California State Measure Results

[Ban Hammer 14,080]

Right now 58% Yes for Gay Marriage Ban.

All rural counties right now.

california is against gay marriage? #######?

[IAMX 3,055]

Right now 58% Yes for Gay Marriage Ban.

All rural counties right now.

california is against gay marriage? #######?

California already voted for it once.

However, once again, none of the major counties have reported all of their precincts. It's all rural areas right now, or LA suburbs/OC. All of the areas expected go vote Yes have voted. What's surprising is how they aren't as markedly against gay marriage as before.

I'm just wondering if there's enough of SF/LA/SC/Monterey/Oakland people who will reverse this.

[IAMX 3,055]

Well, with 22% of the precincts voting (still lots of urban areas left), it's 54% Yes, 46% no..

I'm starting to think this may end up with a Yes vote.

Edited November 5, 2008 by SRVT

[Peikko 1,575]

I know, #### the stupid people. Seriously, I am tired of people determining how other should live simply because 'their bible' says it's sinful. #### them. idiots!

[IAMX 3,055]

39% of precincts reporting..

52% Yes, 48% no..

The gap is narrowing.

As I said earlier, wait for the big cities to come in.

Edited November 5, 2008 by SRVT

[IAMX 3,055]

Right now the Prop 8 amendment has almost 300,000 votes to overcome.

I dunno where it's going to come from. San Francisco now has over 95% of the precincts reporting, I'm sure San Jose is similar. The only hope left is LA county, East Bay, and Santa Cruz counties. LA county better have a LOT of people for gay marriage.

[akdiver 3]

So, if Prop 8 is approved - will that nullify all the gay marriages that have already been performed? Or are they grandfathered in?

[IAMX 3,055]

It will not nullify gay marriages legally performed. It will outlaw any gay marriages performed AFTER when the state DOH says they can deny them, which is something like a month after the elections.

No doubt this would be legally challenged.

Looking at the counties left, it's almost looking impossible for Prop 8 to fail. You never know, but I just don't see the likelihood. LA county is really going for this measure right now. The mayor apparently didn't get thru to them.

Funnily enough, the abortion measure (parental notification 48 hrs before their teenage child performs abortion) is on it's way to failure.

I voted against both measures. Going to bed soon so if it reaches 60 and 70% precincts reporting and I don't see any movement (as in this 300K gap doesn't get bridged rather quickly), it's almost a guarantee that Prop 8 will pass, and we will see this go straight to the Supreme Court.

Edited November 5, 2008 by SRVT

[akdiver 3]

No doubt this would be legally challenged....and we will see this go straight to the Supreme Court.

Well, on what grounds? My understanding is that this is an amendment to the state constitution, right?

So:

if the state's constitution can be amendment by the prop process (and it seems like it can, otherwise the prop never would have been approved for the ballot, right?)...AND

the prop passes.... AND....

the state constitution is changed....

then what is there for the state supreme court to say about it?

Or, do you mean it will go to SCOTUS?

[IAMX 3,055]

The state constitution cannot supersede the Equal Protection Clause, which guarantees equal protections under the law. When federal rights get eliminated by state rights, is has been proven, especially in the sodomy case, that federal rights cannot be nullified by state law. It can be limited, but not eliminated.

Then, in case law, since marriage is a legal institution, and everyone is offered equal protection under law, and gays are not allowed marriage, but civil unions (basically a difference of terminology so as not to upset people who wish to impose their views on others about marriage), this is akin to Jim Crow laws of separate but equal and should easily be outlawed.

It will undoubtedly go to SCOTUS if passed. It would be challenged if it passes, and appealed all the way to SCOTUS.

Edited November 5, 2008 by SRVT

[akdiver 3]

The state constitution cannot supersede the Equal Protection Clause, which guarantees equal protections under the law. When federal rights get eliminated by state rights, is has been proven, especially in the sodomy case, that federal rights cannot be nullified by state law. It can be limited, but not eliminated.

OK - so the argument is that the state constitution conflicts with the federal constitution.

Then, in case law, since marriage is a legal institution, and everyone is offered equal protection under law, and gays are not allowed marriage, but civil unions (basically a difference of terminology so as not to upset people who wish to impose their views on others about marriage), this is akin to Jim Crow laws of separate but equal and should easily be outlawed.

I follow the argument. However - the feds did pass the DOMA (defense of marriage act). So gay marriages are ALREADY second-class marriages as far as the feds are concerned. Secondly, other states have already outlawed such marriages. So - the argument you present could be pressed, regardless of prop 8, and whether or not it passes. So, to that degree, prop 8 is moot. However - the difference is that California has a large enough gay lobby, and money to back it, that they could FUND such a case. But truthfully, given DOMA, even without prop 8, California gays could press a case.

It will undoubtedly go to SCOTUS if passed. It would be challenged if it passes, and appealed all the way to SCOTUS.

SCOTUS does not seem anxious to tackle such a case. Given all of the other state constitutions banning gay marriage, this should have come up before, but has not. Nothing new here - other than the money involved in backing such a case.

Given the current makeup of SCOTUS, I bet any such case will fail. If that happens - well, I wonder what the next move of California gays will be.

[IAMX 3,055]

The DOMA affects the federal government like ICE. Not the state levels. It doesn't necessarily restrict gay marriage, even though it can be overturned, it just regulates immigration.

Again, in regards to sodomy law, this was state law. It was overturned on federal grounds of privacy, so you can see that state laws do not trump federal Constitutional rights.

I think I'll tackle this tomorrow if the proposition passes. As of right now it isn't said and done so..

Edited November 5, 2008 by SRVT

[akdiver 3]

The DOMA affects the federal government like ICE. Not the state levels. It doesn't necessarily restrict gay marriage, even though it can be overturned, it just regulates immigration.

But DOMA also manipulates the Equal Protection, Due Process, and Full Faith and Credit constitutional principles to say that State A does not have to recognize marriage from State B. It's a direct attack on the same principles that the prop 8 opponents would need to use to make their case. Thus far, SCOTUS has had several opportunities to strike down DOMA, or clarify these principles with respect to recognition of gay marriage. Thus far, it has declined to hear all such challenges. Why would this prop 8 case be any different? What is different about this prop 8 case from other state-based challenges to gay marriage bans that SCOTUS has declined to hear? What is the NEW issue that has not already been presented for consideration to SCOTUS?

so you can see that state laws do not trump federal Constitutional rights.

I'm well aware of this - and this is not what I have been saying. Come on now - even if you disagree with me about various issues, you know me well enough to know I'm not that ignorant (:

On that note - gay marriage is not one of my issues. I don't care about it either way. #### and marry who and what you want for all I care. However, in my view, there are far more important unconstitutional laws and activities going on for me to concern myself with the unconstitutionalness of gay marriage bans. Only after solving THOSE issues can I champion with the gay marriage supporters (:

FWIW, I think government should completely remove itself from the business of marriage anyway.

Edited November 5, 2008 by akdiver

[IAMX 3,055]

If this were the case, ak, then state statutes, initiatives, laws, etc. would have never been overturned by the federal government. SCOTUS determines Constitutionality. Constitutionality is law of the land. Law of the land cannot be overturned unless by Congress or judge (in certain circumstances). What the suggestion here is a voter initiative is law of the land? No.

This does perpetuate the ongoing debate of federalism and anti-federalism, but the fact remains through stare decisis that federal courts can and will overturn state initiatives that violate the Constitution. States can impose reasonable limits upon rights, but not eliminate them. This is the first amendment I've seen that outright eliminates a right already exercised. Then again, I'm going entirely off my memory and not research.

Oh, and with 81% of the precincts in.. 450,000'ish votes ahead on Yes. 53% to 47%. It's nigh impossible now for the amendment to fail.

[akdiver 3]

If this were the case, ak, then state statutes, initiatives, laws, etc. would have never been overturned by the federal government. SCOTUS determines Constitutionality. Constitutionality is law of the land. Law of the land cannot be overturned unless by Congress or judge (in certain circumstances). What the suggestion here is a voter initiative is law of the land? No.

I'm not sure why we are not communicating (:

I UNDERSTAND THAT the constitution is (supposedly) the law of the land. What I am saying is that SCOTUS has already had an opportunity to hear cases in the same context and raising the same issues that the prop 8 opponents would choose to raise, and have declined to hear such cases. Given that this is the case - what NEW issue could they raise that might inspire SCOTUS to hear the case??

This does perpetuate the ongoing debate of federalism and anti-federalism, but the fact remains through stare decisis that federal courts can and will overturn state initiatives that violate the Constitution. States can impose reasonable limits upon rights, but not eliminate them. This is the first amendment I've seen that outright eliminates a right already exercised. Then again, I'm going entirely off my memory and not research.

Yes - I know and acknowledge all of this - but this is not the point I am trying to raise with you at all (:

I'm not disputing in the slightest that prop 8 is illegal under the federal constitution. To me, it's an obvious given. Of course it is illegal. HOWEVER, SCOTUS has not seen fit to hear such cases in the past, and has allowed such illegallity to stand - thus - in fact - making it legal by default. So, my question is, is there some new aspect to prop 8 that can be presented, that might get SCOTUS to at least hear the case, rather than simply declining to hear it outright, as it has done with similar cases in the past?

Edited November 5, 2008 by akdiver