 8, since it in no sense restricts the Court's ability to rule on equal protection issues in a broad sense, but only with respect to same-sex marriage, strikes me as easily narrow enough to pass scrutiny.

[AntiFascist]

37. Have you read the actual complaint?

Previously it was ruled that gays and lesbians are considered a Suspect Class which gives us immunable rights. They also ruled that the right to marriage is a Fundamental Right. This is unique in comparison to other state's rulings defeating gay marriage. In the spirit of how the CA Supreme Court has ruled in the past, I don't see Prop. 8 having a very good chance of success.

[Unvanguard]

40. Not in its entirety, but I know what it says.

Neither of the elements you mention (both of which I was already aware of) change the way this works.

Suspect classification is just an element of equal protection that requires the state to meet a very high standard ("strict scrutiny") when justifying a discriminatory procedure. But amending the Constitution as Prop. 8 does takes same-sex marriage out of the realm of equal protection (or, at least, the recent court interpretation of equal protection), so that's immaterial. (Does this count as a "revision"? No: it is a specific, highly narrow exception, not a broad restriction on court authority.)

As for the right to marriage being a "fundamental right", this changes nothing, because the supporters of Prop. 8 can point out that, "fundamental" or not, marriage rights are already limited in a variety of ways. Limiting them further in response to a specific court decision hardly constitutes a massive revision in the way the California government works.

To put it simply, the grounds the California Supreme Court ruled on in In re Marriage Cases don't apply post-Prop. 8 (well, they apply in other contexts, but not to same-sex marriage). You have to make a separate argument to make the case that it is a "revision" rather than an "amendment", and none of the arguments presented are particularly strong.

[AntiFascist]

42. I'm not an attorney myself, but it seems that to put it simply...

Prop 8 is trying to take away a Fundamental Right from a Suspect Class. I would think that being a member of all suspect classes, and a fundamental right amongst all fundamental rights, automatically prevents this from being considered a "narrow exception". One might as well be trying to argue that illegal aliens don't have the right to marry if it were put to a popular vote and won.

On edit: in other words, in the future other suspect classes may have their fundamental rights taken away as well, if this is allowed to pass.

[Unvanguard]

43. Those are all standards applied to ordinary laws, though.

Not constitutional amendments.

The issue for an amendment is not whether it would be ruled unconstitutional if it were an ordinary law (as Prop. 8 would), but whether it is a revision, which implies a more radical change to the way the California government does things.

The "slippery slope" argument you (and the people challenging this in court) present is a very good one--the slope is very genuinely slippery--but the trouble is that it is not particularly relevant to Prop. 8. It is really an objection not to Prop. 8 (which is narrow in its scope and has nothing to do with the marriage rights of illegal immigrants) but to California's absurdly easy amendment process, which is general and does indeed allow for the sorts of abuses of civil liberties to which you refer.

But the courts certainly cannot overturn that. You would need a revision of the Constitution to change it, not a court decision.

Edit: I'm not an attorney either, nor a legal expert in any professional sense, but I know a little about equal protection cases on the federal level, and I've read a great deal about Prop. 8 and the surrounding legalities before and after its passage.

[AntiFascist]

47. So, from the point of view of the "governmental plan"...

would you agree that it might be a mistake to allow such amendments if, in the future, it opens the door to other amendments that might strip away fundamental rights from members of suspect classes? In this case, the CA Supreme Court does have to take into consideration its governmental plan.

[Unvanguard]

49. The question is not strictly whether it would be a "mistake to allow such amendments."

Certainly I think it would be. The California Supreme Court may well agree with me there.

But Prop. 8, specifically, does not open the door to any such thing. The door was already open, due to the nature of CA's amendment process. The danger of amendments depriving people of rights is inherent in the way that amendment process works--indeed, my understanding is that it already happened before Prop. 8, and at least sometimes it has been upheld.

If you want to close the door, you have to change that process--and the courts can't do that.

(But, yes, if I'm wrong and the CA Supreme Court rules against Prop. 8--and I will be delighted if they do--they will probably do it on the basis you put forth.)

[AntiFascist]

52. Thanks! At least you gave me a little hope...

The question would seem to be whether taking away Fundamental Rights of a Suspect Class should be considered "narrow" or perhaps "broad" in terms of the governmental plan: where in the future it would open the door to other narrowly defined, yet fundamental rights being taken away from other suspect clsses.

Is there any case in the past where a CA constitutional amendment was upheld which specifically took away a Fundamental Right from a Suspect Class?

[Unvanguard]

53. I don't believe so. But I think the "narrowness" aspect will carry it.

Certainly constitutional rights in general have been abridged by amendment, and the amendments have been upheld: In re Lance W. and People v. Frierson are the relevant cases, or so I understand.

Here's a blog post on the subject, from someone who probably knows more about the topic than me.

[AntiFascist]

56. From that same website, I found further arguments supporting my argument...

whether a proposition is regarded as an amendment or a revision is determined by qualitative as well as quantitative factors:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_11_02-2008_11_08.shtml#1226036505

"The California Supreme Court has held that the difference between an amendment and a revision turns on both "quantitative and qualitative" factors, and that "substantial changes in either respect could amount to a revision." Raven, 52 Cal. 3d at 350 (emphasis added). Thus, even if we thought that Prop 8 affected relatively few constitutional provisions (say, the state's equal protection and due-process guarantees), changes to these provisions might be regarded as "substantial qualitative" reforms in the content of basic constitutional principles.

...

I can see an argument, along the lines implied by Professor Bainbridge and Eugene, that more deliberation and consensus should be required before extensive and numerous changes are made in the basic design of state government. This is because such changes involve great complexity and have far-reaching consequences that should not be decided by dueling 30-second TV ads. The distinction between revision and amendment is thus a procedural protection for the basic design of government.

But I can also see an argument, offered by those challenging Prop 8, that more deliberation (through the legislative process) and more consensus (than a bare majority vote in an election) should also be required before a majority strips a fundamental right from 3% of the population. Otherwise, fundamental constitutional rights enjoy no more protection from majorities than ordinary statutory rights. And protected minorities have no more protection against majorities than those majorities themselves see fit to grant them by grace. The revision/amendment distinction, on this view, is a structural mechanism (embedded in the state constitution itself) for shielding these vulnerable minorities against hostile majorities."

[Unvanguard]

60. Not convincing.

Prop. 8 is not a far-reaching alteration of the "qualitative" content of equal protection or fundamental rights, either; again, it concerns one particular issue.

As for the argument that the revision/amendment distinction might be designed to protect minority rights, I just don't see any support for that--everything I've read about past precedent (see also the analysis by Bainbridge that is mentioned in the post you linked to, and the analysis by Massey that is linked to in the "Update" at the end) seems to indicate that the concern is mainly "procedural."

Indeed, Carpenter himself essentially admits this:

"Even as a doctrinal and precedential matter, moreover, the narrowest reading of the California precedents is probably closer to the view expressed by Professor Bainbridge and Eugene than it is to the view expressed by the Prop 8 challengers. The state courts are perfectly free to limit the precedents to their facts and thus dismiss the Prop 8 challenge. Prop 8 doesn't involve numerous or profound changes in the basic structure of state government."

[AntiFascist]

63. But you did admit earlier that Prop 8 IS precedent setting...

in that there has never been a Fundamental Right (as declared by the CA Supreme Court) ever stripped from a Suspect Class, by a proposition that has won by a simple majority. I would argue that this is "far reaching" because it allows a simple majority, influenced by false advertising, to place into law discrimination against a minority. This goes against the basic principles of our state government, and significantly alters the state government plan.

[Unvanguard]

64. I'm not sure where I admitted that.

I don't think it is (at least not in any relevant sense); my point from the start has been that the substantive "minority rights" objection being made to Prop. 8 has nothing to do with the measure in itself, but rather with the procedure laid out for such constitutional amendments in the California Constitution (which was open for abuse long before Prop. 8, and indeed has been abused before it.)

[AntiFascist]

65. In post 53, where you said "I don't believe so"...

the CA state supreme court could just as easily withdraw Proposition 8 on these grounds because this would set a dangerous precedent, the "slippery slope" if you will that runs counter to the governmental plan. This could be cited in future case law to prevent a simple majority from removing "Fundamental Rights" from a Suspect Class.

[Unvanguard]

66. I see what you're saying now.

It would indeed be (to my limited knowledge) the first instance of an amendment of this particular sort. But it would not be "precedent-setting" in the sense that I think the removal of other constitutional rights would have been just as possible prior to Prop. 8 as afterward. (The court decision to let it through would indeed be precedent-setting, but that's not a valid reason to decide otherwise if letting it through is the best interpretation of the constitutional law.)

The trouble with the "slippery slope" argument is that I don't see how it conflicts with the "government plan": using initiatives and majority votes to amend the Constitution (which, the CA Supreme Court has ruled, includes passing laws to take away specific constitutional rights) is explicitly in the "government plan."

That's the problem--and that's not something the courts can solve.

[AntiFascist]

67. Here is a "governmental plan" related argument someone used to support the previous lawsuit...

which attempted to remove the ballot measure:

http://blogcabinca.org/category/california-politics/


THE RIGHT TO MARRY:

I find that same-gender marriage may, on its face, appear to be a relatively simple enactment but it has accomplished such far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan by affecting and broadening an individual’s interest in personal autonomy protected by the right of privacy, the liberty interest protected by the due process clause, and the independent substantive right to marry, as well as equal protection. Therefore, a simple amendment that, “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California,” is not a mere amendment but amounts to wholesale evisceration and revision of at least three separate portions of the California Constitution that are not addressed in the initiative.

[depakid]

38. While I'm not completely objective on the matter, I found the arguments persuasive

The real question is whether the Proposition alters the the fundamental and traditional role of the courts in protecting minorities from "tyranny of a simple majority."

Seems to me that in context of the Supreme Court's ruling (which held that sexual orientation is a "suspect classification," or, more commonly- a "suspect class") that it does.

Here's the decision:

http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2008-05/38894545.PDF

In terms of the usual paradigm, suspect classes involve race, ethnicity or religion. Federal constitutional mandates aside, to uphold Prop would be saying through direct democracy that they can ban hispanics from doing _________ fill in the blank.

With a suspect class, you're in whole new territory.

The closest correlate might be Loving v. Virginia, although courts have been willing and able to distinguish the case from the present situation on various (and to some extent reasonable grounds).

Nevertheless, once there's a suspect classification, courts apply the standard known as strict scrutiny to statutes (and perhaps to initiatives that are "promulgated" like statutes). Prohibiting them from doing so seems to me to be a radical alteration (i.e. a revision) to the way the courts' traditionally consider and rule on such matters.

[Unvanguard]

41. Your analysis of suspect classification is accurate.

But like the people litigating this, you neglect to consider the distinction between breadth and narrowness that has characterized past CA court decisions on this issue.

Nothing in Prop. 8 states that the courts cannot generally apply strict scrutiny to cases of discrimination, or even to cases of discrimination that involve sexual orientation. Prop. 8's scope, legally speaking, is very narrow: it restricts the courts from doing so only in the context of legalizing same-sex marriage.

That hardly constitutes any fundamental alteration in the role of the courts. They still can generally protect minority rights, they just can't in this particular instance.

Awful and bigoted... but not unconstitutional.

[depakid]

44. Abstracting- under the principles of common law

Once the Supreme Court of a state (or the US Supreme Court) has ruled a group to be a suspect class- it follows different standards of review.

Once a group- be it Native Americans, Hispanics or any other is held to be a suspect class, altering the standard of review in any given case opens up a slippery slope in all cases.

That the issue at hand appears narrow- and appears to be context bound, doesn't mean that it is.

Changing the standard of review in any instance- legitimizes changes on the standard of review for all suspect classes.

[Unvanguard]

46. No, it simply doesn't.

I'm not sure why you think it would.

Prop. 8 does not say, "California courts may not apply strict scrutiny to equal protection cases." Prop. 8 says, "Only marriages between a man and a woman are valid or recognized in California." (That's from memory, the wording may be slightly off.)

The motive behind the amendment, its supporters can easily argue, was not any objection to equal protection as such, but rather an objection to a particular court interpretation of equal protection in a single legal context. And, indeed, the wording itself is tailored to that end: it has no implications whatsoever for cases that don't relate to same-sex marriage.

As I said to Anti-Fascist, it seems to me that the substantive part of this complaint would be directed more justly not at Prop. 8 but at California's easy amendment process, which does indeed broadly allow for this sort of abuse. But the courts cannot overturn that.

[depakid]

50. Missing my Witkin at the moment

Seems to me that what you're saying is one can narrowly tailor arguments to acheieve an end result in a specific case that doesn't pass muster once you climb a rung or two on the ladder of abstraction.

The bizarre statement in Bush v. Gore is a prime example of that- results oriented jurisprudence (i.e. paraphrase- nothing we say here has any value as precedent) comes to mind.

[Unvanguard]

51. You're missing the point.

Yes, it's true, one basis for objecting to the CA Supreme Court's decision could be that its equal protection standards are too stringent. But nothing in the language of Prop. 8, or even in the rhetoric of its supporters, suggest anything of the sort.

The other basis for objecting to the CA Supreme Court's decision would not have anything to do with the stringency of its equal protection standards as such, but rather to their specific application to the issue of "traditional" marriage: opponents of the decision could argue, "Keeping marriage between a man and a woman is so important that even a stringent equal protection standard shouldn't stop it", or "As long as equal legal rights are granted to all (through civil unions), equal protection has nothing to do with it." The first argument has no bearing on other equal protection cases, and the second argument has only minimal such bearing.

You and I may find such arguments absurd--I do, certainly--but we are not the people of California, and the Court's job is not to rule on the wisdom or the rationality of the justifications of Prop. 8 but simply to consider whether it in fact constitutes a far-reaching change to California's governing principles.

Edit: You also fail to consider that there is a difference between a legal argument and a constitutional amendment. A legal argument, yes, should be founded in standards applicable to other cases. But a constitutional amendment need not be: it may just constitute a specific exemption to a general principle that is deemed valid.

[AntiFascist]

54. But, please keep in mind that the CA Supreme Court also ruled that...

marriage is a Fundamental Right. In this case, Civil Unions providing the same legal rights as marriage is not the same as granting the same fundamental right. In fact, the CA Supreme Court argued at great length that a separate designation is considered a lower class or second class designation.

[Unvanguard]

55. Right, that's why changing it required a constitutional amendment.

The point is that the constitutional amendment does not by implication delegitimize other equal protection cases.

[depakid]

57. You're still not getting it

Article XVIII of the California Constitution seems fairly clear on the point.

If the people of California- as represented by their legisature, want to make sweeping changes to paradigms like fundamental rights analysis- they can surely do so within the ambit of of the California Constitution, provided that it's consistent with federal law.

Unfortunately, someone has to say that your grasp of how common law works is wrong. Wish it didn't have to be me.

[Unvanguard]

58. That doesn't address at all the issue of whether it is an "amendment" or a "revision."

Article XVIII simply clarifies that a two-thirds vote is needed for the legislature to propose either.

[depakid]

59. Changing a fundamental- and damn near univerallly accepted paradigm

an accepted standard of review used thoughout the states (used and confirmed time and again by the US Supreme Court for 30+ years) looks like a revision to me.

Now, if you don't agree that sexual orientation is a suspect classifaction- the California Supreme Court's holding is wrongly decided.

There are avenues to overturn that decision. But what it looks like from reading the law is that Proposition 8 wasn't one of them.

[Unvanguard]

61. No such "paradigm" is being altered.

We've been over this already: Prop. 8 does not challenge the court treatment of suspect classification, nor does it challenge the court treatment of fundamental rights. It doesn't even contest the court judgment that sexual orientation is a suspect classification, or that marriage is a fundamental right.

What it does, even if you are inclined to generalize it as a standard reflecting on equal protection (though why you would, considering that it's an amendment and not a court decision, is not clear to me), is very easy to limit to same-sex marriage cases alone--under the assumption that protecting "traditional" marriage should have passed even a stringent standard of scrutiny.

[depakid]

62. Whoa

That's as bizarre a set of rationalizations as I've ever heard.

Not even sure how one might rationally respond to respond to that.

[justiceischeap]

45. Does California have a law against gender discrimination?

Could Prop 8 not be fought on that front as well if there is a gender discrimination law? It would be a weird end-around but it could work. I mean, isn't that how "equal" marriage passed in Canada?

Either way, it seems to me that this will eventually end up before the SCOTUS. There are roughly 43 states in the US that are discriminating against gay people. So, eventually, to overturn all the laws, it will have to become a Federal law. If my fuzzy logic is correct, winning in California will go a long way in helping nationally. If the decision for In Re: Marriage Cases is based upon the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, then California sets the precedent for Equal Protection anti-discrimination that can be taken to the SCOTUS to overturn the rest (should Prop 8 be defeated in the court).

[Unvanguard]

48. In re Marriage Cases was not decided on Fourteenth Amendment grounds.

It was decided by a state court on the basis of state equal protection guarantees. No precedent was set for the federal Constitution.

[TheWraith]

23. Prop 8 amends the California constitution. It can't be overruled except by a federal court. nt

[AntiFascist]

31. Not true, amendments have been overruled in the past....

as recently as 1990, in the case of an amendment trying to strip felons of certain rights.

The Lambda Legal argument is extremely educational if people take the time to read it.

[depakid]

27. "will they overrule this second one?"

There are pretty solid legal arguments that Prop 8 is attempting to revise the California Constitution in fundamental ways that effect the role of the courts and the legislature- as opposed to adding a simple amendment to it.

To revise the California Constitution in this manner seems to require a legislative referral- a referrendum, and not just a straight up vote of the people.

You can find those arguments on page 18 of the Petition for Writ of Mandate here:

http://data.lambdalegal.org/in-court/downloads/strauss_ca_20081105_writ-petition.pdf

(unfortunately, I can't copy and paste excerpts of the relevant arguments from the PDF, so those interested will have to scroll down for themselves.

[Peacetrain]

29. Thank you!..the more information the better

I think I am beginning to understand some of the complexities of the issue.

[Cleita]

35. We have a problem in California with our initiative process.

Things that are clearly unconstitutional and that violate human rights should never even get to the initiative stage, but they do over and over again. I wish our legislators would address this once and for all.

Banning gay marriage is no different than forbidding people of different races to marry. It's a violation of human rights and constitutional rights.

[jeepnstein]

36. Of course they're running in circles.

The whole culture war thing is a way for the Republicans to charge up their base and get them to the polls. Can you think of a better way to do that than defending their "family values" against the forcible teaching of homosexual behavior in the schools, gay marriage, and whatever other kind of madness they can sell to the base? They don't give a hoot about gay rights or who sleeps with who but they do really want to keep Republicans in office.

When you see Mormons and Pentecostals getting together to work on a project, you can be sure that someone other than the churches calling the shots. That's all Prop. 8 is about, keeping Republican control of the government. There's no reason any Christian church should be arm in arm with the Mormons.

The really fun part of this is that the base keeps falling for it every time and they never see the pattern. Someone writes a really flawed ballot initiative, the base goes to war and gets it passed, a judge strikes down the faulty ballot initiative, the base gets ready to go to war again. I first noticed this pattern on the abortion issue and it seems to hold for all the other hot button religious conservative causes as well.

[prayin4rain]

39. I think the courts ruled that gay marriage was legal under the

Californian Constitution.... so then the people voted to amend the constitution.

[EFerrari]

70. It isn't obvious but gay marriage will win in California.

The trend here is FOR gay marriage. This time out, H8 did worse by more than ten points than last time.

It ain't over and we will prevail in the end.

[Peacetrain]

71. I was thinking about something along those lines when I got up this morning

I am a child of the late sixties and early seventies... There is no way for me to explain, how meaningful the election of Barack Obama is on so many levels.. But to be honest with you, I would have thought it would have happened earlier, because it seemed we were this youth movement that would move it along faster.

The point is, it happened. We can look at people for their qualities and not the amount of melanin their epidermis.

And I think you are right, but it never happens so easily. There are always these starts and stops. But change happens.

It does.

As long as people are true to their core values, it happens..