Prop 8

[unclejimbo]

I'm not happy about this ruling. It is wrong. It cannot be allowed to stand.

kyburg says this is half a loaf. Sure, we still have people who are gay and legally married, but so what? I'm just so sick and tired of politicians who are afraid of offending the fucking Radical Right. Screw them and the horse they rode in on. They can take their Fundementalist SUPERSTITIONS and go jump off a building. The bigger the better.

I don't want to come together. I want them to just go away. Have your Rapture already, the World will not miss you!

Comments

[caitlin.livejournal.com]

The ruling makes NO SENSE.

[magaliiiii.livejournal.com]

The ruling actually makes a ton of sense; it was a ruling on the legality of the November election for Prop 8, not gay marriage. After all, the same court opened the can of worms saying gay marriage was cool.

But the election was performed legally, and the Court had no real legal legs to stand on, precedent-wise, to allow them to throw it out without throwing out or seriously questioning the entire ballot initiative system we have now. I'm glad they showed some restraint, personally, and I want marriage equality more than most people.

That being said, we need to (as washuotaku said below) reconsider our ballot initiative system to avoid this problem in the future.

[caitlin.livejournal.com]

Prop 8 making Gay Marriage illegal stands, BUT 18,000 marriages between people of the same gender ALSO stand?

Smacks more of the Chinese Exclusion Act, where the number of Chinese in the country could not increase because they were no longer "being allowed"...

How's that for 1882.

[magaliiiii.livejournal.com]

While I take your point, my point stands; they're allowing the marriages that occurred from the point that the court said "Gay marriage is legal" to the point where the people voted to change the Constitution saying it was not.

(Aside, nobody on the Supreme Court or Capitol Hill thinks it's going to be more than 2-3 years before it's legal in CA anyway.)

It really is wrong to say that the Court should have done the "fixing" for us this time. We are way too in love in the idea of a powerful judiciary to realize the serious, serious problems with letting them decide whatever the hell they want, precedent be damned. They made the right decision, disappointing as it feels.

[caitlin.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'm not saying your point isn't valid... it's very valid.

The "this ruling makes no sense" was my initial gut reaction to it until I think someone on another friend's post about this pointed out that the justices were ruling on procedure, not content.

In which case I suspect there will be some election reform taking place in California...

because this whole thing has been a joke... contradictory initiatives, ability to recall the governor (The Governator has not done a better job than Davis... in fact, Schwarzenegger is more high profile than Davis...), and the ability to amend the state constitution with a 50+1 majority while needing a super majority to pass state budget.

Even almost 2 years removed from California, I'm watching the process from Iowa (and then there's the Equal Protection ruling here...) and wondering how long things have been out of control.

[magaliiiii.livejournal.com]

I completely agree. More than anything we need to fix our extremely broken initiatives/Constitutional amendment problem.

[washuotaku.livejournal.com]

The court ruled in a 6-1 margin, so one cannot argue that, they were pretty clear to there reasons why. Yea, I'm not surprised that another ballot will come soon for this; California should maybe reconsider not allowing the constitution to be changed so easily.

[unclejimbo.livejournal.com]

Well, one can argue but it won't solve much. We'll just have to go back and do a better job as we work to overturn Prop 8.

I agree, we so badly need to change this way of 'revising' the constitution of our state. It should never be this easy.