CA Prop 8

[Bob Juch]

In my world, we would have two separate things happening, one secular, the other religious/spiritual.

<snip>

Thus have I spoken. So should it be done.

Sounds like that was written by a lawyer.

[VAdame]

I gotta find "If I'd killed him when I met him" and re-read it. McCrumb is wicked funny.

Oh, isn't she though? That book also has the "Political Lesbians." Bill & Elizabeth's mom, after her husband leaves her for a newer model, moves in with a woman friend in the same situation. And they declare themselves to be Lesbians. But they don't sleep together -- just put on a relationship front to the world. I'll have to re-read it too, it's one of my faves.

Her last couple of books have been about Nascar though & I'm not really a fan.

[Bob78164]

Hey, I don't even practice in California, but nearly every article on Prop 8 has noted that the remaining issue left to litigate is whether the initiative was an amendment or a revision. Prop 8 had been challenged prior to the vote, and it passed all legal scrutiny.

BTW, even rational, thinking opponents of Prop 8 have noted that the argument that it was a "revision that fundamentally changed the California Constitution" is beyond a Hail Mary attempt. Such an argument has never worked in previous cases. It clearly was limited in scope and really just addressed one bad decision.

Seriously? That's the analysis? The argument has never worked before so it won't work this time either?

The California courts almost never invalidate initiatives before the election. The theory is judicial restraint -- if the initiative fails, the courts won't need to act. I'm not sure (most of my practice is commercial disputes, so this doesn't come up much), but I think the standard is that the initiative has to be clearly illegal before the courts will strike it down before an election. Given that this is a case of first impression, I can't imagine the courts being able to make that finding. So just because the initiative was permitted to proceed to a vote, doesn't mean that the courts have finally passed on its legitimacy.

Proposition 8 is truly unique. The equal protection clause of the California Constitution, which was the foundation of the California Supreme Court's decision, is a basic part of the individual liberties granted to all California citizens. There's no question that Proposition 8 rolled back those rights. At a minimum, it's plausible to me that a change that rolls back a fundamental right is a revision that fundamentally changes the California Constitution. So it wouldn't shock me at all if there's a pretty decent basis to attack Proposition 8. --Bob

[Flybrick]

So if the California Constitution is changed,then the legal argument disappears?

Ok, then it would seem that those supporting Prop 8 might consider that route should the court overturn the results of a voter decision. One assumes that would be ok then?

In any event, the illegal and immoral acts being conducted by the losing side of Prop 8 are very bad things.

Is there any disagreement with that?

[franktangredi]

So if the California Constitution is changed,then the legal argument disappears?

Ok, then it would seem that those supporting Prop 8 might consider that route should the court overturn the results of a voter decision. One assumes that would be ok then?

In any event, the illegal and immoral acts being conducted by the losing side of Prop 8 are very bad things.

Is there any disagreement with that?

I don't remember anybody saying they disagreed with you on that the other eight times you said it!

[Bob78164]

So if the California Constitution is changed,then the legal argument disappears?

Ok, then it would seem that those supporting Prop 8 might consider that route should the court overturn the results of a voter decision. One assumes that would be ok then?

In any event, the illegal and immoral acts being conducted by the losing side of Prop 8 are very bad things.

Is there any disagreement with that?

Remember, I'm out of the country with limited access to U.S. news, so if you're referring to specific incidents, I haven't heard about them. Violent protest is clearly bad. Illegal acts may or may not be bad -- civil disobedience is sometimes called for. "Immoral," of course, is in the eye of the beholder. And as for any such acts being conducted "by the losing side of Prop 8," it appears likely that you're tarring with a very broad brush.

The point about the difference between a revision and an amendment is that under California law revisions, unlike amendments, cannot be enacted by the voters, but require a full-fledged constitutional convention that can only be convened by the Legislature. That's not going to happen. --Bob

[ToLiveIsToFly]

I don't expect many of you to agree with my position, but I will not let anybody put words in my mouth that I didn't say or ascribe motives to me that I don't hold.

So far, the anti-Prop 8 crowd's argument has been "If you don't agree with us, you must be a bigot." That is pathetically weak.

I'm not sure that I agree that's what people have been saying. I suspect that's what some people are trying to say without coming out and using that word.

I am willing to grant that there are a very few people who support Prop 8 on the grounds that they think a court decision is not the proper venue to decide this type of public policy.

But the overwhelming majority of the people who support it, do so because they don't want gay people to be able to marry who they want to marry.

And I am willing to come out and say it. If you support Prop 8 because you don't want gay people to be able to marry the people they wish to marry, then yes, you are a bigot.

There are a whole bunch of things I've said or done over the course of my life which I wish I could un-say or un-do.

I believed this when I said it. What some people have said in response has made me think about it. More than you might suspect.

I am sorry. I should never have called anyone such a charged name. In my original post I thought about including something about how I didn't think this (being, in my opinion at the time, a bigot) made someone a bad person in and of itself. I decided against because I thought that would be even more condescending than what I was already saying. I suspect that's still the case. Who the hell am I to know what other people are in their hearts?

Please don't take this to mean that I think opposition to gay marriage is a good thing, or even a neutral one.

I take heart that I believe society is changing. Perhaps too slowly for my friends who wish they could be married. But steadily. The more that gay people are unafraid to come out for fear of violence and/or ostracism, the more people are going to know them at earlier and earlier ages. The more that everyone else knows them, the more they will realize they are not monsters, but in fact are neither better nor worse than the rest of us, and that they deserve the same civil rights as the rest of us. Within fifty years, you will see gay marriage the law of the land across the USA, and it will be a good thing.

I am willing to come out and say it. I think you are a bigot. You know nothing of what you speak of. Nor do you care. You are full of hate. Just like the gays that pulled the cross out of the peaceful lady's hand and started stomping on it. Just like the gays that disrupted a peaceful church service. You don't think people can legitimately have an opinion other than those they share with you. If not, then they must be bigots!. No, it is YOU who are the bigot.

Maybe. I mean, in some respects, I am sure that I am a bigot. Probably everyone is.

In calling people bigots, it is possible that you are right that I knew nothing of what I speak of.

It's not true that I don't care.

I don't think it's true that I'm full of hate.

I would rather endure having a symbol of something I hold sacred pulled out of my hand and stomped on, or have my worship session disrupted, than be prevented by the state from marrying the person I love.

I do think people can legitimately have an opinion other than those they share with me. Not only do I have friends who White Sox fans, I have friends who are Yankee, and even Cowboy fans. I do think your opinion on THIS particular issue continues to cause actual damage to the lives of people I know personally.

[minimetoo26]

I ran across a quote yesterday and thought of this thread but wasn't about to dredge it up. But since it's here, I'll go ahead:

"Whatever it is, homosexuality was not a contagious disease, like the measles," he argued. "Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual's sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child's teachers do not really influence this."

This is from 1978. Some guy named Ronald Reagan. I think he did some movies a few decades ago.

[frogman042]

... BIG SNIP OF TEXT...

Also, Albus Dumbledore was gay. Just saying.

You do know why Dumbledore was kick out of Hogwarts, don't you?

He violated thier "Don't Ask, Don't Spell" policy.

---Jay