Gay

[tencrush]

Way to harsh my squee, though, dudes. Gay and married still not a popular thing to be, apparently. Fuckers.

Come on!
*still crossing fingers for California*

Comments

[vertrauen.livejournal.com]

And according to CNN's coverage, all those gay and lesbian couples who have already been married will still be considered legally married if Prop 8 passes.

It makes no sense. No sense at all.

[kurthummel.livejournal.com]

Awnold claims he's going to fight it, and most of the powerful people in California are against it. So the fight is NOT over yet!

[tencrush]

AAAAGH! I didn't expect Arizona, Arkansas or Florida to go the sane route but I really expected prop 8 to be shot down in California. I'm sad.

[littlepunkryo.livejournal.com]

Oh I hope that's true, if worse comes to worse. It's not fair that they get married and then have it yanked away like that.

[kurthummel.livejournal.com]

I expected it to go either way. California is blue, sure, but it's a toss up when it comes to stuff like this. As a resident all my life, I'm DISGUSTED, but we have to look on the bright side. America elected Barack Obama.

[jo02]

On the good side a lot of those results were close, looking at the numbers.

Considering what they would have been just 5 years ago this is good. Seriously.

And Florida, which I think had the biggest bad margin, is easy to explain. Isn't it full of old people? Set in their ways - and a lot of them will be dead in another 5 years (ooh was that a non-PC thing to say?)

[risinggraenn.livejournal.com]

Its 5 AM here in CA and I am up WAY too early. According to the LA Time's map, the votes still to be counted are in the counties around where I live that haven't finished reporting in yet. Including San Bernardino, my own county--with only 29% of the precincts reporting in yet. WTF?

The bad news--91% of precincts across the state have reported and Yes has 52%, No 48% of the vote so far. Worse, the IE (San Bernardino, Riverside counties) is traditionally conservative, and San Diego is where the Proposition was started . . .

AGGGGGG!

[alba17.livejournal.com]

I'm on the East Coast, didn't know about Prop 8 until this morning - TOO BAD! I didn't even know about the measures in the other states, although not surprised. I'm confused about the legalities here. I remember that the people who were married in SF had their marriages
undone (I thought). Maybe there's something different about this because it's a proposition? Not sure.

[risinggraenn.livejournal.com]

Yes, the CA State Supreme Court overturned the SF marriages.

However, this past May, it also overturned Prop 22 (passed a few years ago) which mandated marriage must be between a man and a woman.

Marriage licenses began to be issue to same sex couples in June--I was there at the County Courthouse handing out flowers an cake, it was amazing!

Opponents of legalizing same sex marriage have repeatedly brought this issue to the ballot over the past 10 years.

Prop 8 however, differs because it seeks to amend the state CONSTITUTION. California is somewhat insane with regard to the ease by which propositions can be put on the ballot. But even worse, requires only a simple 50% majority to amend its constitution!

[tencrush]

Yeah, the 50% thing is crazy. At least Florida requires 60%. It got 60%, which is shocking, but still, at least it requires 60%. This is really sad news.

[alba17.livejournal.com]

Since I don't live there, I was obviously not paying enough attention to this, as I didn't realize Prop 8 would amend the state constitution. Egads! That really seems ridiculous to be so easy to amend the constitution. So, I know I can look this up, but what will the CA constitution say now? And how will marriages done since June be affected?

[risinggraenn.livejournal.com]

It’s going to be a huge mess.

And the opinions as to what will happen to the 17,000+ married after the change in law . . . Some legal scholars have said either the existing marriages will remain valid, others were arguing that they will be annulled, as happened when the State Supreme Court overturned the SF marriages.

A suit to dismiss the initiative from the ballot brought by gay rights groups in June was dismissed. They tried to argue that the changes under prop 8 would constitute a revision to the CA constitution (which requires a 2/3 vote of legislature, before going to voters) rather than a simple amendment, which did not require the legislature’s participation. They also argued that the petitions to put the proposition on the ballot (which circulated prior to the May Supreme Court legalization of same-sex marriage) were now misleading, because they had stated that the proposition would not change marriage laws (untrue after May) and would have no fiscal impact.

State Attorney Jerry Brown has stated that "marriages that have been entered into subsequent to the [May 15] Supreme Court opinion will be recognized by the California Supreme Court. . . . I would think the court, in looking at the underlying equities, would most probably conclude that upholding the marriages performed in that interval [before the election] would be a just result."

Some constitutional scholars are agreeing that the amendment cannot be applied retroactively so the marriages will stand. This was the motive behind a number of my friends making sure they got legally married prior to the election.

The state constitution will define marriage as only between one man and one woman. California does have a domestic partnership act, but separate but equal (HAH!) is NOT equal. Under domestic partnership, couples do NOT get right of inheritance, nor do they have protection with regard to health care decisions. For example, they could be denied the right to ride in an ambulance with their partner, or make health care decisions for them if they did not have separate power of attorney for health care.

[alba17.livejournal.com]

Thanks for all the details. This is interesting to me as I'm a (non-practicing) lawyer. Yeah, what a mess.

[hel-bee.livejournal.com]

I think being a Brit I find it hard to understand why the States seem to have such a backlash. Although, over here it's still not refered to as marriage (and there's was stil a long fight prior to the introduction in 2006)it seems just a thing that happens. But then I'm a fairly liberal person and and my friends are too... so therefore not gonna hang about with the homophobes. In fact, I went to my first civil partnership this autumn.

[risinggraenn.livejournal.com]

Legal challenge is on the way!

See: http://www.eqca.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=4061163&content_id={43A72A1B-BEAC-4756-84BF-1DA2414ABD80}¬oc=1

"The American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights filed a writ petition before the California Supreme Court today urging the court to invalidate Proposition 8 if it passes. The petition charges that Proposition 8 is invalid because the initiative process was improperly used in an attempt to undo the constitution's core commitment to equality for everyone by eliminating a fundamental right from just one group -- lesbian and gay Californians. Proposition 8 also improperly attempts to prevent the courts from exercising their essential constitutional role of protecting the equal protection rights of minorities.

According to the California Constitution, such radical changes to the organizing principles of state government cannot be made by simple majority vote through the initiative process, but instead must, at a minimum, go through the state legislature first.

The California Constitution itself sets out two ways to alter the document that sets the most basic rules about how state government works. Through the initiative process, voters can make relatively small changes to the constitution. But any measure that would change the underlying principles of the constitution must first be approved by the legislature before being submitted to the voters. That didn't happen with Proposition 8, and that's why it's invalid."

"A major purpose of the constitution is to protect minorities from majorities. Because changing that principle is a fundamental change to the organizing principles of the constitution itself, only the legislature can initiate such revisions to the constitution," added Elizabeth Gill, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California.

The lawsuit was filed today in the California Supreme Court on behalf of Equality California and 6 same-sex couples who did not marry before Tuesday's election but would like to be able to marry now.

The groups filed a writ petition in the California Supreme Court before the elections presenting similar arguments because they believed the initiative should not have appeared on the ballot, but the court dismissed that petition without addressing its merits. That earlier order is not precedent here."