Ballot measures - TTLG Forums

reizak on 5/11/2008 at 16:28

Someone's venting on (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)) Wikipedia.

It'll probably get removed pretty fast; what it said was:

Quote Posted by angry internets

Isn't the United States of America supposed to be FREE? Aren't all people supposed to have RIGHTS and be EQUAL? Prop 8 was passed, and all those people who voted for it should be ashamed. You want to restore traditional marriage? What about restoring the Constitution??!!! Gays should have the right to marry each other if they have American Citizenship; they should, after all, have the same rights as the rest of us-because we're all equal, right? No, we're not. If we were all equal then this propostition would never even have been proposed! And back to the "restoring marriage" thing. If you want to restore it, make it so that Blacks can't marry-they couldn't do that way back when it was "traditional". Oh, no. We can't do that...they have RIGHTS. If America was truely free, then EVERYONE should have RIGHTS. Think about this: what if traditional marriage was Gays, and no other people could marry. Would you want it restored? No because, you want to get married, too, AND YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO SO. I'm not even gay-I'm totally straight- and I think this is BS.

While I agree with the sentiment, that's probably not the place for it.

Sypha Nadon on 5/11/2008 at 16:55

Man, that sucks. A lot of my gay friends in California have been getting married these last few months, so who knows what this will do?

Odd that California has no problems electing a black man as president yet the idea of two people of the same gender marrying is too much.

Zaphod on 5/11/2008 at 16:59

Not to be outdone by CA, Florida has also codified their fears and "protected" marriage from thing that threatens that holiest of institution most:

Divorce.

Wait, I mean grown adults being free to decide who they want to call their family.

Nice job, Redneck Riviera.
My new state is great for beaches and golf, but that's really about it.

DDL on 5/11/2008 at 17:00

Out of curiosity, can a same sex couple just leave the state, go somewhere less idiotic (assuming other states allow same sex marriage), get hitched and come back?

Or..would it not be recognized? And..well, are there other states that allow same sex marriage? Christ knows, I can imagine if even California's voted it out then the rest of the states is unlikely to be keen, but you never know..

reizak on 5/11/2008 at 17:18

Same-sex marriage is legal in Connecticut (since last month) and Massachusetts (since 2003).

The marriages are only recognized by the state issuing the license, so it's not possible to just get married out-of-state and then go back home. I think CT and MA recognize each other's licenses, though, but I'm not sure.

Starrfall on 5/11/2008 at 17:35

So here's how you can probably expect this to shake out:

The first thing will be a filing for a TRO/preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of Prop 8. This may be paired with a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that 8 is invalid because it effects a constitutional revision, not just a constitutional amendment, and is therefore invalid. Or that complaint may come a little later. Either way, this IS going to litigation and both sides know it

Prop 8 foes may also seek declaratory judgment that current gay marriages are still "good." Gay marriage opponents will probably cross-file, arguing that all gay marriages already performed are invalid, because they are despicable cocksuckers.

And I hope every teacher in California immediately starts teaching their students about civil unions just to shit all over the fundies.

heywood on 5/11/2008 at 19:21

Technically, I don't see much freedom for the courts to outright reject this, so I suspect the state will have to act legislatively to recognize civil unions. Perhaps this is a good opportunity for the state to change terminology and get out of the marriage business entirely. Same and opposite sex couples can say they're married if they want, but as far as the state is concerned they all have civil unions or civil partnership agreements.

demagogue on 5/11/2008 at 20:10

Separate but equal != equal ... Civil unions aren't really an acceptable compromise to the target audience.

One sort of irony in this issue is that, while gay marriage proponents tend to want to separate the institution or concept of "marriage" from its religious/historical social origins for tactical ends when arguing, the core of their position is that they want to participate in precisely the institution as historically and socially developed. They (most of them) aren't fighting just for tax and insurance benefits, but to be able to say "we're married" with all its unambiguous social connotations, and a state-sanctioned document to show for it.

Conceptually, it's like trying to surgically separate part of its historic social meaning from another, to keep one bit and throw the other out. But that's what the law and politics does all the time as society evolves; it will play itself out one way or another. The only question is how long gay couples will have to wait to get their way because the handwriting is on the wall. But the inherent tension in their basic position is one thing that makes it such an interesting issue (e.g., previous arguments in terms of benefits later making it harder to argue against the "civil union" compromise).

Quote Posted by reizak

The marriages are only recognized by the state issuing the license, so it's not possible to just get married out-of-state and then go back home.

Unfortunately, one exception to the full faith and credit clause is that a state doesn't have to recognize a marriage from another state if it violates "public policy", and in some cases this has applied to gay marriages (along with incestuous, underage, and polygamous marriages). But of course the state can recognize it, too, if it wants; nothing is stopping it. I think the legislature decides.

I think there's enough flux on this that maybe the interpretation of the full faith and credit clause will be changed someday, but my intuition is that all the state legislatures will come on board before that happens, anyway, to make it a moot point.

P.S. That really bites that Prop 8 actually passed. I honestly didn't think it would happen.

Turtle on 5/11/2008 at 20:39

Quote Posted by Starrfall

despicable cocksuckers

This, by the way, is a terrific name for a band.
Almost as good as Pansy Division.

Starrfall on 5/11/2008 at 21:28

Quote Posted by heywood

Technically, I don't see much freedom for the courts to outright reject this, so I suspect the state will have to act legislatively to recognize civil unions.

California already recognizes gay civil unions. This is one of the reasons why the proponents of 8 are so fucking stupid. Their children could be in class with children whose parents are a civil unioned gay couple, but GOD HELP THEM if they will allow their children to hear about gay marriage.

The court challenge isn't going to be to the substance of prop 8, it's going to be to the procedure that was used to enact it. Opponents will argue that prop 8 is really a constitutional revision, and not a constitutional amendments. The process for getting a constitutional amendment is easy: get your signatures and then get a simple majority in the election. A constitutional revision requires all kinds of extra stuff and can't be passed through a ballot measure.

And I was right, the suit's already been filed: (http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Lawsuit_Challenging_Proposition_8_Filed.html)

edit: also I'm at least happy to say that 58% of my county voted against 8

Here's a link to the LA times thingy that'll let you check all of California's measures: (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-2008election-california-results,0,1293859.htmlstory)