YES ON PROP 8!!

  • MotorBrett

    Posts: 145

    Nov 05, 2008 6:20 AM GMT
    Okay, so, just for everyone who is gonna freakout on my new thread, I want you all to understand the potential benefit of tonight if Prop 8 passes.

    First of all, Obama, for the first time in a Presidential Elect acceptance speech, acknlowedged the gay community as a voting bloc that he views the same as everyone else. He has also come out publicly against Prop 8.

    This is a good thing, because California's gay-marriage ban will go the US Supreme Court in the form of Gays v California (or its equivalent).

    This case has two case precedents that will influence its outcome:

    1. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954),[1] was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court, which overturned earlier rulings going back to Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, by declaring that state laws that established separate public schools for black and white students denied black children equal educational opportunities. Handed down on May 17, 1954, the Warren Court's unanimous (9-0) decision stated that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." As a result, de jure racial segregation was ruled a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This victory paved the way for integration and the civil rights movement.

    This case effectively negates the argument the state of California will have allowing Domestic Partnerships, yet disallowing gay-marriages.

    2. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)[1], was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.

    This case effectively negates the CA constitutional amendment of Prop 8, discriminating against gay-marriage.

    The Supreme Court will have to act according to US Constitutional status quo with the guidelines of the aforementioned cases.

    And this will effectively allow a FEDERAL GAY MARRIAGE recognition.


    The ONLY WAY this could EVER be OVER-TURNED would be an amendment to the US Constitution.


    Article V of the Constitution provides two processes by which amendments can be proposed and approved

    1. Congress proposes amendments.

    Both houses of Congress approve by two-thirds votes a resolution calling for the amendment. The resolution does not require the president's signature. To become effective, the proposed amendment must then be "ratified" or approved by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. Congress typically places a time limit of seven years for ratification by the states.

    2. The states propose amendments.

    The legislatures of two-thirds of the states vote to call for a convention at which constitutional amendments can be proposed. Amendments proposed by the convention would again require ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.

    *** All twenty-seven amendments, including the Bill of Rights have been added through the first method. The Constitution has never been amended using the second process. ***

    While over 10,000 have been proposed, only seventeen amendments to the Constitution have been adopted since final ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791.

    This will never happen with a Democtratic Congress, and Obama as President, even if some 38 states tried to ratify it.

    Thank you and God Bless America!! Even when she screws up on the way to accomplishing good!!

    Brett =)
  • MotorBrett

    Posts: 145

    Nov 05, 2008 7:00 AM GMT
    Btw, feel free to comment on this. I'm kinda happy about my first Forum Post!! =P
  • chitown_mofo

    Posts: 98

    Nov 05, 2008 7:42 AM GMT
    The current set of Justices would probably not hear this case, and if they did, would most likely uphold it as is
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2008 9:09 AM GMT
    That was actually kind of the point of the vote. If prop 8 failed, it would set precedence, which would increase the likelihood of the federal Supreme Court reviewing and voting on the case.

    If it passes, they probably will not accept the case, and we will not see federa; gay marriage rights for a long, long time.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2008 9:10 AM GMT
    MotorBrett saidBtw, feel free to comment on this. I'm kinda happy about my first Forum Post!! =P


    They will certainly feel free to comment, dont you worry. You'll learn that before your second post. icon_biggrin.gif
  • MotorBrett

    Posts: 145

    Nov 05, 2008 9:44 AM GMT
    First, CA precedent would not influence US rulings. As we have seen in issues on the Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005) with legalized marijuana.

    I really think that there is a multifaceted case here.

    Second, I forgot to mention in the original post: for consideration when bringing this case to the federal level, is the issue of same-sex marriage licenses already issued. What will become of them if they are not recognized?

    And, thirdly, I don't even want to dignify the Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) case comment, asides to say Obama kinda proved that one wrong if anything did.

    But, I will, because the Dred Scott v Sandford was overturned directly as a result of the 14th Amendment.

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    As to Bowers v Hardwick, the state sodomy law was overturned in favor of gay rights with Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). So the point on that one was the courts are judging things a little more liberally, or accurately interpreting the 5th and 14th Amendments more specifically towards privacy issues and due process.

    And we have not had due process.

    Btw, Congress can step in and remove DOMA at anytime and should be pressured to under the 14th Amendment, Section 1, by the usage of Section 5.

    Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

    So, yeah, keep the comments coming.

    Night!! ;)


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2008 12:21 PM GMT
    MotorBrett saidFirst, CA precedent would not influence US rulings. As we have seen in issues on the Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005) with legalized marijuana.

    I really think that there is a multifaceted case here.

    Second, I forgot to mention in the original post: for consideration when bringing this case to the federal level, is the issue of same-sex marriage licenses already issued. What will become of them if they are not recognized?

    And, thirdly, I don't even want to dignify the Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) case comment, asides to say Obama kinda proved that one wrong if anything did.

    But, I will, because the Dred Scott v Sandford was overturned directly as a result of the 14th Amendment.

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    As to Bowers v Hardwick, the state sodomy law was overturned in favor of gay rights with Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). So the point on that one was the courts are judging things a little more liberally, or accurately interpreting the 5th and 14th Amendments more specifically towards privacy issues and due process.

    And we have not had due process.

    Btw, Congress can step in and remove DOMA at anytime and should be pressured to under the 14th Amendment, Section 1, by the usage of Section 5.

    Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

    So, yeah, keep the comments coming.

    Night!! ;)




    Don't let some of these douchebags on here rain on your parade of great thinking. I get what your saying and I agree! Also, with Obama's election comes appointments to the Supreme Court!
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Nov 05, 2008 12:34 PM GMT
    MotorBrett, you are so right. I and someone else have been saying the same thing in other threads. Conservatives don't want it to go the US Supreme Court because it will strike down all state bans on gay marriage.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2008 1:08 PM GMT
    ursamajor said"Don't let some of these douchebags on here rain on your parade of great thinking. I get what your saying and I agree! Also, with Obama's election comes appointments to the Supreme Court!"

    Yeah, yeah - that, do that - and while your at it, get a parade, and a modicum of taste - think a nanosecond about the people whose hopes and dreams have been shattered while you articulate your dumb-ass case.

    Happy to be a douchebag, better than being a pussy.


    We'll see about that!

    Excuse some of us for being optimistic and pragmatic about the future and actually using our brains. You could try thinking out of the box, too, if that's possible for you, Ursa.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2008 1:26 PM GMT
    Well, isn't this moot with Prop 8 failing? But I still fail to see the logic of wanting it to pass.

    The Supreme Court is reluctant to invalidate provisions in state constitutions, especially those dealing with areas that are the business of the states, for instance, marriage. Previous Courts would not even apply the "full faith and credit" clause (Art IV, Sect 1) to force states with interracial marriage prohibitions to recognize such marriages from other states, even though that same clause is used to make all other marriages legal across state lines.

    The Court has been extremely selective (or arbitrary) in how it interprets Article IV, and is very unlikely to rule to extend gay marriage recognition beyond those states that have it, especially after Congress specifically passed DOMA.

    Therefore, I would not expect this Court to go even further and suddenly become pro-gay marriage and overturn any state constitutional amendment outlawing it. Nor would Obama's Court appointments make any difference, since the next Justices to leave the Court will likely be liberals. Replacing liberal with liberal will not change the balance of this currently gay-unfriendly Court.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2008 1:30 PM GMT
    I didn't think amendments to state constitutions were up for a challenge on a federal court level. If that were the case, all the bans passed, such as the very nasty one here in Ohio, would have had court challenges. And they have not, because they are not simple laws, but constitutional amendments. To remove an amendment, you have to pass another amendment abolishing the previous one, as the country did with the Prohibition amendments in the early 20th century.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2008 1:33 PM GMT
    Red_Hussein_Vespa saidWell, isn't this moot with Prop 8 failing? But I still fail to see the logic of wanting it to pass.

    The Supreme Court is reluctant to invalidate provisions in state constitutions, especially those dealing with areas that are the business of the states, for instance, marriage. Previous Courts would not even apply the "full faith and credit" clause (Art IV, Sect 1) to force states with interracial marriage prohibitions to recognize such marriages from other states, even though that same clause is used to make all other marriages legal across state lines.

    The Court has been extremely selective (or arbitrary) in how it interprets Article IV, and is very unlikely to rule to extend gay marriage recognition beyond those states that have it, especially after Congress specifically passed DOMA.

    Therefore, I would not expect this Court to go even further and suddenly become pro-gay marriage and overturn any state constitutional amendment outlawing it. Nor would Obama's Court appointments make any difference, since the next Justices to leave the Court will likely be liberals. Replacing liberal with liberal will not change the balance of this currently gay-unfriendly Court.
    Everything I've seen lately shows Prop 8 may yet pass. Where the hell are you looking?

    http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/map190000000008.htm
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2008 1:34 PM GMT
    RunintheCity saidI didn't think amendments to state constitutions were up for a challenge on a federal court level. If that were the case, all the bans passed, such as the very nasty one here in Ohio, would have had court challenges. And they have not, because they are not simple laws, but constitutional amendments. To remove an amendment, you have to pass another amendment abolishing the previous one, as the country did with the Prohibition amendments in the early 20th century.


    If the National Constitution and a State Constitution are in conflict, the National Supreme Court can make a decision, if it accepts the case. Give it time. With a 2 democratic houses in Congress and a Democratic President, the DOMA can be repealed, and new and better law put in place. There are still lots of possibilities and opportunities to play this out.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2008 1:52 PM GMT
    RunintheCity saidI didn't think amendments to state constitutions were up for a challenge on a federal court level.


    Yes, they can be invalidated if a state's constitution infringes on rights protected by the US Constitution. But that very rarely happens, and will not happen over gay rights with the present Supreme Court.

    And the case would have to first go through the lower Federal courts where many conservative Bush appointees now sit on the bench, who would rule against gays. I doubt the Supreme Court would even take the case on appeal, which would actually be good at present.

    Because once a case has been decided a precedent is set, which future Courts usually follow. Better if no gay cases reach the Supreme Court until its makeup is more clearly liberal, which will take a second Obama term to accomplish at the earliest.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2008 2:16 PM GMT
    I'm not sure you're prediction is correct. I don't believe the U.S. Supreme Court would hear a case about a state's constitutional amendment. And if they did, I'm fairly sure the current U.S. Supreme Court would let it stand.

    I'm all for looking on the bright side, but this was a defeat, plain and simple.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2008 2:28 PM GMT
    Global_Citizen saidI'm not sure you're prediction is correct. I don't believe the U.S. Supreme Court would hear a case about a state's constitutional amendment. And if they did, I'm fairly sure the current U.S. Supreme Court would let it stand.

    I'm all for looking on the bright side, but this was a defeat, plain and simple.


    This is another reason why electing a Democrat, and Obama in particular, is and was so important to our cause. It is estimated that one or two Supreme Court justices will retire during Obama's term, and Obama is all but certain to nominate center-left (or at least moderate) jurists to fill those vacancies. All hope is not lost.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2008 2:32 PM GMT
    Prop 8 has not been decided yet. According the CNN.
  • sandiegovince

    Posts: 111

    Nov 05, 2008 2:41 PM GMT
    Well Ducky, its very close to being decided. Here are the latest results on Prop 8:

    PROP 8 - SAME-SEX MARRIAGE BAN
    Proposition - 8-Same Sex Marriage Ban - Ballot Issue
    November 05, 2008 - 06:36AM PT
    California - 24073 of 25429 Precincts Reporting - 95%
    Name Votes Vote %
    Yes 5,125,752 52%
    No 4,725,313 48%

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2008 2:56 PM GMT
    MotorBrett saidOkay, so, just for everyone who is gonna freakout on my new thread, I want you all to understand the potential benefit of tonight if Prop 8 passes.

    First of all, Obama, for the first time in a Presidential Elect acceptance speech, acknlowedged the gay community as a voting bloc that he views the same as everyone else. He has also come out publicly against Prop 8.

    This is a good thing, because California's gay-marriage ban will go the US Supreme Court in the form of Gays v California (or its equivalent).

    This case has two case precedents that will influence its outcome:

    1. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954),[1] was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court, which overturned earlier rulings going back to Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, by declaring that state laws that established separate public schools for black and white students denied black children equal educational opportunities. Handed down on May 17, 1954, the Warren Court's unanimous (9-0) decision stated that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." As a result, de jure racial segregation was ruled a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This victory paved the way for integration and the civil rights movement.

    This case effectively negates the argument the state of California will have allowing Domestic Partnerships, yet disallowing gay-marriages.

    2. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)[1], was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.

    This case effectively negates the CA constitutional amendment of Prop 8, discriminating against gay-marriage.

    The Supreme Court will have to act according to US Constitutional status quo with the guidelines of the aforementioned cases.

    And this will effectively allow a FEDERAL GAY MARRIAGE recognition.


    The ONLY WAY this could EVER be OVER-TURNED would be an amendment to the US Constitution.


    Article V of the Constitution provides two processes by which amendments can be proposed and approved

    1. Congress proposes amendments.

    Both houses of Congress approve by two-thirds votes a resolution calling for the amendment. The resolution does not require the president's signature. To become effective, the proposed amendment must then be "ratified" or approved by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. Congress typically places a time limit of seven years for ratification by the states.

    2. The states propose amendments.

    The legislatures of two-thirds of the states vote to call for a convention at which constitutional amendments can be proposed. Amendments proposed by the convention would again require ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.

    *** All twenty-seven amendments, including the Bill of Rights have been added through the first method. The Constitution has never been amended using the second process. ***

    While over 10,000 have been proposed, only seventeen amendments to the Constitution have been adopted since final ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791.

    This will never happen with a Democtratic Congress, and Obama as President, even if some 38 states tried to ratify it.

    Thank you and God Bless America!! Even when she screws up on the way to accomplishing good!!

    Brett =)


    Sorry to Burst your bubble brett but these two rulings do not in anyway say that the court has to overturn prop h8te, and with the current set of justices on the court prop h8te will stand. first off both are due process cases, and both are due processes cases with the classification being race. race is a suspect class, and under due process jurisprudence is given strict scrutiny review. Sexual orientation is not a suspect class, and the review would only be rational basis. If the supreme court finds that the state legislature has a rational basis for denying gay marriage to homosexual couples they will not overturn the law. If you look at the NY decision of Hernandez v. Robles, you will see that it is easy for a court to find a rational basis for the denial of same sex marriage. The easiest way to end this due process case though is to just say hey gay people and str8 people are not being treated differently. the fact of the matter is that gay people can marry people of the opposite sex, just like str8 people can, and str8 people cannot marry someone of the same sex just like gay people cannot marry someone of the same sex. there is technically no discrimination here.

    Trust me I want to see Prop h8te go down, and I hope that it does, but hoping for a supreme court with a clear conservative majority to do anything about it is like taking those creepy pills that are supposed to make your penis grow and hoping they will work.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2008 3:16 PM GMT
    Maverick75 saidEverything I've seen lately shows Prop 8 may yet pass. Where the hell are you looking?

    http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/map190000000008.htm


    Your link did not work. I am looking here on MSNBC, where with 95% reporting, the Prop 8 split is 52% for, 48% against. 60% is required to pass a CA state constitutional amendment, so it is failing to pass by 8%. This link may require you to click on "Ballot measures."

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25361655
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2008 3:31 PM GMT
    Red_Hussein_Vespa said
    Maverick75 saidEverything I've seen lately shows Prop 8 may yet pass. Where the hell are you looking?

    http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/map190000000008.htm


    Your link did not work. I am looking here on MSNBC, where with 95% reporting, the Prop 8 split is 52% for, 48% against. 60% is required to pass a CA state constitutional amendment, so it is failing to pass by 8%. This link may require you to click on "Ballot measures."

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25361655


    The site must be down, they must be receiving tons of hits.

    As far as MSNBC, there's nothing that says it needs a 60% majority. On the contrary, from wikipedia:

    According to Wikipedia, propositions only need a simple majority, that's 50% plus 1.


    **First, the California Legislature may pass an act which is signed by the governor, proposing a state constitutional amendment, which is then submitted to the voters as a referendum at the next statewide election. If more than 50% of the voters approve the referendum then the constitutional amendment is approved and goes into effect.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_ballot_proposition
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2008 3:34 PM GMT
    It's only a simple majority. Anything involving tax in CA requires a 2/3 super majority, but amendments to the state constitution only require one vote more than 50%.

    The religious whackjobs won this one.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2008 3:40 PM GMT
    Either way, I feel like something is falling through the cracks here. It is the disrespect for gays and their plight.

    Fellow queers, the persecution of homosexuals is always marginalized. It is as if to some, discrimination against homosexuals is brushed aside by many perhaps because we are a small minority group.

    But consider that gays have been imprisoned, beaten, tortured, maligned for CENTURIES. We did not even escape Hitler's ovens. Yes our suffering in history is unnoticed and forgotten. In times past, we had no children or future generations to cry for us and tell our story. And today, almost unnoticed we still suffer. Young gay people beaten, harassed, and pissed on in grade school. It wasn't too long ago that a gay sailor had is skull crushed in a urinal when he was beaten beyond recognition. How about the young boy in los angeles that was shot by a school mate because he was perceived to be gay? And somewhere in the south a gay man was murdered and set on fire because he "looked" at some straight guys "funny" And don't think this is isolated to a few occurrences. Dead men tell no tales, and small minority groups are ignored.

    It may seem inconsequential to some that so many Californians (with major funding from religious groups) have voted that we are second class citizens. It is said that marriage is a "sacred union between a man and a woman" AS IF the love between gay men or women is not "sacred" Think about that. Really. We are less that sacred, even though we are a feature of nature itself.

    No, the word marriage is not what is important. What is important to see is that DISCRIMINATION towards gays is still so acceptable and taken so lightly.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2008 3:43 PM GMT
    This really takes the over the top sweetness off the mccain/palin defeat.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2008 3:45 PM GMT
    Brett I love you. Welcome to the RJ. =) I miss you.