- PROPOSITION 8 UPHELD: Sorry, gays. Existing same-sex marriages will stand, but nobody else can get gay married. Until 2010, when this will doubtless be on the ballot again. [San Francisco Chronicle]
Previous post: Conservatives: Employment Awaits Near San Francisco!
Next post: Next Post
{ 80 comments }
damn.
First Adam Lambert loses American Idol, now this!
But seriously, folks. How I HATE California propositions.
Aka the Kang & Kodos Precedent.
“Legalized Homophobia for some, Gay Marriage for others.”
Comment on previous thread: We’ll be voting on pointless propositions until an earthquake sends us tumbling into the Pacific. I expect to be voting on gay marriage again in three months, so I don’t even know why I pretend to really care anymore.
[re=324388]NoWireHangers[/re]: Well, we’re putting a prop on the next ballot that says you’re wrong! How dya like them apples?
You don’t? Well, we’ll just write another proposition. There’s nothing hard about government. Well, yeah, it’s broke and the schools will have to close and the cops won’t work on weekends. You can’t everything.
I am more disappointed than I anticipated. I mean, I didn’t really think they’d overturn it, but how I wish they did.
We’ll all be retroactively gay married by Sotomayor anyway. Hopefully I get a dude who’s neat in appearance and young, though I’d prefer a woman
Does anyone really think there’s going to be a California by 2010? They’re going to be the State of McDonalds or Walmartland or whichever group ends up giving them a corporate sponsorship to drag them out of the hole they’re wallowing in. California is basically the embodiment of the concept that direct democracy doesn’t work.
No need to wait for a ballot initiative if the Nuyorican hope gets seated before November. She’ll use her special hispanic powers to make some policy from the bench then gay marriage will be mandatory. That is unless Benjamin Cardozo comes back from the grave to re-claim his secret “Iberian Seat” on the Court.
unmotherfuckingbelievably unacfuckingceptable.
I want to give my state a massive enema.
jesus luvs u?
[re=324402]Electra[/re]: Personally I’m rooting for Target.
Poor CA gehz….just think how much $$ they dumb ass state is losing. The gehz can put on a pretty spiffy wedding (well the male gehz).
Whew, that was a close one… I know five non-opposite couples that were ready to tie the knot if Prop 8 was thrown out, and the prices of the stuff on their registries would make even Bill Gates’ ass bleed poverty. Now I have at least a year before they bankrupt me with requests for $200 soup ladles and $750 monogrammed bath towels.
My partner and I are part of the “18,000.” If we can marry, why can’t every other same sex person who wants to do so in California? It makes no sense.
I haz a gay sad.
Damn California libruls…I just really don’t get it, and never will. I can understand it here in FL., the State is up to it’s armpits in Wingnutz, but who the fuck is fighting against it in California. Not the Mormons again?
Fucking Democracy. Never works.
Can they get divorced?
California is such a closetcase!
Iowa trumps California in the Progressive race!
[re=324420]freakishlystrong[/re]: California’s liberals are the folks in San Fran and LA. Basically every where else there are rich OC conservatives and people living in the Central Valley, listening to country and driving pick up trucks. Places like Fresno and Barstow and Bakersfield are filled with rednecks who voted yes on 8, and were the places where the No on 8 campaign didn’t go and canvass or outreach or whatever.
So some gays can stay married, but others can’t get married? Doesn’t that just scream for an equal protection appeal to SCOTUS?
[re=324423]Monsieur Grumpe[/re]: No, only gay divorced. For details see the photo from the previous post.
[re=324402]Electra[/re]: Nah, it’ll be Google that takes over California. It’s phase 2 of their plan to take over the world. Besides, they bring in more money than the entire state does anyways.
What if the gays get married in California but promise not to do the anal sex?
[re=324420]freakishlystrong[/re]: Once you leave the coastal areas and head into the inland areas, it’s full of not exactly full Wingnuts but Semi-Full Wing Nuts. Then you have all the old, cranky, bitter, John Birchers in Orange County, the one’s responsible for Nixon, Prop 13, and Reagan. Throw in the Mormons and et viola.
Today we are all half married Californian queers.
[re=324426]tunamelt[/re]: Thanks, that explains it. I thought it was a little more open out there, but no, it sounds exactly like Floriduh..
[re=324414]Blender[/re]: Haha. Silly gheyz don’t know how broke you are. Get them a Misto®. Everybody loves a Misto® !
Well, the ruling certainly sucks for everyone in CA today. However, it seems likely that by 2010 public opinion will have shifted a few points left, allowing a referendum to reverse the ruling. The referendum will have more lasting power in the public’s perception of the issue, since it couldn’t be blamed on “activist” judges.
[re=324415]Eliz17[/re]: Have teh gheyz who still have jobs and travel munnies considered visiting & getting married in ALL the American states where it’s legal? That way, when the issue gets to Chief Justice Sotomayor, there’ll be a Federal Issue of Constitutional Import to rule on…
California:
No money
No water
No hope
[re=324420]freakishlystrong[/re]: Want to really freak out?
CA requires a 2/3 vote for a freaking budget, but just a simple majority changes the fucking state constitution!
[re=324444]Accordion-o-rama[/re]: The good old wait for the olds to die argument.
I support the ban on the marriage of teh gays. If they git merried, there will be no more 3 way lezbo scenes in the online pr0n, which would mean no reason to pay $29.95 a month, and end online pr0n.
No online pr0n, and the whole world economy is in the shitter, along with my sex life.
Meanwhile chunky diabetic Latinas all over the Golden Shower State are thinking “ZOMG wedding bellz!!”
[re=324433]Hooray For Anything[/re]: Please don’t forget all the urban tribalism, each exploiting their community’s provincialism to hold on to their piece of the pie.
[re=324449]DemmeFatale[/re]: This is why we’re failing.
[re=324447]Servo[/re]: And no lube.
Anger leads to fear, fear leads to hate and hate leads to things like Prop 8.
[re=324460]tunamelt[/re]: If y’all Californians just outlawed Mormonism you wouldn’t be having these problems.
[re=324486]PinkoLibrarian[/re]: There’s this new article in the LA Times today. Maybe it’s a disease:
http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-bitterness25-2009may25,0,4544029.story
[re=324420]freakishlystrong[/re]: Also, when it came down to it, the people who ran the Vote No on Prop 8 ran a pretty shitty campaign, full of generic tv spots that often didn’t mention what the issue was about or deciding against campaigning in any parts of the state that wasn’t LA or the Bay Area.
51% to take away our rights. 67% to pass a budget.
Fucking Republicans.
as a second class citizen of california, i must say this is sad. that is all for now.
But wait! I thought ghey marriage was a gathering-storm-like threat to my opposite marriage! And now they leave 18,000 gay couples married?!?!? I can feel my oppostie marriage crumbling as I type!!!
[re=324493]SayItWithWookies[/re]: Actually, if teh geyz would negoitate with the Mormons, they both could get what they want: The geyz get to get gay-married, the Mormons get to get multi-married to as many teenage girls they want….
[re=324523]problemwithcaring[/re]: Sounds like PUMA disease! (or my mother, who is not a PUMA). Hmmmm.
Prozac to Mormon land, stat!
Can’t we have a proposition to make Opposite Marriage illegal, too?
Not so fast folks. I heard noted conservative Doug Kmec (sp?) of Pepperdine on the radio this morning commenting on the decision, reading the opinions as he commented, and he said that this ruling also says that the state still has to make the rights for domestic partnerships equal to marriage. They defined Proposition 8 as merely barring the use of the term “marriage” and reaffirmed the part of their previous ruling that says the rights must be the same. There’s a separate concurring opinion that also states this. It sounded to me like the California Supreme Court finessed this so they could uphold the proposition while at the same time upholding their previous finding that the rights must be equal. If this is right, it’s still something of a victory for gays.
[re=324527]Hooray For Anything[/re]: ..not even all of L.A. – I read (in the inevitable post-mortems) that canvassers were complaining that the organizers didn’t have a plan/schedule for
the eastern half of L.A. county…
As a consolation to my fellow gehz, there will be extra buttsecks all over the state this summer.
[re=324564]lonewolfbear[/re]: Separate isn’t equal. We’ve established this.
Somebody needs to tell the Court that Solomon never actually cut the baby in half.
Give me proper semantics or give me death! Just kidding. I hate Mormons.
[re=324564]lonewolfbear[/re]: Does this ‘victory’ include identical rights and obligations regarding taxes, inheritances, legal representation, adoption, benefits, etc?…
[re=324566]RoscoePColtraine[/re]: and ice-hockey rinks for the Lesbiatarians?
[re=324564]lonewolfbear[/re]: I saw this too. Which makes an interesting case as to whether or not this is a better situation than before or not. It’s very “separate but equal” sounding.
[re=324565]Bearbloke[/re]: They didn’t. It was all WeHo this and that. The phone bank I did didn’t even have a real plan for dealing with Spanish speakers.
Isn’t there some way we can blame this on the baby-boomers?
But guys can still wear black eyeliner, right?
Bearbloke: yeah, it seems the guys (and it was mainly guys) running the anti-Prop 8 campaign were more the cruise ship type gays, who blanche at crossing over Crenshaw Blvd or y’know, make the effort to try talking to Blacks before formulating their comm strategy. Or going after the Mormons.
Think the successor counterstrike to Prop 8 (Prop Gay?) will learn, plus go more grass-roots, so I’m cautiously optimistic. But currently bummed/pissed.
[re=324564]lonewolfbear[/re]: I’m reading it now and that is basically almost exactly right. It pretty much says that prop 8 just limits the designation of the term marriage but doesn’t infringe upon any other right. Weird.
[re=324572]awesomeguy#1[/re]: You just killed it with the eloquence. Nicely done.
[re=324428]Dave J.[/re]: no, because they aren’t similarly situated (e.g. temporally).
[re=324564]lonewolfbear[/re]: nope wrong. prop 8 never had any effect on domestic parternships. the fight re; prop 8 and marriage was not about hard rights, but about things like dignity for the gays and keeping the word marriage holy (‘hetero’) for the fundies. That is the issue: should gays be able to get MARRIED, its not equal rights or benefits, ect (anyway, Cali has the most progressive alternative union regime in the nation, that was never at risk of changing).
The stupid thing with all of this is that given the opinion expressly states that California has to give all the rights/benefits/obligations of marriage, but just can’t call it marriage, is that the Prop 8 people have managed to reduce “marriage” to being just a word. Not our fault.
But I plan on consoling myself with extra buttsechs.
Gays, you don’t want to marry in CA, anyway. We have really fucked up community property laws.
[re=324680]Canuck13652[/re]: It’s almost hilarious, right? The next logical step is to just eliminate the word marriage, or state that the state does not have the right to grant marriage–just domestic partnerships or whatever, for whoever.
California is just so freakin’ doomed…
Sad. It sure has nice beaches.
Fuck fuck fuck fuck.
I hate everyone who voted for this stupid proposition. I hope they get cancer and die. Then I will show up at their funerals with a “God Hates Bigots” sign, like a bizarro Fred Phelps.
Today I am ashamed to be a Californian. Not only is the state’s finances in the crapper, I get a call from my cousin in Connecticut: “Neener, neener, neener — think your state’s so liberal, huh?”
All Californians: If the state’s constitution can be so easily changed, let’s put a proposition on the ballot to change the 2/3rds rule.
Si, se puede!
So now that the CA Supremes have deliberately created a “Separate but Equal” law (read: target), has anyone yet filed the Equal Protection suit against it?
I think the Court thought they were helping when they decided to fuck gays in the ass.
I hear Ahhhhnold is gonna be on Jay Leno today, so I await his comment on the issue…
CLEARLY DESE JUSTIZICES BE SMARTY ENOUGH TO BE ON THE SUPREMES CORTS. ARE ANY OF THEM PORTO RIKAN?
It’s OK. California won’t the money to issue anyone marriage licenses too.
I hope they send Barney Frank to tell them they won’t be getting a federal bailout.
[re=324559]friendlyskies[/re]: I think requiring all opposite marriages be annulled if they don’t have children after three years would be a strong pro-family move.
[re=324720]Bearbloke[/re]: Yes–of all bizarre things, Ted Olson just filed a federal case to overturn Prop 8.
how about “The Prime Cut”
-Put it on the grill son!
Comments on this entry are closed.