Thomas Jefferson:
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.

The same people that would withhold marriage from gays would confine women to a veil and burkha, black people to slavery, and Jews to ghettos and ovens. The prop. the prop. 8 people are mean-spirited, religious zealots. I only hope they and their political power can be marginalized soon, for the good of the nation.

And I ask again, louder now, what if prop 8 didn't actually get more 'yes' votes than 'no' votes?

There are enough irregularities in last November's election that we cannot be absolutely sure. For background on Velvet Revolution's attempts to spur an investigation by the Secretary of State's office, please see
It's Official! Velvet Revolution asks for investigation of CA's Prop 8 vote

(Note: The above link is to a document from late 2008. To our knowledge, no thorough investigation by the SoS's office of the Prop 8 results or the 11/2008 election anomalies in general has taken place or is planned.)

If there's going to be ANY more voting on this issue, it needs to be on a voting system that's secure, transparent, accessible, and accurate!

(Disclaimer: Brad Friedman is a co-founder of Velvet Revolution.)

Man! I thought Ca. was progressive. You're letting me down!

But then again, maybe you did win the vote...

I expected the vote to be overwhelming, though. Too big to hack.

Gay and lesbian couples should move out of Ca. and take all their revenue and taxpaying ability with them, to a state that legalized same sex marriage. You'd see how fast they change it!

Better, Dan, that gays, lesbians and all civil libertarians come together, put together a new ballot measure and overturn Prop H8 in the next election.

As far as taxes, if churches are going to enter the political arena in order to impose their narrow moral views on others, I believe the appropriate course would be to remove their tax-exempt status --- a move that would have the added benefit of deficit reduction.

The gay community should redouble its efforts at addressing boycotts of Utah and the Mormon institution. Money talks, and money also changes the hearts, minds and souls of money loving hypocrites.

Emily!~ (#2) Adding my even louder voice to your even louder one (d'ya think together we can comprise at least 8-10 complete loud-mouths? How many decibels make an asshole?)

Yea, lest we forget, my people --- the PROP 8 election had every red flag for fraud we have all come to know and loathe. Delayed results, wonky numbers / anomalous time slices, premature declaration of victory by proponents, and the narrowest of margins of victory declared (weeks) after the full count, often behind closed doors or with doofus observers.

Should've been too big (voter turnout) to hack? But, Dan, all they have to do is wait until the polls close and take it by the slimmest of margins NO MATTER HOW MANY PEOPLE VOTE. Then pit the minority against minority...and voila!
Instant bigot-by-ballot rule!

Emily Levy and VR (and some noteworthy others) have been screaming (into the wind) about this for months and months. They have done everything within their means to call it to everyone's attention, including to Debra Bowen's office just prior to the certification deadline.

Personally, if I were a gay voter in California, I'd want it PROVEN to me that it passed by the 500,000 or so votes they say it did. But no one seemed to want to discuss that at the time, and even now the fact that this proposition-calamity probably never passed in the first place does not seem to warrant so much as a ripple wave of serious discussion...

Weird, Emily. Maybe Californians needs to believe the worst about themselves for a while in order to snap out of it.

Yup...

"AT&T May Have Swayed Idol Results"
http://www.nytimes.com/2...;partner=rss&emc=rss.

My husband and I make up one of the 18,000 gay married couples whose marriage the ruling lets stand. I too was very angry when I heard of the ruling. I was so mystified by it that I've read it. Having read it, I'm no longer so angry.

The justices actually do a brilliant job of demolishing Prop Hate and reiterating that all Californians have a constitutional "right to marry" that cannot be taken away. They uphold Prop 8 only by reducing its legal interpretation to the right of the people to withhold the "designator" of marriage from some marriages.

The justices were stuck working within the framework of California's constitution. Within that framework, I believe they've performed an incredible act of legal ju-jitsu, treating the disingenuous arguments made by Prop Hate's supporters as absolute legal requirements for Prop Hate to be constitutional. That is, the moment anyone tries to use Prop Hate to challenge ANY SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT of a gay married couple --- whether the state uses the term marriage or any other term for the married couple's family relationship --- Prop Hate's constitutionality fails. The court is saying that the people of the state of California can pass crap like Prop Hate, but it passes constitutional muster only as long as it is substantively without effect.

I'd urge anyone interested to actually read the opinion --- it's available at the California Supreme Court's web site and it literally reaffirms gay people's "right to marry".

Now it's time to work together to repeal Prop Hate.

Gay marriage battle relaunches today as Prop. 8 is challenged in court
7:58 AM | May 27, 2009
A new front in the battle over gay marriage in California will open today when two prominent attorneys will challenge Proposition 8 in federal court.

The attorneys, who argued on opposite sides of the Bush vs. Gore election case in 2000, will hold a press conference announcing a federal lawsuit and calls for the restoration of gay marriage until the case is decided.

http://latimesblogs.lati...y-with-federal-suit.html

I think it's a blessing in disguise that now the people can decide whether or not same-sex marriage is a right. It's only a matter of time before it's legal in California. This video shows that much of the commentary on prop 8 is more positive as well.

Its too bad stupidity (including bigotry) isn't painful.

From Wikipedia

"Olson's third wife, Barbara K. Olson, was a passenger on the hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 (his 61st birthday). The following year Olson met Lady Booth, a tax attorney and native of Kentucky, and the two were married on October 21, 2006 in Napa County, California.[7]"

Hmmm...
~
(Huffington post would not post this post)
Hmmm...
~

Mitch, thank you for that interesting perspective. I *will* read the ruling.

Mitch -

While I certainly don't blame the CA Supremes for the decision they were forced to make, essentially, I've seen folks argue that it's "only" the word "marriage" which can't be used, but all other rights apply.

That may be, but that's a big "only". Kinda like when the part of the U.S. Constitution describing African-Americans as three-fifths of a person was repealed. Imagine if the courts had decided they had all the same rights as everybody else, except couldn't be referred to legally as a "person".

Again, I don't blame the Supremes here. But to those who are using the decision to say it's darn near the same thing, since same-sex couples will have all of the same rights, except to the word "marriage", I'd argue that it isn't the same thing at all.

#13 P.S. I hope he likes #4 (-; . . .

On further analysis, this might be a good thing!

What the Heck Is Ted Olson Up To?
http://www.dailykos.com/...-Heck-Is-Ted-Olson-Up-To

I just finished rewatching "Recount" depicting the Bush v Gore USSC decision, and yes, while I am wary of Ted Olson's alterior motives in this situation, he was an outspoken democrat for 40 years prior to switching to bush, after george gave him a job in texas prior to 2000.

I think he believed, at the time, that bush was the best candidate for the job, and altough I strongly disagree, having seen the insanity and chaos the bush/cheney admin wrought on our country, perhaps he is doing this to make up for that lapse in judgement. I believe in forgiveness and he may be doing this to vindicate himself.

I say, give them a chance, if it is meant to be, they will prevail in their challenge!

Ya (some)forgiveness upon receipt of the whole booty ... and not a second before! Close only counts in Horse shoes & hand grenades & this is neitha ...

Redemption in that he dosen't what to room with falwell(BIH) for eternity . . .
~

I completely agree, Brad. Not being able to use the word marriage is inevitably not equal. But the supremes were stuck with the California constitution and a lengthy history of case law about what can and cannot be involved in amending it. Given what they had to work with, I think their decision, read in its entirety, is actually helpful to the cause.

They've laid what is, in my opinion, an extremely powerful groundwork for revoking Prop 8 if it isn't repealed in 2010: based on their current opinion, all it will take is a demonstration that civil unions are not being treated equally with marriage.

Remember, they've reaffirmed that same-sex couples have an inherent "right to marry" --- a right that the people of California cannot take away. They've now said the people of California can amend their Constitution to reserve the word "marriage" for a particular subset of civil unions that correspond to traditional marriage, but ONLY if the name reservation, as the Prop 8 backers asserted, does not have any substantive effect to discriminate between same and opposite sex couples. A year or two should generate all the evidence the justices need to show that lack of the proper name does lead to inequality of treatment, but a year or two should also be enough time to get the smear off the Constitution without going through the Court.

As I said before, I'm really impressed with the decision, even though I'm disappointed that the Court was unable to find a legal method to overrule Prop Hate.

Just one more comment on this: I think it would be useful for people in every California county to formally ask that the same form be used for all marriages, whether same-sex or opposite-sex. To satisfy both Prop Hate's requirement and the court's decision, the form could refer to both marriages and family unions, without specifying which. For example, it could be entitled "State of California Certificate of Marriage or Family Union."

Since "marriage"s and "family unions" are, according to the court's interpretation of Prop Hate, to be treated identically, there is no reason to distinguish between them on the certificates. Hell, having a single form will save the state vitally needed money.

If/when the counties refuse to do this, that action in itself will constitute strong evidence that marriages and family unions are not, in reality, being treated with identical respect. If people object to the relationships being treated with identical respect, Prop Hate's legal justification is gone.

Then, it's back to the justices, who can rule Prop Hate unconstitutional-in-effect without violating their oaths to uphold the constitution.

Oh No Churchies,

the scary gay people are back!

http://www.dailykos.com/...cary-Gay-People-Are-Back