my despair over prop 2, 120, and potentially prop 8

[Slytovhand]

Ah... cos you're only allowed 4 or 5 in any one post...


Oh - you're referring to yourself...

And I'd say - it says I'm straighter than you....

[smileyeagle1021]

And I'd say - it says I'm straighter than you....

so only slight curved instead of going way off into left field

[AdminAssistant]

I heard on the radio this morning that the Gover-nator may be taking Prop 8 to the courts, so it's not over yet.

[smileyeagle1021]

I heard on the radio this morning that the Gover-nator may be taking Prop 8 to the courts, so it's not over yet.

OMG, what's the feeling... is that a feeling of respect for Governor Schwarenegger I've never had that feeling before...

Though on the topic of taking it to the courts, isn't the argument pretty much going to be that for a constitutional amendment it has to be passed by the legislature then voted on by the public, not done by public referandum?

[AFPheonix]

If the proposition itself is already unconstitutional, then it can be overturned with no additional legislation needed.

[ThePhoneGoddess]

Good Lord are all these people really that clueless about how badly Prop 8 was worded? It's a definition of a little 8 letter word. That's it. That's all it is. The word isn't the important part. The concept behind it is. Yet people are acting like it's a sacred word that cannot be changed. I don't get it.

All California needs to do is change the legal terminology. That's all they have to do, and it will completely do an end-run around prop 8!

There is no legal, codifying distinction between civil and religious marriage. All California has to do is rewrite the basic marriage law, and call the institution of civil marriage something else---say, a civil partnership. Let the religious people have that little 8 letter word. But call it something else, and by doing so, they will have completely separated the institution of civil marriage from the religious practice it was based on. They can then make 'civil partnerships' subject to state anti-discrimination laws, which means they will be available to everyone---gay, straight, and transgender, and they will all be exactly the same.

Personally, I think this needs to be done on a national level, it will completely put an end to the whole fight. Gah, but what do I know.

[the_std]

An interesting little clip I found through the "I Drew This" blog. Keith Olbermann on Prop 8.

[smileyeagle1021]

STD, I think that Olbermann clip is one of his best special comments ever. It's amazing that the guy who makes the strongest plea is the guy who is least affected... which I think makes it even stronger.

[wanderingjoe72]

At least Arizona was consistent in voting for the good ole boys and a backwards prop.

For the record it was prop 102 here in AZ.

Painting the entire state with one brush is the same as saying "all gays are ... or all blacks are ..."

Don't act like the bigots you are trying to overcome.

I am a conservative athiest with strong Jewish sympathies. So this prop was easy, let it pass so the gay community can feel the pain of divorce too.

Many of my friends, straight and gay, were behind it all the way, but there is a larger group against. No matter how vocal you are, there is a silent majority that will surprise you on election day.

Also to address ThePhoneGoddess, civil unions were offered, but some groups didn't want it. It was compared to the seperate but equal laws of times past. Also some more militant groups specifically want to use the word marriage. Thus hurting the cause for all others.

[Boozy]

Also to address ThePhoneGoddess, civil unions were offered, but some groups didn't want it. It was compared to the seperate but equal laws of times past.

I think you misunderstood TPG's point. She was saying that we should allow the propositions to pass which recognize "marriage" as some sacred thing for straight people only. Then we could simply change the word we use to describe the legal institution we currently call "marriage." Call it a "civil union". It would not be "separate but equal", because the new term would apply to everyone. The government would stop offering "marriage" and start offering "civil unions".

Correct me if I've misunderstood, TPG.

[smileyeagle1021]

Boozy, that's how I understood TPG's post as well... it's also something I've advocated... but as TPG said "what do I know". As far as the majority of the pro prop 8 people are concerned my voice means less than nothing... it is an annoyance that they would like nothing more than to have silenced (because if I don't shut up I'm just a sore loser )

[anriana]

I think you misunderstood TPG's point. She was saying that we should allow the propositions to pass which recognize "marriage" as some sacred thing for straight people only. Then we could simply change the word we use to describe the legal institution we currently call "marriage." Call it a "civil union". It would not be "separate but equal", because the new term would apply to everyone. The government would stop offering "marriage" and start offering "civil unions".

Correct me if I've misunderstood, TPG.

(assuming that's what TPG said)

While I find this a great solution, there are already multiple states with laws that prohibit recognition of civil unions or rights for domestic partners. For the civil union idea to be enforced, ~15 amendments on state constitutions would have to be overturned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ther_contracts

[IDrinkaRum]

let it pass so the gay community can feel the pain of divorce too.

That's what my favorite writer/politician, Kinky Friedman felt when he was running for Governor of Texas. He basically said gay people should have the right to be just as miserable as straight people. (Mr. Friedman is not married and will never get married, just for the record).

[ThePhoneGoddess]

Yes, Boozy, you got my point exactly.

If some states have already passed laws against 'civil unions', then we can simply use another term. but we need to separate the concepts of religious partnerships and civil partnerships. Completely and totally separate them. It will make the entire issue much simpler and more logical.

[anriana]

Yes, Boozy, you got my point exactly.

If some states have already passed laws against 'civil unions', then we can simply use another term. but we need to separate the concepts of religious partnerships and civil partnerships. Completely and totally separate them. It will make the entire issue much simpler and more logical.

They've done more than that though, they've amended the constitution to deny any the rights of a civil partnership to any couple who is not a man and a woman.