I admit that I fail to see how putting up a referendum repealing prop 8 in 2010 is a good idea

[dsc]

1) We lost by 4 points officially but since we will be the yes side this time we actually lost by 9 points (the 4 we lost by plus the 5 point advantage being no has). Making up 9 points in two years is pretty hard.

2) The electorate in 2010 will be smaller, and thus older (since age and voting have a strong positive correlation), and will be less hospitable to us. This might be partially counterbalanced by it being a more affluent group but affluence is less correlated than age with voting.

3) We won't have the Mormon boogy man to club the opponents with this time. We will be the ones driving the initiative so we can't say Mormon's are trying to tell you what to do.

I don't know what the solution to this problem is. I fear it may be forgoing marriage in California until 2016 or even longer. That sucks, but failed electoral strategies have consequences. Losing another election on this, making the third in a decade, ends up making us looking like the desperate graspers of straws and not people riding a historical wave of victory. Had we run a better campaign in 2008 we wouldn't be in this mess. The last thing we need is to do the same thing and expect a different result.

[jody]

1. IMO Brown's strategy was correct arguing same-sex marriage is an "inalienable right" under CA's

constitution.

If the CA Supreme Court ever agrees with Brown, then it's no longer up to the whims of a simple majority of voters.

See Brown's brief at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/agresponse.pdf and CA Supremes at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S168047.PDF

[dsc]

2. His was the only thing I could see the court buying

though it clearly didn't. I had little hope for the court bailing us out here and sadly I was right.

[ruggerson]

6. There really is no court precedent in CA to rule that marriage is an "inalienable" right

under the state constitution.

There is however plenty of precedent in rulings at the federal level, including SCOTUS.

Plus the CA supremes were not deciding this based on the 14th amendment - they were strictly looking at the California constitution.

The USSC, however, will be looking at it as an equal protection case.
IOW, how can one set of legally married couples in a state (straight couples) have access to all the federal rights, privileges and benefits of marriage while another class of legally married couples (gay couples) in that same state have no access whatsoever.

It's pretty hard to find a legal argument to counter that assertion.

[jody]

30. I don't buy "no court precedent". Its the Supremes job to make precedents. n/t

[Ginny from the Block]

24. Equal Protection Under the Law at the Federal Law should usurp state law anyway

It seems we should still have the Equal Protection Under the Law clause apply nation-wide, regardless of what state constitutions say. If politicians don't want to recognize gay marriage, then they should get out of the business of recognizing marriage in the first place and let the churches, mosques, and synagogues decide who should participate in this religious sacrament. I have a libertarian view that argues governments should ONLY recognize civil unions, as this truly honors the separation of church and state. But 2-tiered systems offering certain rights to marriage partners and different rights to civil union partners should be unconstitutional for not excercising equal protection under the law. State governments should just offer civil unions to gay or straight couples. Sure it's changing precedent, but George Bush Jr. ignored the recognition of a 700-year old history of habeas corpus!

[bluedawg12]

31. I agree, partly.

>>But 2-tiered systems offering certain rights to marriage partners and different rights to civil union partners should be unconstitutional for not exercising equal protection under the law.<<

I agree.

>>If politicians don't want to recognize gay marriage, then they should get out of the business of recognizing marriage in the first place and let the churches, mosques, and synagogues decide who should participate in this religious sacrament.<<

I disagree . Marriage is a legal status conferred by the State and that is the only right that the fight for marriage equality is concerned about. It has nothing to do with sacraments.

I have no interest in, nor is there a need to, conflate religious marriage ceremony with the legal status of marriage. Atheists get married and it has nothing to do with sacraments.

I am not letting Courts, politicians and fellow citizens off the hook by pretending that we can create a new word "civil unions" for everyone simply because some don't want to use the legal word marriage for some. Marriage is a legal right and all citizens should have access to the same legal rights.

Civil unions for all is a cop out to avoid conferring rights to a select segment of society and it is a no starter with the majority of society. We don't need to get rid of the legal word marriage, we need to apply marriage rights equally.

[Ginny from the Block]

32. Point well taken. But the problem is people confuse the word marriage!

I agree that legal rights should be offered free from discrimination. I guess the problem is people confuse a legal marriage with the religious sacrament and don't realize that they're free to hold onto their bigoted beliefs and try to keep their religious institutions from performing same sex ceremonies. No one is imposing their will on others, the GLBT just wants equal protection under the law!

[ruggerson]

33. absolutely

That is the biggest obstacle. When Obama is asked why he opposes marriage equality, his answer is that his religious beliefs tell him that marriage "is between a man and a woman."

All this does is confuse and conflate the issue and gives cover to people who oppose civil equality.

Our main job as educators has to be: if civil marriage is legalized throughout the entire nation, churches and religious organizations will NOT have to perform such marriages, if they so choose. It will have no effect on churches whatsoever.

[bluedawg12]

36. Do you feel that there would be strong support for civil unions for everyone?

Marriage is a legal function and it may or may not have an associated religious ceremony and I think by now people do know that. The folks that bring it up as a violaition of a relgious freedom as a reason not to support marriage equality are by now probably not being honest.

It is easy to confuse people and to conflate terms and the right has been masterful and have been at it for many years. But, if people stopped to think of it, they know on a practical level one cannot walk into any house of worship and demand a marriage right in any Church, Mosque or Temple as it is now. If people stopped to think about it, they realize they can have a religious marriage ceremony but it is not legal unless the clergy is a JP or similar official with powers granted by the State. Folks know the truth and yet, buy into the 30 sec. rw ads using fear tactics for reasons I can only guess at.


The problem is that I don't see married Americans giving up the word "marriage" in favor of "civil unions," and having two words "civil marriage" for one segment of society and "civil unions" for another segment of society opens up the problem of "separate is never equal."

States will always be involved in legal contracting between two adults who opt to form a pair bond because of the rights and benefits and duties to the partners and to progeny.

I would prefer not to rely on the good will and slowly changing attitudes of the public and their votes on my civil rights and rather, would prefer to see existing laws and protections applied equally.

Welcome to DU! :)

[bluedawg12]

37. If I understand the Libertarian approach?

http://libertarianwiki.org/Gay_marriage
Gay marriage

From Libertarian Wiki

Gay marriage, along with abortion, is one of a handful of issues that Libertarian candidates are often questioned about in conservative districts. There is really no pleasing the theocrats on this issue, unless you advocate laws defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman (which also, incidentally, would prohibit polyamory). So, you may as well take a strong libertarian stand by saying that you don't believe the state has any business defining what marriage is, or even issuing marriage licenses. George and Martha Washington did not get a marriage license, and most people did not need them until the mid-1800s. Marriage was considered a religious ceremony, outside the purview of the state.
...........

This sort of side steps the issue of marriage by claiming it is not a state function. But, marriage is tied in with many legal rights, benefits, protections and duties.

Whatever the word is, it should not be different from one group to another, nor, should it be a choice for some and not others. Meaning, straight people can chose either a CU or marriage license and gays can have "CU's with 100% of the same rights but not the word marriage."

I'm not that well versed in Libertarian thought, so I admit reading wiki doesn't make me an expert, perhaps you can clarify if this means one word for all?

If so, then, as I asked in the reply prior, would there be any support from different sex married partners to change their marriage license to a CU license?

[Ginny from the Block]

39. A rose by any other name should smell just as sweet............

I don't think that many couples give a rats ass what you call their "union", as long as they understand the legal ramifications of the contractual relationship they've entered into. I am in an opposite sex union and was married by a minister and got a marriage license, etc. I saw it as 2 different routes; one for legal status and one for religious (my parents aren't fans of co-habitating).

You're absolutely right that civil marriages weren't really performed until the 1800's, and while the frontier was being settled the term "common law" came into being because many couples couldn't find ministers to marry them. We've totally gotten away from the concept of separation of church & state on this issue.

I agree that same sex couples should be entitled to any legally binding agreements offered to opposite sex couples, and the fact that so many people have internal conflicts about their personal moral beliefs on marriage just points out how intertwined the civil union and religious ceremony have become. Offering civil unions to everyone without discrimination is a way to change the vernacular and re-establish that line between church & state. The language wouldn't change overnight, but it would give politicians an "out" so to speak on not overstepping the bounds on the religious nature of a more spiritual marriage.

At the expense of using another cliche, "A bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush." If you reconcile the language and get full and equal rights to opposite sex couples, what the hell do you care what it's called?

[bluedawg12]

41. The law needs to be the same for all and marriage is the law.

It is precisely because the word marriage has a history and weight to it in society and because it is the legal status, which is why the thrust is for marriage equality and not CU equality.

This explains it nicely.

http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/05/06/separate-but-equal/

“Separate But Equal”?

Dear Gov. Lynch:

Please do NOT veto the gay marriage bill. Institutionalizing the concept of “Separate but Equal” – even if it were equal, which it’s not — of the civil union law doesn’t cut it, sorry. Every single gay person I have known or do know just wants to make a home and a life, love their partners, raise their kids (yes, kids), without constantly tippy-toe-ing around an arcane and archaic legal and social structure that hinders them – directly or indirectly — at every important turn. I mean, what box does a former or presently civilly-unionified person check on every standard form that asks: Married, Single, Divorced, Widowed, etc.? Are we really going to ask for all forms be redone or for gay people to once again metaphorically check “Other”? In chit-chat, or a job interview, when asked “Are you married?,” what do they say? “Sort-of?” When, in reliance on the civil union law, an employee checks “Married” on their health insurance form, do they risk disqualification? Even termination? What if a transaction is out of state or interstate where our marriages are recognized but civil unions aren’t even mentioned?

If the right to marry is a fundamental right under the pursuit of happiness clause in our Constitution, as it has been declared time and again, below this request please find an off-the-top-of-my-head outline of the interrelated reasons why we can’t deny it to any person under our jurisdiction. Suffice to say that I look at your impending executive decision – as I hope you do - not as one of personal beliefs but as our Governor, our Chief Executive. A veto effectively “sends it back” or, worse, tacitly tables it. The civil union law was a great dress rehearsal, but we’re not done.

This unfair and unnecessary separation – this literal discrimination (“The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed., pub. Houghton Mifflin), will never survive much more constitutional or moral scrutiny anywhere. A quick read today of the public comments on the Union Leader website on the topic reveals - ironically in an “opposed” (to the bill) remark – just this. Someone said, I paraphrase, that you can’t make a horse a cow by calling it a cow. Well, you certainly can’t make an animal a cow by calling it an animal either.

Can New Hampshire achieve, fully, as we must, gay persons’ equality through civil unions? No. The term and use of “marriage” is so deeply and pervasively embedded in our legal and social framework that full equality is, if only as a practical matter, impossible under the “union” rule. As written, the civil union law, as it purportedly relates to the marriage law, is entirely incoherent. On its face, the civil union law allows people to enter these unions in a manner similar to marriage, but remains painfully silent on the myriad of rights, privileges and immunities available to married people referenced elsewhere under the New Hampshire code and beyond. See, for example, the inherent contradictions between the civil union law and the marriage law at NHRSA s. 457:39 regarding cohabitation. Aside from that, the reference in your Press Release relating to and relying on the federal government is – sorry – at best premature, even irrelevant, until we make our own laws coherent. Under current federal law, all the more reason, not less, to call all our unions marriages.

Or, I suppose, as an alternative toward full equality under civil unions, we could remove all references to marriage (married, marital, spousal, spouse, husband, wife, bride, groom, etc.) not only from all our statutes (including the marriage law at sec. 457), but also all regulations, public policies and directives, and all private entities’ policies and documents subject thereto. Golly, the gay marriage bill seems a lot easier.

In the interest of space and time - I’ll leave it to your legal and policy teams, and your obviously keen intellect, to flesh this list out easily in support of my considered position.

Demographic Note: I am (by personal, legal, and political choice), white, female, and raised in the non-practicing Christian “tradition.” I am a voting Democrat, social progressive, fiscal conservative, favoring libertarian practices unless and only unless outweighed by a compelling public need that cannot be met by less restrictive means.

Respectfully,
“Concerned Citizen,” Esq.

[Ginny from the Block]

42. Great letter! I pasted the part we're specifically discussing........

"Or, I suppose, as an alternative toward full equality under civil unions, we could remove all references to marriage (married, marital, spousal, spouse, husband, wife, bride, groom, etc.) not only from all our statutes (including the marriage law at sec. 457), but also all regulations, public policies and directives, and all private entities’ policies and documents subject thereto. Golly, the gay marriage bill seems a lot easier."

She's right. Changing ALL the language to civil unions would be one alternative, but all too cumbersome! The easiest way to achieve full equality is let same sex couples marry!

[Strong Atheist]

34. Welcome to DU!

:toast:

[ruggerson]

3. It doesn't matter

Olsen and Boies' lawsuit may very well preempt this anyway as they are seeking an injunction. If the federal district court grants them one and decides in our favor, Prop 8 will be suspended as it works its way up the judicial ladder. Boies has said he expects a decision possibly as early as the end of the summer. The suit in Mass also has a very good chance of succeeding - it is aiming only at one section of DOMA.

We can organize to repeal Prop 8 in 2010 while all this is going on concurrently. It serves to keep the pressure on, keep people mobilized and keep the momentum going.

Personally, I believe this will be decided by SCOTUS on equal protection grounds - thus sweeping away both DOMA and all the state statutes/amendments of the last few years in one fell swoop.

[dsc]

5. I will admit to be surprised in 2003 with Lawerence

though them taking the case made me think we had a shot. Here I don't see a sweeping pronouncement in favor of gay marriage. At best, I would see a narrow decision permitting Massachusetts couples to have federal benefits. I think it is hard to avoid equal protection issues there. California on the other hand I see being permitted to ban gay marriage if they see fit to do so.

[ruggerson]

8. another tactic

in bringing Prop 8 up for repeal in 2010 is to add language specifically exempting churches and religious groups from having to perform such marriages. You and I both know they wouldn't have to anyway, so it would be redundant, but polling shows our side pops a number of points with such language included. It kind of kicks the legs out from under their arguments.

[pnwmom]

18. Excellent idea. n/t

[katanalori]

4. On the other hand.....

Three things come to mind:

1. I have encountered more than one dipshit who voted "YES" on 8 thinking, "Yes, who cares if the Gays get married, YES, let the Gays do whatever they want, what do I care?" So, is it possible that people just wanted to say "YES" without knowing what thy were saying "yes" to? I dunno.

2. Since the defeat of prop. 8, other States (even Iowa!) voted FOR marriage equality! This is huge IMO - despite the short period of time that has passed, I think the concept is already far better understood and more widely accepted.

3. Are the hate mongers who spent millions and millions of dollars to get passage of prop. 8 going to have the resources to do that again? Focus on the Family pretty much blew all of their wad on this (had to lay off many in their staff due to the $ they spent in CA). Even the Utah Mormons will not likely want to put out that much cash again in this economy. These are the folks that tipped the less-educated voters into voting "yes" with slick tv commercials full of lies. Without these dollars, I doubt it could happen again.

[keepCAblue]

11. the people of Iowa didn't vote FOR ssm

It was their supreme court that ruled to legalize ssm, just as did the CA supreme court. CA's ssm proponents won at the state supreme court level, as well as at the state legislative level (CA legislature passed ssm bill twice and twice ha it vetoed by the governor, Schwarzenegger). Current CA polls still show that ssm is behind, by anywhere from 2-4 or more percentage points, much as it was in 2008 prior to the Prop 8 vote. I assure you, if ssm were put on the ballot in Iowa today, it would lose horrifically, with the same wide margins seen in FL and AZ wrt the constitutional amendent initiatives in those two states. Putting ssm on the CA ballot in 2010 is just as risky, perhaps even more so, than taking the issue to the federal court. If we lose a second time, it will be a kick to the gut and will only bolster the bigots even more than did Prop 8's passing the first time around. And who among us has the money to fund yet another megamillion dollar campaign. We emptied our pockets and ran up our charge cards to help fund the fight against Prop 8 and the campaign was grossly mismanaged in spite of having raised more money than the Yes on 8 bigots. If I have to choose where to put my money this time around, it'll be toward the federal lawsuit (Olson and Boies).

Putting ssm again on the CA ballot (or any state's ballot) concedes that it is, indeed, acceptable to put one's civil rights up for popular vote and that is something I refuse to be a party to again.

[ShadowLiberal]

22. Indeed, the difference is that Iowa has MUCH tougher laws to amend the state constitution

The earliest the fundies can get it on the ballot there is 2012, as it first has to be approved back to back by the state legislature. Last I heard the democrats didn't seem too inclined to vote to put it on the ballot despite the political risks (I may be wrong, I don't live anywhere near Iowa).

On the bright side in Iowa, Nate Silver predicted in some analysis at the end of march that the voters would reject a gay marriage ban in 2013.

I saw a list recently of states that citizens can amend the state constitution without the legislature being involved, and it was only about a third of them. The rest, other than Delaware, require the legislature to approve of an amendment to go before the people first. Delaware however has amending the constitution controlled entirely by the state legislature from beginning to end.

[bluedawg12]

27. The underlying principle is correct.

It's a poor strategy leaving civil rights up for a popular vote.
For California, the Boies and Olsen suit seem to be the best hope.

[totodeinhere]

14. Gay marriage has not been legalized through a vote of the people in any state yet.

It has only happened by way of either court decisions or a law passed by the state legislature. I think it will happen soon however as demographic trends accelerate. But it hasn't happened yet.

[bluedawg12]

28. Speaking of

the popular vote, that's exactly why the rw wing went the mini-DOMA route, they had the popular votes to institutionalize injustice in over 30 States.

[AntiFascist]

7. Prop 8 goes far beyond the gay and lesbian community...

Several groups representing racial minorities filed amicus briefs in the Prop 8 court cases because they felt threatened by the fact that a simple majority may be allowed to eliminate fundamental rights from a protected minority through the initiative process. The religious right was very effective in targeting ads at the Latino community, particularly with the ad suggesting that a young Latina girl might be exposed to a book describing lesbian marriage in her grade school.

We could be just as effective if we created good ads stressing that this is a civil rights issue, and assuring the public that we will come back and fight this at every opportunity. The demographics supporting gay marriage are shifting in our favor, it is just a matter of time.

Regardless of what anyone suggests, I believe that tv ads can be very effective in these elections particularly when the margins are so narrow.

[Unvanguard]

9. Yeah, they should wait until 2012.

Current polls show about an even split; that will shift decisively in our favor over four years, but maybe not over two.

[Creideiki]

16. Not 2012

Obama will run for reelection, meaning more Democrats will go to the polls to oppose Prop 8 by default. If you want to wait until 2012, then wait until 2014.

[ShadowLiberal]

10. One thing you've gotten, since prop 8 passed it's motivated gay rights supporters nationwide

Nate Silver did some analysis some months ago on how it looked like gay rights advocates were speaking out more about stuff since prop 8 passed. Combine that with all of the gay marriage victories in Iowa & New England and you've got a movement feeling like it's on a roll and getting more motivated to fight for their cause.

The fact is that the gay rights side basically got overconfident, and too distracted with the presidential election in 2008, to the point that when other groups came in at the last moments with ads talking about the 'horror' of gay marriage there wasn't enough time for gay rights groups to unite under 1 group to air ads to counter them. This time around that won't happen, people won't take it for granted that we'll win this battle.

I also don't see how not having Mormon boogeymen is going to be a problem. If anything I think using hatred towards Mormons could backfire, it could turn off the very people who are more sympathetic to our cause. We'd be better off attacking their attitudes and reasons for opposing gay marriage. But the Mormon church isn't likely to sit out a battle over gay marriage, they view gay marriage in California as only a step away from soon having nationwide gay marriage.

But I will admit, there is one thing that certainly causes me to be concerned a bit about our chances in 2010, young voters not showing up from Obama not being on the ticket. I would hope the governor's election, and all the budget cuts being forced from the state's massive budget problem would get enough of them to come out and vote however.

[mitchtv]

12. Momentum, keep up the pressure

On all fronts, things are changing rapidly, and we cannot depend on Gay leadership groups to act in our best interests most of the time if latest reports about HRC re: DADT and ENDA are correct. Gays around the country are becoming radicalized and a nationwide movement is becoming a reality. never let up when you are gaining.

[ruggerson]

13. exactly

completely agreed.:thumbsup:

[Toasterlad]

17. +2

It makes no sense to hesitate now, when the momementum is clearly on our side.

[Creideiki]

15. Fewer homophobic Democrats are likely to go to the polls

Most likely the people that go to the polls will be those who care strongly about issues. This could favor those who are not soulless evil hypocrits who insist that we should support their issues because their issues are the truly important ones.

[pnwmom]

19. Since the repeal, at least two more states have approved gay marriage.

I'm thinking about Iowa and New Hampshire. And more could approve it by the time 2010 rolls around. This might have an impact on Californians thinking about the issue.

[GodlessBiker]

20. We should have the vote in 2010, and then as often as we need to after that until it passes.

[pup_ajax]

21. again and again and again ... until

I believe we should continue to wage the battle on every front. That includes the US Supreme Court and also returning to the ballot every election year until passed. I've grown very tired of our so-called "leaders" tell us it's "not the right time" yadda yadda yadda.

It's always the right time to fight for what's right!

[dsc]

25. money and people are not unlimited

money and people spent in California can't be spent in Arizona or Maine. I would hate to lose the people's veto in Maine while spending money in a futile effort in California.

[Rowdyboy]

23. I can see how 2010 might be much better than 2008 in California....Follow me....

While Obama won easy majorities in California in 2008, if my memory is correct blacks voted against gay marriage 53%-47%. In an off year election without Obama on the ticket certainly black voter turnout would likely be a smaller percentage than in 2008. If there was a strong turnout in the progressive community I can see a possibility.

And I agree with others..."and again and again and again...."

[dsc]

26. It was more like 60/40 but I think the lack of black voters will be overwhelmed

by the lack of younger voters.

[RufusH]

29. Nah. I say put it up to vote EVERY election.

Maybe people will get so sick of all the ads every two years that they finally throw up their arms and say, Ok, ok, you win.

I don't think it hurts us a bit to keep trying and losing. In the meantime, I think it will be decided by the SCOTUS once and for all, and I hope not too long from now.

[Strong Atheist]

35. Welcome to DU!

:toast:

[David Zephyr]

38. It's an idiotic idea. It says that we condone people voting on our civil rights. Idiotic.

Idiotic.

"Hey, let's vote on our civil rights and let the straight majority decide. Forget about the 14th Amendment. Let's let the mob decide." Idiotic.

[qb]

40. Repealing Prop 8 will underscore the idiocy of CA's ballot initiative system.

The air has gone out of the religious nutjob balloon. I think money would pour in from all over to repeal Prop 8. The CA legislature will have to take notice of all of the resources wasted on taking away a right and then giving it back again and do something to curtail their mob rule system.

[XemaSab]

43. My question:

What happens if gay marriage gets shot down again?

What will that do to the movement?