|
The NO on Prop 8 thread.... (pg. 24)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| gehzumteufel |
| I don't disagree with you. I really do see what you are saying, and seeing that I wish all issues got the same amount of attention I have nothing against that. |
|
|
| JCIZZLE! |
So Greg, when are you coming out of the closet? :tongue3 :tongue3 :tongue3
Been way too long, hope you're doing fine. :toocool: |
|
|
| DaveT |
I think if this comes up again in 2012, it'll pass then.
In 2000, it was only expected that 25% of Californians would support gay marraige. Going into this election with Prop 8, they said their numbers showed another 21%-25% of Californians now support gay marraige.
I heard this on KRON4 when they were interview some top person from the No on 8 campaign. They knew it would be real close with a good chance of not winning. And going by their numbers coming into the election, 48% saying NO to Prop 8 falls right in line with their numbers.
But they are still very happy to see how much support has grown for gay marraige over the last eight years. A 23% jump on such a big issue. And if the trend continues, it'll easily pass in 2012. |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by DaveT
I think if this comes up again in 2012, it'll pass then.
In 2000, it was only expected that 25% of Californians would support gay marraige. Going into this election with Prop 8, they said their numbers showed another 21%-25% of Californians now support gay marraige.
I heard this on KRON4 when they were interview some top person from the No on 8 campaign. They knew it would be real close with a good chance of not winning. And going by their numbers coming into the election, 48% saying NO to Prop 8 falls right in line with their numbers.
But they are still very happy to see how much support has grown for gay marraige over the last eight years. A 23% jump on such a big issue. And if the trend continues, it'll easily pass in 2012. |
What are they going to pass? A constitutional amendment that repeals it? |
|
|
| DJ Reese |
| quote: | Originally posted by gehzumteufel
What are they going to pass? A constitutional amendment that repeals it? |
Exactly! The problem is this prop was taking an extreme approach. To change the Cali Constitution! Once changed, its not so easy to change it back. This issue is faaaaaar from over. I think its really just begun. A lawsuit has already been filled because the petitions signed to get prop 8 on the ballot contained different information than what was on the actual prop. They misled people to get the prop voted on, which means it never even should have been on the ballot. And then they misled people to get it passed. I'm telling you, this will not be done until it makes it through the National Supreme Court. Just the tip of the iceberg. |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Reese
Exactly! The problem is this prop was taking an extreme approach. To change the Cali Constitution! Once changed, its not so easy to change it back. This issue is faaaaaar from over. I think its really just begun. A lawsuit has already been filled because the petitions signed to get prop 8 on the ballot contained different information than what was on the actual prop. They misled people to get the prop voted on, which means it never even should have been on the ballot. And then they misled people to get it passed. I'm telling you, this will not be done until it makes it through the National Supreme Court. Just the tip of the iceberg. |
The sad thing is there is still a pretty good chance the supreme court won't hear it or rules with the homophobic view. |
|
|
| selfEvolution |
| quote: | Originally posted by DaveT
I think if this comes up again in 2012, it'll pass then.
they said their numbers showed another 21%-25% of Californians now support gay marriage.
|
I think so too, but if I'm not mistaken, about 48% voted no - wouldn't that mean that 48% "of Californias now support gay marriage" and not "21%-25%?
48% was darn close - I think a Constitution, by definition should be a solid instrument of the law which should not be easily changed by the prejudices and biases of an ill-educated "majority". This nation was founded on the principle that minorities (in particular, it started with minority religions such as the MORMONS) should be protected by the majority. If the majority of Christian Fundamentalist could have voted away the rights of Mormons to practice their minority religion in the 1840s, I think they would have certainly done so.
I'm writing my Congress people and Senators to advocate for a 2/3 majority in changing our states Constitution, realizing that 2/3 may even be too few in some cases, considering the religious tyranny that often attempts to intrude on the private lives of consenting adults. Government (the collective) has no business in the personal psychology and sociology of equality - whether it be in name (marriage) or not (the "less equal" notion of domestic partnership).
Thomas Jefferson sated that NO laws should be passed unless they are proved to show harm to other people. NONheterosexual marriage in no way harms anyone else and the "YES" fanatics were not able to prove so before the California Supreme court, despite being given months to make their case.
It's hypocritical that so many (not all) "conservative Christians" often claim they don't want "big government" - unless government bows down to their biases and prejudices. True morality and freedom can only come when the prejudices of a majority no longer dictates (as in dictatorships) the lives of law-abiding minorities. |
|
|
| DJ Reese |
| quote: | Originally posted by gehzumteufel
The sad thing is there is still a pretty good chance the supreme court won't hear it or rules with the homophobic view. |
I don't think that'll happen. It's too serious of an issue. And the simple fact is it's "unconstitutional." The Supreme Courts are in place just for these kind of issues. The problem is seeing cow the rest of the country reacts to this once it gets close to them. There were many other states with gay marrige props. Needless to say, Cali had the closest vote.
Check em out http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/re...allot.measures/ |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Reese
I don't think that'll happen. It's too serious of an issue. And the simple fact is it's "unconstitutional." The Supreme Courts are in place just for these kind of issues. The problem is seeing cow the rest of the country reacts to this once it gets close to them. There were many other states with gay marrige props. Needless to say, Cali had the closest vote.
Check em out http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/re...allot.measures/ |
I was looking at all the states earlier. There are a lot of states that already banned it previously.
And the reason I see that it may still not pass the supreme court is because of the conservatives that Bush appointed. |
|
|
| DJ Reese |
| quote: | Originally posted by gehzumteufel
I was looking at all the states earlier. There are a lot of states that already banned it previously.
And the reason I see that it may still not pass the supreme court is because of the conservatives that Bush appointed. |
My girlfriend literally just brought up that point. We'll just have to see how heated this gets once it really breaks out of Cali. |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Reese
My girlfriend literally just brought up that point. We'll just have to see how heated this gets once it really breaks out of Cali. |
Exactly. It is a concern of mine, but we will see how it all plays out. |
|
|
| CaptKirk |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Reese
Exactly! The problem is this prop was taking an extreme approach. To change the Cali Constitution! Once changed, its not so easy to change it back. This issue is faaaaaar from over. I think its really just begun. A lawsuit has already been filled because the petitions signed to get prop 8 on the ballot contained different information than what was on the actual prop. They misled people to get the prop voted on, which means it never even should have been on the ballot. And then they misled people to get it passed. I'm telling you, this will not be done until it makes it through the National Supreme Court. Just the tip of the iceberg. |
Doubt it will go anywhere. I don't think there was a need for any misleading information. Compared to all other propositions this contained the most simple and straight-forward text. Less than 10 lines of text really. Very simple argument unless the argument is one of "intent". Does the "intent" of this ammendment violate the inherent ideals of equality set forth in the constitution.
This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the
provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.
This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by
adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are
printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
SECTION 1. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage
Protection Act.”
SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution,
to read:
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized
in California.
That is the entire proposition, see pg. 128 of the Official Voter Information Guide.
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/te...-laws.pdf#prop8
Here is the text contained in Article II, section 8 of the California Constitution. Pretty straigh-forward.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL
SEC. 8. (a) The initiative is the power of the electors to propose
statutes and amendments to the Constitution and to adopt or reject
them.
(b) An initiative measure may be proposed by presenting to the
Secretary of State a petition that sets forth the text of the
proposed statute or amendment to the Constitution and is certified to
have been signed by electors equal in number to 5 percent in the
case of a statute, and 8 percent in the case of an amendment to the
Constitution, of the votes for all candidates for Governor at the
last gubernatorial election.
(c) The Secretary of State shall then submit the measure at the
next general election held at least 131 days after it qualifies or at
any special statewide election held prior to that general election.
The Governor may call a special statewide election for the measure.
(d) An initiative measure embracing more than one subject may not
be submitted to the electors or have any effect.
(e) An initiative measure may not include or exclude any political
subdivision of the State from the application or effect of its
provisions based upon approval or disapproval of the initiative
measure, or based upon the casting of a specified percentage of votes
in favor of the measure, by the electors of that political
subdivision.
(f) An initiative measure may not contain alternative or
cumulative provisions wherein one or more of those provisions would
become law depending upon the casting of a specified percentage of
votes for or against the measure.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_2
basically, they would have had to have a petition signed by 8 percent of the total number of voters that voted for all California gubernatorial candidates in the last election. That's a huge number of signatures just to get it on the ballot. |
|
|
|
|
