But what happened with Prop 8?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jIgG

how is the obama presidency going to end this exactly?
given that some dems have given reasoning against banning gay marriage in the constitution that states should themselves decide.

the states voted no, florida especially where 60% are needed for anything to pass is at 62% to ban ... the reality is reality. You can't make people accept something they won't. And if you do force it on them they end up hating you.

---

Actually... you can!
It was proven by the disbanding of the Jim Crowe laws that enforced segregation on the statement that "you can't make people accept blacks". That was struck down, and ever since society has evened out in the US (except for the backwoods rednecks, but that gets back to Basschicks point about education).

In Canada, gay marriage is legal. If it went to vote in the populace, I guarantee that it would not pass. But this is a human rights issue, not a personal belief issue and the Supreme Court recognized the inherent discrimination of such bans.

It was a kafuffle for all of a month. Now... 5 years later, no one even thinks about it anymore here. It is a non-issue.

Do the religious groups agree with it? No! Does it affect them? No! Are they wasting time daily on this issue? No!

The sky did not fall down. Nothing really changed.
Churches are not forced to marry gay couples (that would also be discriminatory) but they are allowed to if they want to.

You can legisate morality - there may be some short term backlash (as in the 60s when white schools were opened to brave black students), but in the end the issue simply disappears as long as the government is brave enough to let it.

Just my two cents...

last I head it was a YEs on prop 8. seriously hoping gobama will bring a change to these laws!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jIgG

And if you do force it on them they end up hating you.

---

We forced slave owners to give up their slaves. They hated us for it, but it was the right thing to do. Now most people couldn't imagine a society where people owned slaves and it was legal, and considered the right thing to do.

In case you missed this:

Legal Papers Claim Initiative Procedure Cannot Be Used To Undermine the Constitution's Core Commitment To Equality For Everyone
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org
SAN FRANCISCO – 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.
"If the voters approved an initiative that took the right to free speech away from women, but not from men, everyone would agree that such a measure conflicts with the basic ideals of equality enshrined in our constitution. Proposition 8 suffers from the same flaw – it removes a protected constitutional right – here, the right to marry – not from all Californians, but just from one group of us," said Jenny Pizer, a staff attorney with Lambda Legal. "That's too big a change in the principles of our constitution to be made just by a bare majority of voters."
"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 groups filed the lawsuit 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.
"Historically, courts are reluctant to get involved in disputes if they can avoid doing so," said Shannon Minter, Legal Director of NCLR. "It is not uncommon for the court to wait to see what happens at the polls before considering these legal arguments. However, now that Proposition 8 may pass, the courts will have to weigh in and we believe they will agree that Proposition 8 should never have been on the ballot in the first place."
This would not be the first time the court has struck down an improper voter initiative. In 1990, the court stuck down an initiative that would have added a provision to the California Constitution stating that the "Constitution shall not be construed by the courts to afford greater rights to criminal defendants than those afforded by the Constitution of the United States." That measure was invalid because it improperly attempted to strip California's courts of their role as independent interpreters of the state's constitution.
In a statement issued earlier today, the groups stated their conviction, which is shared by the California Attorney General, that the state must continue to honor the marriages of the 18,000 lesbian and gay couples who have already married in California.
A copy of the statement is available at: http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationshi...s20081105.html.
A copy of the writ petition filed today is available at: http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationshi...l20081105.html.
In addition to the ACLU, Lambda Legal and NCLR, the legal team bringing the writ also includes the Law Office of David C. Codell; Munger Tolles & Olson, LLP; and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP.

This is a personal post from me:

I am excited about Obama. I voted for Him, that is always a bonus when the guy you vote for wins!

I also voted NO on Prop. 8 in California. It passed. I got this one wrong. The sad thing is I knew before Tuesday that this was going to be a hard one to defeat despite the money I gave along with thousands of others to the VOTE NO ON 8 campaign. I have to say I am feeling a bit guilty and selfish, despite my personal efforts to help get the word out to vote NO on 8, I was married on Monday. It was one of the happiest days of my life, but yet it is a bit tarnished despite the fact that I knew deep inside I had to move up my wedding date because of an election.

Sad.

I this will work out in the end. It always does. "Yes We Can"