California's Attorney General has asked the State Supreme Court to nullify Prop 8.

  • CAtoFL

    Posts: 834

    Dec 20, 2008 3:34 AM GMT
    In a nutshell, our Attorney General Jerry Brown has asked the California Supreme Court to nullify Prop 8 based on the fact that it denies gays and lesbians a fundamental right.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081220/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_lawsuits
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 20, 2008 6:46 AM GMT
    Once again, a movement has swayed our leaders even with successful opposition. Just as it did before, we will move forward and overturn these acts of bigotry. Of course, it takes words and passion, no more blabbing beliefs - MORE ACTION!
  • Rookz

    Posts: 947

    Dec 20, 2008 7:13 AM GMT
    What kind of action should be taken?

    Is it more personal level to reach people to try and have them understand our cause? Wouldn't it be best to show them a different face of homosexuality that its not degenerate and promiscuous "lifestyle?" If we can provide them sound reason and a way to tug at their hearts then maybe, we can have some people change their minds and help them understand, yes, we're human beings like you. It's just a suggestive action we ourselves can make. But I'm sure if we discuss some ideas here, enriched by other ideas elsewhere, we can reach people in a calm, non-threatening manner.

    Or a more literal action such as a gay million march to Sacramento, the LGBT community making the trek to our nation's capital and throw a rally?

    I just wish our government was afraid of its people throwing rallies for which they speak their mind such as Europe. Not the other way around in which people are afraid of its own government.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 20, 2008 7:42 AM GMT
    Whatever the argument, I just hope we win out.

    Yes, I think we should sit down and talk with people, but not with our own people. We need to talk to our family, friends, and co-workers that aren't aware of what rights we are lacking or if we are even gay. There is nothing to be afraid of, and if you are living in fear...that's just not living! As for marches, I'm all for it, but only peaceful and respectful. Protesting at churches only fuels the fire against us. This is an argument against government and it's allowance of bigotry. People will believe what they want, and can only change if we educate them. But allowing this to go before another vote, when it's a CONSTITUTIONAL issue is ridiculous. Our opponents keep spouting lies and foolish rhetoric about upholding what our Founding Fathers fought for. THIS is what they stood up for, to keep religion out of government and visa versa. We have to stay focused and not sway our actions out of fear.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 20, 2008 8:54 AM GMT
    This is relieving news. Afterwards I will file a brief to sue the state for psychological damage to all gays. ;)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 20, 2008 10:04 AM GMT
    I too have a file of briefs that I have pinched from various locker rooms over the years.

  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Dec 20, 2008 11:36 AM GMT
    Ursa, why don't you send all your briefs to the Mormon Tabernacle
    I'm sure they're going to want to review them for their Voir Dire before they
    send their lawyers to defend Prop 8 icon_wink.gif
  • styrgan

    Posts: 2017

    Dec 20, 2008 12:21 PM GMT
    withHonor saidWhat kind of action should be taken?

    I just wish our government was afraid of its people throwing rallies for which they speak their mind such as Europe. Not the other way around in which people are afraid of its own government.


    Wasn't that from Michael Moore's latest movie?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 20, 2008 1:42 PM GMT
    And as a reminder, tonight is Light Up the Night taking place in commercial centers in towns and cities across the country. Go.

    You can find your location here
    http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/page/Light+Up+The+Night+For+Equality?t=anon
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 20, 2008 3:34 PM GMT
    looknrnd said we should sit down and talk with people, but not with our own people. We need to talk to our family, friends, and co-workers that aren't aware of what rights we are lacking ... People will believe what they want, and can only change if we educate them. But allowing this to go before another vote, when it's a CONSTITUTIONAL issue is ridiculous.


    Living in a democracy means that you must live with the fact that sometimes the majority of voters will be wrong. The ideal solution shouldn't be to override the democratic process,but to work harder to defeat ignorance and bigotry. This is most effective on the individual level. By coming out to relatives, friends, or co-workers you usually find that people who you wouldn't expect to be gay-friendly become so because of their respect for you personally.

    I know this won't be a popular position to take on this board, but our rights will be more secure if we have built majority support for them through the democratic process. Court-ordered solutions tend to provoke resistance without promoting real social change. Exhibit A is the 30 state constitutional amendments in response to the Goodridge case in Massachusetts.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 20, 2008 3:42 PM GMT
    Fighting the tyranny of the masses with constitutional law and educating the ignorant unwashed masses are both required. People must be made to understand that Jesus, Allah, God, Mohammed, Buddha, Kali, et al. are unwelcome in a government by the people for the people. As nice as they all may be or have been, they force combatancy between their respective adherents. Morality in a country of millions (or a world of billions for the matter) means that inevitably someone is going to get victimized and when that victimization is complete, the fist of moral dominance moves on to the next victim. Calling it the democratic process masks what it is in reality.
  • Koaa2

    Posts: 1556

    Dec 20, 2008 3:47 PM GMT
    TexDef07 said
    looknrnd said we should sit down and talk with people, but not with our own people. We need to talk to our family, friends, and co-workers that aren't aware of what rights we are lacking ... People will believe what they want, and can only change if we educate them. But allowing this to go before another vote, when it's a CONSTITUTIONAL issue is ridiculous.


    Living in a democracy means that you must live with the fact that sometimes the majority of voters will be wrong. The ideal solution shouldn't be to override the democratic process,but to work harder to defeat ignorance and bigotry. This is most effective on the individual level. By coming out to relatives, friends, or co-workers you usually find that people who you wouldn't expect to be gay-friendly become so because of their respect for you personally.

    I know this won't be a popular position to take on this board, but our rights will be more secure if we have built majority support for them through the democratic process. Court-ordered solutions tend to provoke resistance without promoting real social change. Exhibit A is the 30 state constitutional amendments in response to the Goodridge case in Massachusetts.


    Sorry to disagree, but Blacks in the South, would never have gotten any rights if it hadn't been for the courts and Lyndon Johnson.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 20, 2008 4:07 PM GMT
    Koaa2 said,
    "Blacks in the South, would never have gotten any rights if it hadn't been for the courts and Lyndon Johnson."

    Apples and oranges. Blacks in the South were basically powerless to work through the political process. They couldn't vote. They had been kept socially isolated, uneducated, stigmatized, and economically deprived.

    Gays on the other hand are everywhere, at every level of society. We are particularly well represented in fields that shape public opinion. Many of us have considerable financial and social resources. We should be able to do this on our own.
  • Hunter9

    Posts: 1039

    Dec 20, 2008 4:17 PM GMT
    TexDef07 said
    looknrnd said we should sit down and talk with people, but not with our own people. We need to talk to our family, friends, and co-workers that aren't aware of what rights we are lacking ... People will believe what they want, and can only change if we educate them. But allowing this to go before another vote, when it's a CONSTITUTIONAL issue is ridiculous.


    Living in a democracy means that you must live with the fact that sometimes the majority of voters will be wrong.


    umm, we dont live in a democracy, we live in a republic. we are not governed by the people, but by a document which is supposed to protect our individual freedoms

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

    Dec 20, 2008 4:19 PM GMT
    TexDef07 saidKoaa2 said,
    "Blacks in the South, would never have gotten any rights if it hadn't been for the courts and Lyndon Johnson."

    Apples and oranges. Blacks in the South were basically powerless to work through the political process. They couldn't vote. They had been kept socially isolated, uneducated, stigmatized, and economically deprived.

    Gays on the other hand are everywhere, at every level of society. We are particularly well represented in fields that shape public opinion. Many of us have considerable financial and social resources. We should be able to do this on our own.


    While I agree that we need to do a better job of "winning hearts and minds," questions of civil rights should never be left solely in the hands of the electorate (aka tyranny of the majority).
  • styrgan

    Posts: 2017

    Dec 20, 2008 4:21 PM GMT
    TexDef07 said
    Living in a democracy means that you must live with the fact that sometimes the majority of voters will be wrong.

    Exhibit A is the 30 state constitutional amendments in response to the Goodridge case in Massachusetts.


    Our country is not fundamentally a democracy. It is a republic that regards supremacy of common law above everything else. Because of that, the courts have always been a valued instrument of change.

    And remember... none of the attempted amendment processes attempting to block gay marriage in Massachusetts have passed, and for good reason. The latest polls show that the people of Massachusetts have become quite comfortable with gay marriage. Which refutes your argument about a backlash. Changing hearts and minds is not mutually exclusive from securing our rights through the legal system, but actually can be a result of it.

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

    Dec 20, 2008 5:23 PM GMT
    jakebenson saidThis is relieving news. Afterwards I will file a brief to sue the state for psychological damage to all gays. ;)
    That's funny but actually true in many cases. Anti-gay government is harmful to the mental health of gays according to the American Psychological Association.

    http://www.365gay.com/news/apa-gay-marriage-bans-harm-mental-health/The researchers, led by Heidi M. Levitt, Ph.D., at the University of Memphis, grouped the respondents’ reactions into eight major themes, or “clusters.” These included, for example: “Initiatives lead to constant painful reminders that I’m seen as less than human by our government and public laws,” and “The irrationality of anti-GLBT initiatives and movements is baffling, painful and scary: We are not who they say we are.”

    Participants reported feeling not just alienated from their communities, but fearful that they would lose their children, that they would become victims of anti-gay violence or that they would need to move to a more accepting community. Some of these anxieties were mitigated by social support.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 20, 2008 5:33 PM GMT
    TexDef07 saidKoaa2 said,
    "Blacks in the South, would never have gotten any rights if it hadn't been for the courts and Lyndon Johnson."

    Apples and oranges. Blacks in the South were basically powerless to work through the political process. They couldn't vote. They had been kept socially isolated, uneducated, stigmatized, and economically deprived.

    Gays on the other hand are everywhere, at every level of society. We are particularly well represented in fields that shape public opinion. Many of us have considerable financial and social resources. We should be able to do this on our own.


    I'd like to note, that Blacks were not just in the south, they were everywhere. In fact, they moved in drones North after they realized how unsuccessful Jim Crow would become. Also, the majority voted against their rights on numerous occasions. And I'd like to note that they weren't totally isolated. Martin Luther King, Jr. - an educated man - stood behind Lyndon Johnson as he set forth the acceptance of their rights. They marched in the streets and did not allow themselves to be isolated. While we cant be noticed at first glance, and do have larger financial resources, we are still in a VERY similar movement. I agree that it would be best if votes could retain our rights, but that's not going to happen when in one of the most religious countries in the world.

    Just as Loving vs. Virginia and so many other cases have, this will most likely have to be settled in a court that is there to protect our CONSTITUTION (whether it be the US or California). We cant let bigotry rule in the polls to override the founding principles of our nation. My ancestors came here to be free of government tyranny and bigotry. Frankly, I'm glad the courts are there to protect us. If they didn't make these rulings, we would DEFINITELY be isolated by now. I've come out, and I'm not going back in. I agree in changing people's minds 100%, but we still cant change everyone's.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Dec 20, 2008 6:09 PM GMT
    is he the same guy who dated linda ronstadt years ago?
  • joeindallas

    Posts: 484

    Dec 20, 2008 8:32 PM GMT
    Rnch he ran against Bill Clinton in 1992. If Jerry had been elected there would be no DADT he would have repealed the whole thing
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 20, 2008 8:58 PM GMT
    This is beautiful news. Outstanding.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 20, 2008 9:11 PM GMT
    joeindallas saidRnch he ran against Bill Clinton in 1992. If Jerry had been elected there would be no DADT he would have repealed the whole thing
    I've always thought jerry brown was cool - maybe because he is Buddhist.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 20, 2008 9:28 PM GMT
    withHonor saidWhat kind of action should be taken?

    Is it more personal level to reach people to try and have them understand our cause? Wouldn't it be best to show them a different face of homosexuality that its not degenerate and promiscuous "lifestyle?" If we can provide them sound reason and a way to tug at their hearts then maybe, we can have some people change their minds and help them understand, yes, we're human beings like you. It's just a suggestive action we ourselves can make. But I'm sure if we discuss some ideas here, enriched by other ideas elsewhere, we can reach people in a calm, non-threatening manner.

    Or a more literal action such as a gay million march to Sacramento, the LGBT community making the trek to our nation's capital and throw a rally?

    I just wish our government was afraid of its people throwing rallies for which they speak their mind such as Europe. Not the other way around in which people are afraid of its own government.


    personally I'm all for promiscuity when you are single. I like to get myself a test drive before i settle down with somebody. the sexual chemistry needs to exist before i commit.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 20, 2008 10:06 PM GMT
    Interesting that the "Yes on 8" people said before the election that they wouldn't try to take away the rights of the 18,000 couples who'd been legally married -- that the marriage ban would be prospective -- and now that's exactly what they're trying to do.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 20, 2008 10:16 PM GMT
    My favorite part of the Yes on 8's filing, their interpretation:

    "[The...] law commands judges _ as servants of the people _ to bow to the will of those whom they serve _ even if the substantive result of what people have wrought in constitution-amending is deemed unenlightened."


    Unenlightened.