Prop. 8: The whole idea that Civil Rights can be left to popular opinion is just WRONG.

Can you imagine if the 1964 Civil Rights Act had been put up to a popular vote by proposition? Can you imagine any state in the South voting against Jim Crow? Can you imagine the money that would have gone into the ad campaigns to keep segregated schools and "Whites Only" restrooms?

That's what happened with Prop 8. Popular opinion and expensive commercials were allowed to decide the civil rights of a whole group of Americans.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

This is the real issue underneath everything.

It has baffled me from the beginning that a PETITION could over rule a state court.

to get around Supreme Court decisions in the past. California has the same legal right.

Civil rights are inherent, and not up to popular vote.

I hope you are correct on this. Prop 8 was just totally a travesty.

Civil rights, such as procedural fairness in law; protection from discrimination based on gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc; individual freedom of belief, speech, association, and the press; and political participation are all based on the constitution.

They can be taken away if you don't fight for them.

Human rights are considered inherent, but still, governments violate those every day also.

Nothing is guaranteed, as much as I wish it was.

And the right to marry has to be in some sort of law, and the constitution of California is the next to the last word on the law in that state, Just as the constitution is for the United States. If its in the constitution, there's no path through the Ca supreme court to get it overturned.

Sorry, I don't like it either, but thats the way it is. We'll try again, or something else.

Florida's constitution was also amended this past Friday to deny marital rights to gay people, and since the vote passed by a 63% majority, it can't be invalidated in the courts or anywhere else until and unless 60% or more of the people of Florida decide to change it.

I don't believe that the anti-gay decisions made in Arizona or Arkansas can be overturned by state courts either. Nor can the constitutional amendments in numerous other states denying civil rights to gay people.

The only likely remedy to these decisions would be on the federal level, and since the U.S. has yet to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, I'm not holding my breath. Gay people will continue to have many fewer rights than everybody else for a long time.

I've been saying this. Would you let the bigots in the South decide yes or no on Jim Crow? I don't think so. Civil rights issues should never be a proposition. It should be a given.

but what about Suffrage period? Do you honestly think the older days of male dominated government would have allowed women to vote if they didn't have to? The fact is when you allow the majority to decide what is right and wrong for a minority, then you have tyranny of the many.

This is why some things should not be permitted by state ballot. Taxes and projects, yes. Civil rights? Never.

Congress had to pass it out by a 2/3 vote and the states had to ratify by a 3/4 vote. So in that sense the people (men only of course) voted on granting the franchise to women. If it had gone the other way, women would have been denied a right.

Hmmm

n/t

And these reps had to look at the Constitution at some level.

stop the ERA pretty effectively from even getting to a fair vote, or even a vote at all, on the floor of their legislatures. In Illinois they passed a new "super majority" rule just to apply to the vote on the ERA. In VA they tied the amendment up in committee so it couldn't even reach the floor. They were two of the last three that cooked the goose for the ERA back in the early '80s.

And with respect to the right to buy/use contraceptives in CT, the Catholic Church had so sewn up the state legislature they could never pass a bill that legalized birth control in the state (PP volunteers had to drive women to clinics in New York and RI). Year after year, Planned Parenthood would trudge up to Hartford to give testimony from docs and to lobby state reps, to no avail. Then, of course, they challenged the law by disobeying it and we had Griswold v. CT.

I am hopeful that we'll get a progressive Supreme Court soon and CA's horrendous Initiative will be invalidated...

Religion always fights against women.

these terrible legislators. I wasn't here at the time but I know the history, having worked for PPC as a major gifts officer. Affluent Greenwich women volunteers would routinely pick up women in lower CT to take them over the state line to NY to get fitted for diaphragms. It was a crazy time...

Women had the vote in Wyoming in 1869, Utah in 1970.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_women%27s_suffrage_in_the_United_States

Huh?

protects the minority from the majority. It's the very thing that prevents a theocratic fascist dictatorship in the USA.
It is a crime. The Supreme Court should strike it down with Obama advocating how they should vote. Obama cannot decide for them
but he can voice an opinion. That is what Presidents are suppose to do. We've had enough years of spineless greed running the nation.
:dem:

'Separate but equal' is not acceptable.

And there is nothing preventing a theocratic fascist dictatorship in the USA.

>>The Supreme Court should strike it down with Obama advocating how they should vote.

The Ca Supreme court cannot strike it down, its in the constitution of Ca now.
The US Supreme court was named by a republician. They won't hear it or they'll vote no.

We're stuck

that are voted upon on the ballot?

wtf?

why does california even allow this?

I need to check.

"based on popular vote."

i wasn't just picking on california.

propositions should be available to decide local laws and even state laws. all subject to challenges and higher judicial rulings.

i'm cool with that.

but changes to the state constitution? that just seems so absurd to me.


what's next? u.s. constitutional changes based on a 50 state proposition?

It's just ludicrous.

propositions should never be allowed to change a state or federal constitution.

maybe that is the point where we should start.

change that!

I am wondering what the courts will do.

.

We just had to undo a previous state constitutional amendment so that embryonic stem cell research could be legal in this state.

Voters have correctly identified a problem and then arrived at an undemocratic solution.

In the case of our state's proposition process (it's been around since 1911 or so, I believe), the problem was a "do-nothing legislature." Rather than working to make the legislature more responsive, we arrived at the initiative process instead.

In the case of propositions that amend the state's Constitution, I am in complete agreement with you. The rationale for the existence of the federal Bill of Rights is to counteract the "tyranny of the majority." The fact that California's propositions, even those that amend the state's Constitution, can win with a simple majority seems to be in stark contravention to the motivations of those who saw the necessity of creating the Bill of Rights in the first place.

our founders did not include a 'ballot initiative' concept in the constitution. This was, similar to what you said, a way of letting the legislature off the hook for not doing anything socially impacting and then claiming to not have a hand in the decision if it becomes unpopular among some sects in society. There is a reason why state's rights are supposed to be left up to elected officials: they are held accountable if they vote for a heinous act such as this. We have no one to hold accountable but statistics in this case

... this gets to the heart of the slippery nature of the 10th Amendment.

the 10th amendment.

ha!

the "get out of jail free" card of all constitutional amendments...

yes INDEED

Why do you ask?

He filibustered:

"....On the the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed an address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation. Until then, the measure had occupied the Senate for 57 working days, including six Saturdays. A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, the bill's manager, concluded he had the 67 votes required at that time to end the debate and end the filibuster. With six wavering senators providing a four-vote victory margin, the final tally stood at 71 to 29. Never in history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a civil rights bill. And only once in the 37 years since 1927 had it agreed to cloture for any measure.<7>..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Passage_in_the_Senate

referendum.

Progress does not happen by acclamation...it is usually by revolution.

We can point fingers all day long, but this should never have been a voting matter. Hell, if they can vote for shit like this, I'm putting together a petition for a law that charges for oxygen breathed in church. Hey, why not?

It's just immoral.

The majority decided (by a slim margin) that same-sex marriage is NOT YET a civil right. In 2000, Proposition 22, which was worded differently but had the same practical effect, passed with a 61% majority. Prop 8 passed with 52.5% of the vote. That's an 8.5% movement in 8 years. At that rate the LGBT community should be riding down victory lane in 3 or 4 years. Keep fighting for your beliefs and you should prevail.

I am not a fan of ballot initiative- I think it caters to demagoguery. Give me representative democracy with restrictive hurdles for ballot initiatives and constitutional amendments. I don't ever want to see a flag-burning amendment on the same page as the Bill of Rights.

It is unconstitutional. This isn't a gay marriage issue, its an equality issue. If they aren't allowed to marry, I guess they shouldn't have to pay taxes either then. Their business shouldn't have to adhere to EPA standards then, if they aren't allowed the equal rights we are, because clearly they are not the same type of citizens the rest of us are. It is disgraceful.

the way to "keep fighting for your beliefs" is to file or be party to a law suit. Law suits don't just happen, people file them. In fact, I understand multiple law suits have already been filed.

I don't think the rest of your argument holds up. You have the same right as everyone else- you can "marry" a member of the opposite sex. Of course, that right is useless to you and that's the rub. Likewise, I face the same restriction on my freedom as you- I can not marry a member of the same sex. I'm heterosexual so the restriction has no consequence for me.

they don't care because they aren't gay. Get over yourself and realize that even if you didn't vote for this, by sitting idly by you do nothing to stand up for others whose rights to equality under the law are being stripped. How would you like it if you couldnt get married because your first name was Rick? Should i give a shit if my name is not Rick? According to your logic, no.

Marriage (to another consenting adult of one's own choosing) has been ruled a fundamental right.

Sexual orientation has been ruled a suspect class, so laws pertaining to it are subject to strict scrutiny.

Prop 8 takes away a fundamental right from a suspect class of people.

Seems like a dangerous precedent to me, unless we want a ban on Mormon teachers in public schools on the 2010 ballot.

as I was not familiar with the term. Here's the wiki link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification

Article says sexual orientation is subject only to "rational basis scrutiny." It goes on to mention cases where anti-gay laws were struck down anyway.

Thanks for the right-on-target Anatole France quote.

Thanks for letting us know.

Are you suggesting another proposition to undo the amendment?

(Agree with what you said on demagoguery.)

I think you win eventually. How did the demographics break down by age group? If younger people are more receptive it should just be a matter of time. Also, next time don't have the misfortune to put it on the ballot when every last black evangelical in the state is going to show up to vote (2012).

in the state constitution.

Preferably in the back yards of them that shat it.

BTW, I've heard God has annulled the marriages of all those who voted for it. Yes, they are all living in sin now and they'll be called on it when they reach the Pearly Gates. It must suck bad to be them. What's so hard to understand about religious freedom and civil rights? Nothing unless you already got the devil gnawing on your soul and all you got left are your fears and superstitions.

:cry:

There's a reason the phrase "tyranny of the majority" was coined.

It happens all the time, and 100 years in the case of the blacks.

I'm not saying its right, it is wrong, but it happens.

In Canada, same sex marriage was decided in the Supreme Courts of several provinces before parliament voted to make it national in 2005. In our 2006 election, the Conservative party promised they would reopen the debate. The Cons won, and parliament voted to keep same sex marriage legal.

And here's the thing - it's not a national issue anymore. We had an election in October, and same sex marriage was not part of the dialogue. There was no serious lobby to make it an issue. It was not mentioned in the debates. Obviously there are people that are very very opposed to it still, but they have been marginalised. Canadians born in this century will grow up in a country where that doesn't discriminate in its marriage laws, and they'll probably be more likely to think of being gay as not really a big deal.

And I just don't think that would happen if it had to keep coming up for all of us to vote on every election. The kind of divisive campaigning that would keep coming up would mean that we couldn't get to the point of same sex marriage being "not big deal," being mainstream, etc.

This week it seems very wrong to me.

that the California Supreme Court struck down the first ballot initiative that passed (I think it was prop 22?) saying it was unconstitutional. That being said, I guess the constitution regarding checks and balances is wrong then. Supreme Court rulings are law. They cannot be overturned by a majority vote. They cannot be overturned by a veto by Congress. You can resubmit a LAW to them with 99.9% similiar wording, but this is a ballot initiative NOT a law and therefore can not overturn a Supreme court decision.

This is an end run around making a law. If you amend the constitution, the Supreme Court ruling is undone.

the religious groups will mount continued challenges. Right now, they are going after all the marriages that were performed from the time of the court decision to November 4th and are trying to get them undone.

on gay marriage.

The good news is that there's a strong case for considering Prop 8 a revision of the Constitution, rather than an amendment.

Revisions, unlike regular amendments, must be approved by a 2/3 vote of the legislature before going to the voters (can't recall if the voters need 2/3 or simple majority).

I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that Prop 8 would constitute the removal of a fundamental right from a suspect class of people, and thus fundamentally change the balance of governmental powers in California. The precedent would be set for the majority to remove rights that have already been deemed fundamental from whichever unpopular minority group they choose.

Given that this is the same court that declared sexual orientation a suspect class, and marriage a fundamental right that cannot be denied per California's equal protection guarantees, I am eager to see the headlines when they rule that Prop 8 would be an illegal revision of the constitution and thus may not be enforced.

NCLR, ACLU, EQCA.org, and LambdaLegal.org have already filed a petition for a writ of mandate, basically asking the Court to tell the state gov't not to enact the provisions of Prop 8. I'm told that petitions for writ are processed relatively quickly, in weeks or months not years.

In the meantime, it wouldn't hurt to send a few bucks to www.NCLRights.org www.aclunc.org www.eqca.org and/or www.lambdalegal.org to help with legal expenses.

I have been saying this for a while. Democrats are too cautious, too worried about their reelections to have the guts to do something but with a strong majority maybe we can do something. BUT it will be at the cost of some votes, though. They just lack the political will. We will have to force the issue somehow.

I also believe it needs to be federal, not state by state, because then people are treated differently depending on which state they happen to be in and THAT is a violation of the equal protection clause I believe. I'm no lawyer though.

our country is in the miserable state it's in.

Prop 13 decimated our public school system.

Poorly educated voters who are now the product of that system are the reason that Prop 8 passed.

Sounds elitist? Go suck it.

The resulting inequities in the property tax system mean that the fundies up the street pay about $500 a year in property taxes, while we pay almost $7,000. Same house. Wildly different taxes.

I'm sick of this entire system, there is no way that most people know what they're even voting for, and the industry that has grown up around the petition drives is disgusting.

We should bring down Prop 8, and the entire Prop system with it.

Ask me why my school hasn't had repairs in years.

the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God/Goddess/existential emptiness, take your pick.

I love it. :D

NT

a person's civil right isnt up for a vote. PERIOD

:)

okay, she wasn't all that wise -- she ran off to the Midwest with some guy she met at a clinic defense, leaving me in the lurch where I remain to this very day -- but the point is valid nonetheless.

The sad thing is, the initiative process was originally considered progressive. It was supposed to be a way for the people to express their will directly, rather than being held hostage by legislators -- and the lobbyists who influenced them. Now all it is, is a way for big corporate interests (this includes the LDS Church, which has huge real estate, retail and communications interests, especially in Utah) to buy people's votes wholesale, rather than deal with legislators, some of whom might actually have principles. :eyes:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The phrase tyranny of the majority, used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule, is a criticism of the scenario in which decisions made by a majority under that system would place that majority's interests so far above a minority's interest as to be comparable to "tyrannical" despots.<1>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

If it were left up to the states, I'm sure some of them would still be segregated.

K&R

segregated waiting rooms. One place was some tiny town in Southern Virginia. This was about 10 years ago.

:kick:

:)

Civil rights exist. Period. They can need to be recognized - as happened at various times in our history. But they exist, regardless of the majority's views.

And they are never, ever to be up to a majority vote. The tyranny of the majority never gets to decide whether you or I or the next person has basic human, civil rights. That flies in the face of the very most basic underpinnings of our constitution.

It's demeaning to have our rights put to a vote year after year, state after state. I'm not looking for anyone's goddamn approval, I just want to live my life with the same basic rights afforded to all Americans.

They were very wary of mob rule.

It's effecting the lives and health of ALL Americans by limiting stem cell research and sexual eduction. And now it's limiting relationships?!?

We cannot call ourselves free if everyone is not able to live and love as they choose.

is having an undue influence on politics?

Blue laws are still in place in many localities all over the country- laws like not being able to purchase hard liquor on specific Christian holidays, or before noon on Sundays.

Not being a Christian, I couldn't possibly care less about keeping their holy days free of intoxication. Working nights, these laws restrict my ability to have a drink when I get home from work on those days.

It's a little thing, but it's also huge, because I don't follow their religion, but in some cases, I have to follow their religion's laws. Their religion's laws, and those of others religions, were effectively put into legislation via Prop 8.

Sorry if it wasn't clear.

People are legislating THEIR religion in that they're forcing all of us to follow laws based on nothing but religious beliefs. Clearly religion is the reason for prop 8.

I've also heard that the Insurance Industry is against gay marriage because it would decrease their revenue by covering a gay couple as a family rather than 2 individual policies. Just another reason to hate the insurance industry!!

I remember them from my childhood. I didn't realize they were still around.

being able to vote on the rights of the minority. It's just wrong and undemocratic. If the South had been able to vote on it, we'd still have Jim Crow and segregation and their assorted myriad evils.