"Shall We Vote On YOUR Marriage Now?"

[ColbertWatcher]

It is sometimes called California's Bible Belt, with mega-churches running from Temecula to Wildomar and about 10,000 Mormons scattered throughout the valley.

Republicans outnumber Democrats nearly 2 to 1 here, making it the most conservative part of the largely conservative Inland Empire. Experts say the lure of affordable housing has provided a steady stream of newcomers who have expanded and solidified the Republican base -- a base more attuned to social than economic issues.

Results from Tuesday's election have not been broken out by precinct, but in 2004, President Bush easily won Temecula and Murrieta, defeating Sen. John Kerry with 40,113 votes to 17,318. In some neighborhoods, Bush won over 70% of the vote.

"I think it's fair to say they are more Bush conservative than Reagan conservative, in that faith and religion figure more into their thinking," said Shaun Bowler, a political science professor at UC Riverside.

(more)
--Election leaves gay couple feeling isolated in conservative bastion

[IndianaJones]

1. nice. nt.

[ColbertWatcher]

9. Thank you. n/t

[Hydra]

2. You know what? No marriage for anyone

Considering the rates of adultery, abuse and other problems, I just don't think straight people can handle it, myself included.

"Vote 'Yes' on the Abolish Marriage Amendment! Your divorce lawyer will hate you!"

[ColbertWatcher]

4. The government provides special privileges to married people.

Such as tax relief, hospital visitation rights, child custody rights, etc.

[Hydra]

7. I'm aware

And I wasn't being sarcastic. The people who wish to deny marriage rights to others often have disfunctional marriages. If anyone should lose the right, it should be THEM.

[Heidi]

26. With all due respect, adultery and abuse can occur in any committed relationship.

Marriage isn't the problem. The bigoted denial of equal human rights to 10 percent of our population _is_ a problem. Doing away with marriage wouldn't fix that problem.

[jeff30997]

3. Shall We Vote On Your Marriage Now?

(Well it had to be said again)

[NMMNG]

5. Bring it on, I say.

Fair is fair after all, and anybody who thinks human rights are something to be put to "the will of the people" should be the first to offer theirs up to the popular vote.

BTW, I've had this for months and they're selling like hotcakes now.

[ColbertWatcher]

8. Good for you!

Since you have a Cafe Press account, may I suggest another saying to add to a t-shirt, etc: Constitutionally invisible.

Maybe you can make up a good saying to add it to?

[NMMNG]

19. Nice!

I let Sapphocrat know (she's the designer in the family). Thanks for the idea!

[ColbertWatcher]

24. You're welcome! Be sure to post some samples, so we can see what they look like! n/t

[jonnyblitz]

11. and congrats on your marriage,btw

I am always the last to hear of these things.:hi:

[NMMNG]

20. Thanks

:hi:

[ruggerson]

13. Hey

:hug:

[NMMNG]

21. Howdy

:pals:

[xchrom]

6. recommend

[bluedawg12]

10. Isn't this the whole point - isolating gays?

I have to say, pretty brave putting up that sign in Temecu-hell.

[ColbertWatcher]

16. The purpose is the same as it is for every theocracy: invisibility.

Remember when Mahmoud Ahmadi-Yes on Prop 8-nejad said there were no gay people in Iran?

As far as he's concerned they don't exist; they're invisible.

Looks like America's Taliban wants to do the same thing.

[Lint Head]

12. Prop 8 is a violation of the Bill of Rights. Why doesn't a young, smart ,

just out of college lawyer take this on? It would make a lawyer famous. The Bill of Rights is obviously being violated folks.
Somebody fucking do something, Please.
:dem:

[Ms. Toad]

14. Please don't - until we get a more favorable

Supreme Court. If bad law is created by the Supreme Court, it is virtually impossible to get rid of - and there is virtually no chance that the current court will do anything other than create bad law. Give it a few years - and keep working the state courts on state constitutional grounds in the mean time.

[ruggerson]

15. Actually, there is conceivably a 5 vote majority for marriage right now

Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinions in both Roemer and Lawrence V Texas. Lawrence was decided 6-3, and O'Connor has since been replaced with someone far more rightwing. But many legal scholars think that Kennedy would support a "Loving" type of decision for gay folks. He's already laid the foundation.

[Ms. Toad]

32. I'm not willing to bet

anti-marriage precedent that would likely hang around as long as Roe v. Wade has (despite there being a strong inclination to overturn it), on there "conceivably" being a 5 vote majority. Neither are the folks who have been involved in most of the successful marriage equality challenges under state constitutional law - they have been begging people not to bring these cases yet.

[ruggerson]

35. I agree

I was just saying hypothetically the votes may already be there. Lambda is pleading with people to wait and I'm fine with that. Maybe, if the stars align, by the end of Obama's first term, we will have replaced one of the evil four.

[Ms. Toad]

36. That would be wonderful.

We're still waiting on Lambda go ahead to bring a case in Ohio - where our daughter was denied a legal relationship with both her parents expressly because we were not married. We now have been legally married for nearly 4 years - but bringing the adoption case back based on that marriage would mean a Loving v. Virginia type challenge to both state statutes and the state constitution based on both being federally unconstitutional. They are unconstitutional, but the votes aren't there - either in Ohio or the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the meantime, our daughter became an adult this summer - which creates one more barrier to ever having my spouse's relationship with her daughter. It would have been nice - but the chances of creating bad law are too high for us to risk it without the blessing of those who have been pretty successful in their court battles for equality.

[ColbertWatcher]

17. It will take years for a challenge to Prop 8 to get to the Supremes.

By then Obama will have replaced all the soon-to-be-retired judges and all the fat Republican ones will have to retire for health reasons.

[Ms. Toad]

31. The current lawsuits

are all very carefully crafted to NEVER get to the US Supreme Court - for the same reason that I am suggesting caution. They are drafted as challenges under the state constitution.

Roe v. Wade has been around for 30+ years, despite having the enough votes against it to win if it were just a matter of majority rule. In the Supreme Court there is a much stronger factor than majority rule - it is called stare decisis. It means that even if the justices would not have decided the case that way in the first place, they leave old cases in place unless something very dramatic causes them to change their minds. That has only happened a couple of times in the Court's history - and that is why Roe v. Wade is only being nibbled away, rather than overturned.

I am not willing to bet 30+ years of bad marriage law on the hope that the 4 youngest, most conservative justices will be replaced by the time a challenge started today reaches the Supreme Court.

[Unvanguard]

34. The judges most likely to be replaced are all liberal.

The conservative ones are mostly younger. The Supreme Court will remain conservative for quite a while at this point, especially since the conservative justices, even if they are inclined to retire, will wait until the next Republican presidency.

Our best option is to ensure that that doesn't happen anytime soon... but even then, changing the political composition of the Court will take a while.

[Unvanguard]

33. Well, the Fourteenth Amendment, technically.

It most certainly is. But my understanding is that the LGBT rights organizations don't want to fight that battle now, because they're afraid the Supreme Court of the United States will rule against them and solidify precedent against future attempts.

[Egnever]

18. Please do

cause the hang up over the word marriage is fucking killing this fucking issue for both sides.

Vote it the fuck out so we can call it something else and everyone can calm the fuck down.

[POAS]

22. Marriage is a religious institution

and, IMHO, has no place being sanctioned as the sole means by which couples may commit to each other.

It is also, IMO, questionable constitutionally for government, if it agrees to sanction a religious rite as legally binding, to favor the rites of one religion over another religion's rites. Several churches now marry same gender couples and by excluding recognition of those marriages from legal status the government has established, defacto, a state approved religion.

[Egnever]

23. interesting argument

I like it.

[ColbertWatcher]

25. I have to agree! n/t

[ColbertWatcher]

27. "the government has established, defacto, a state approved religion" Well put! n/t

[POAS]

28. Thank you, it's the "blind squirrel finding the nut" rule

in my case.

In this case the answer just seems so obvious. Church and State separation.

[ColbertWatcher]

29. Here's a link to another interesting look at the whole mess ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=89411&mesg_id=89411

[radfringe]

30. outlaw divorce

the marriage vows say "till death do us part", and "What God has joined together let no man put asunder" - nothing in the fine print that allows for divorce.

seems pretty clear cut to me... to paraphrase the pottery house rules: "you married him/her - you stay married"

[Politicalboi]

37. I say Obama make

Gay unions legal in 2013 and also legalize Marijuana throughout the US. After he's reelected of course.