TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- USA - West Coast / Las Vegas
-- The NO on Prop 8 thread....
Pages (20): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 »
| quote: |
| Originally posted by R!CH it only requires a simple majority to become law. |
The "Yes" people want NONheterosexuals to be LESS visible - It might make them MORE .
Found at: http://isocrat.org/blog/?p=229 ................
....."the Attorney General of California states that the marriages already enacted will remain valid. The state of CA will not be challenging our extant marriages if Prop 8 passes. Those marriages filed for but not yet solemnized in a marriage ceremony are another issue; those who have a license and have not yet had a ceremony, better be at the tuxedo rental place right now, as the amendment, if it passes, would likely take effect Wednesday. There will be a separate expensive legal battle to determine what to do with couples with the paperwork but not the ceremony.
Regardless of how the Attorney General sees Prop 8, though, there will be a legal fight for the marriages already in law. Furthermore, even among those hoping to make same-gender marriages illegal there is debate as to how it will end up (from here):
In a recent Sacramento Bee article, Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute said, �The hard-core, straight truth is that they will likely not be invalidated.� But Liberty Council founder Mathew Staver, whose group opposed the court�s ruling, insisted to the paper that the marriages �will be invalidated.�
The question will inevitably make its way to, and be answered by California�s Supreme Court, not SCOTUS. From here:
It is uncertain how or when the issue would reach the courts if Proposition 8 passes. The question could be raised in an inheritance or property dispute or even by an employer. But in any case filed in state court, the California Supreme Court, which voted 4 to 3 to give (NONheterosexuals) the right to marry, would be the final arbiter.
Opponents of Proposition 8 could also challenge the entire initiative in federal court, and the ruling there could be appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. If the high court found the measure constitutional, the California Supreme Court would still probably determine the fate of existing marriages.
So ultimately it seems the court that upheld the equal protections guarantee in the Ca constitution for (NONheterosexual) families will decide what happens to the marriages they allowed to take place.
In the end all this mess really should (have been) one more reason to vote *NO* on Proposition 8. It will be very costly (if it passes due to *yes* votes), and not only in the ways denying same-gender marriage can be costly to a society in general. It would undeniably lead to expensive legal battles and legal chaos for thousands of real live families, parents and children, not the hypotheticals used by the proposition�s proponents.
To top it off, it would all be fought again, at great expense, in the next election cycle. (Shouldn't true "Christians" be spending their millions to feed the poor, help the homeless and protect our children from far greater threats than what two consenting adults do behind closed doors? Do they have that little faith in our children?) A Constitutional Democracy just cannot expect people to stop fighting for equal legal treatment, rights and responsibilities, for their family, right? (NONheterosexuals) won�t stop until the all sides treat the other the way they�d want to be treated.
And to top that off, there may likely be 16,000 legal marriages in California between same-sex couples, regardless of what happens tomorrow. There could be a generation of legally married gay men and women in Ca, even if the state goes through a decade or more before granting equal marriage rights to younger couples again, and they eventually will; all sides should be able to see that. Talk about legal trouble and difficulty explaining marriage law to children."
CNN just said most of California that has yet to be counted are very conservative parts...so a comeback is not likely.
wah, wah, wah!!!
All Precincts Totals
Choice Votes %
Yes 4,346,663 52.0%
No 4,013,770 48.0%
79% of precincts reporting
Updated 11/05 1:50AM
Yes 4,346,663 52.0%
No 4,013,770 48.0%
79% of precincts reporting
Updated 11/05 1:50AM
the closer it gets, the more proof that every vote counts. maybe those 20% who didn't vote will take that to heart for the future...when this amendment is re-amended with another voter initiative.
All Precincts Totals
Choice Votes %
Yes 4,485,567 51.8%
No 4,167,259 48.2%
82% of precincts reporting
Updated 11/05 2:05AM
| quote: |
| Originally posted by bas Feh, like anyone would marry you  |
9:57 a.m. EST, Nov 5 '08
Yes 5,163,908 52%
No 4,760,336 48%
95% of precincts reporting
Maybe California is not as liberal as we all thought... deep conservative roots.
Sad indeed, i was hoping this would not pass, it would of been a great step fowards for the gay community
Maybe also for bas and clovis
| quote: |
| Originally posted by nchs09 Maybe California is not as liberal as we all thought... deep conservative roots. Sad indeed, i was hoping this would NOT pass, it would of been a great step fowards for the gay community Maybe also for bas and clovis |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by gehzumteufel Fixed. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by nchs09 Oh sorry, you are correct. Now i look like an angry bigot |
Re: The "Yes" people want NONheterosexuals to be LESS visible - It might make them MORE .
| quote: |
| Originally posted by selfEvolution Found at: http://isocrat.org/blog/?p=229 ................ ....."the Attorney General of California states that the marriages already enacted will remain valid. The state of CA will not be challenging our extant marriages if Prop 8 passes. Those marriages filed for but not yet solemnized in a marriage ceremony are another issue; those who have a license and have not yet had a ceremony, better be at the tuxedo rental place right now, as the amendment, if it passes, would likely take effect Wednesday. There will be a separate expensive legal battle to determine what to do with couples with the paperwork but not the ceremony. |
Re: Re: The "Yes" people want NONheterosexuals to be LESS visible - It might make the
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pnutttty thanks for your post. i have lost faith in our state, but it just means we must fight harder...till love and equality prevails for everyone. (fighting harder is not a new thing, please see all other civil rights issues). in any case, i had a strong feeling this would be the outcome of the election, so my partner and i got married over the weekend. so we are now officially one of the marriages in limbo. i have been in this committed relationship for nine years and all we want is equality under the law (ie not the church). And it�s unfortunate how the majority can choose the minority�s rights. |
anyone who says they've lost faith isn't too bright. Keep in mind that Proposition 22 from the 2000 elections passed by a 61% majority and Prop 8 only passed by 53%. That's rapid progress when you consider how long social changes take in this country.
Re: Re: The "Yes" people want NONheterosexuals to be LESS visible - It might make them MOR
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pnutttty in any case, i had a strong feeling this would be the outcome of the election, so my partner and i got married over the weekend. so we are now officially one of the marriages in limbo. i have been in this committed relationship for nine years and all we want is equality under the law (ie not the church). And it�s unfortunate how the majority can choose the minority�s rights. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by progressiveMOJO anyone who says they've lost faith isn't too bright. Keep in mind that Proposition 22 from the 2000 elections passed by a 61% majority and Prop 8 only passed by 53%. That's rapid progress when you consider how long social changes take in this country. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by progressiveMOJO anyone who says they've lost faith isn't too bright. Keep in mind that Proposition 22 from the 2000 elections passed by a 61% majority and Prop 8 only passed by 53%. That's rapid progress when you consider how long social changes take in this country. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pnutttty i like to think that i am bright... but please understand that this prop DIRECTLY affects me. i do understand that that we have moved forward since the last election, but then again, we still lost. it was painful to see on tv last night when folks at the yes on prop 8 campaign cheering... cheering when rights have been taken away. |
Quite honestly.....I think the fact that this prop got so much attention is what defeated it. I wish there would have been such a debate on props 7 or 10. Bet ya nearly everyone you asked could tell you what prop 8 was about while not knowing a single thing about the other 11 props. I would have really liked to see us debate the merit of and seek clarification on the wording of 7 and 10 - two propositions with wide-ranging importance yet convoluted wording.
I voted NO but in reality, banning same sex marriage doesn't really affect the freedom of two people, regardless of gender, from carrying on a committed, loving relationship. All it really does is prevent gay couples from acquiring "official" recognition under the law and protect the few remaining employer-based insurance policies that do not already recognize same-sex spouses from insuring those spouses. We'll soon see the end of employer-based health insurance anyways. Many industries have already eliminated employer-based insurance either through bargining or job deployment. At one point, someone on here introduced the idea of discrimination against single people. When you research unionized, female-dominated professions such as teaching, you will find that many have bargined away their health insurance in favor of higher pay. Why? Because many married woman teachers are already covered under their spouse's insurance. The result is married women in teaching whom are able to keep that extra salary while married men and single teachers are being forced to invest any increased salary plus more back into their health coverage.
In any case, the focus of this proposition should have been on the importance of "NOT" ammending the CA constitution to define the sanctity of marriage between two people or appease special-interest groups rather than gay-rights, which is yet another special-interest force in the eyes of many California citizens.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pnutttty it was painful to see on tv last night when folks at the yes on prop 8 campaign cheering... cheering when rights have been taken away. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by CaptKirk Quite honestly.....I think the fact that this prop got so much attention is what defeated it. I wish there would have been such a debate on props 7 or 10. Bet ya nearly everyone you asked could tell you what prop 8 was about while not knowing a single thing about the other 11 props. |
I'm getting rumors that a few million absentee ballots have not been counted yet...Can anyone confirm this?
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.