Lawmakers join call to overturn Prop. 8

[DogPoundPup]

Source: Examiner.com Chicago

More than one-third of California's lawmakers are adding their voices to the chorus calling on the state's highest court to overturn the prohibition on same-sex marriage approved by voters last week.

Forty-four members of the California Legislature filed a friend-of-the-court brief Monday in support of a lawsuit seeking to invalidate Proposition 8 on the grounds that voters did not have the authority to make such a dramatic change in state law.

The brief argues that the gay marriage ban improperly usurped the state Supreme Court's duty to protect minority groups from discrimination. Proposition 8 overturned the court's May decision that legalized same-sex marriage.

Read more: http://www.examiner.com/a-1683846~Lawmakers_join_call_t...

[123infinity]

1. Hooray! This is good news.

smile

[SoCalNative]

2. Most Excellent

of course I'm sure the FReeps are imploding over this.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

4. Looks like O'Lielly gloated too soon on Franken AND this.

Who has that exploding head gif?

[Q3JR4]

9. Like this one?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

10. LOL. That'll work!

[LonePirate]

3. This is good news

I'm glad the elected officials in CA are galvanizing around this discriminatory proposition. Let's hope the CA Supreme Court overturns that horrible referendum.

[Maine-ah]

5. K&R

[Hepburn]

6. Bravo! K&R

[Politicub]

7. Thanks lawmakers!

No group should have the right to remove the civil rights of another by direct vote.

[kayakjohnny]

72. That's perfect. That sounds like a written law. Which, of course, it should be.

Good for you.

[scytherius]

8. Having read the pleadings, etc (former lawyer here) the chance this will be overturned is excellent

nt

[CubicleGuy]

24. The LDS Church didn't donate money to support "yes on 8"

Most of the money donated came from individual members in California, who were encouraged to donate their time, money and talents to the cause of voting in Prop 8 by the leadership in SLC. But the Church itself, only donated around $2,000 in travel expenses at the beginning of the campaign, at least that's my understanding.

I saw a report that says $400,000 (out of a total of $70,000,000 spent by both sides) came from Idaho, but I don't know the details on that.

My opinion from the beginning on this was that this was an ill-conceived attempt to prevent same-sex marriage. When the wording of Prop 22 was declared to be unconstitutional, it shouldn't have taken a rocket scientist to figure out that jamming the wording into the constitution itself as Prop 8 could only be a desperate, bad idea that would cause more problems than it was intended to solve.

There are going to be a lot of really unhappy people when the Supreme Court tosses this one out. The assumption that making it part of the constitution would protect it from the court will be demonstrated to have been a major act of legal and political ignorance.

[FreeState]

26. church members were told "their souls would be in jeopardy" if they do not donate money

http://www.bilerico.com/2008/10/mormon_power_grab_its_t...

On June 20th, three days after same-sex marriage became legal in California, the top leadership in the Church, known as the First Presidency, sent a letter to be read to all Mormons to "do all you can to pass Proposition 8." The Wall Street Journal reported on September 20th, that church members were told "their souls would be in jeopardy" if they do not donate money. Mormons are already required to give 10% of their income to the church, so these donations dig further into the savings accounts of its followers.

[yardwork]

41. Mormons were told to contribute to the cause in Arizona as well.

Bigoted anti-gay measures passed in four states last Tuesday - Arizona, Arkansas, California, and Florida. This blogger says that Mormon money was behind at least the measures in AZ and CA.

Despite tough economic times, an amazing 59,000 Mormon families have succumbed to substantial pressure from church elders, and have given huge amounts of money to California's Yes on 8 campaign. These Mormon families have given a staggering $18.6 million since June 1st and the total grows daily. This represents 77% of all money raised and 88% of all individual money raised (not including funds from the big out of state organizations). In Arizona where a gay marriage ban is back on the ballot after losing just two years ago, Mormon families have contributed nearly all of the $6.9 million to the Yes on 102 campaign. What is going on here?

Blog reports are popping up indicating Church elders are calling certain members and arranging one-on-one visits to discuss a prearranged "suggested donation amounts." The Wall Street Journal reported that one conference call arranged by the Church had between 40 and 60 participants. A Church elder told everyone on the call that he should give $25,000 to Yes on 8. Analysis of the California Secretary of State website shows that worked. There have been 81 contributions of $25,000, and dozens more of between $26,000 and $$500,000.

[comtec]

27. links to back up your claim?

the LDS was up to their eyebrows along with the KoC, and the RCC.
the while lot of them need their tax exempt status revoked and taxed up the ass for 200 years back taxes! (only only 120 for the morons..er .. LDS)

at what point is it too much?

at what point do we finally say ENOUGH HATE FROM THE CHURCH!

the first amendment CLEARLY states the intent of SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!

The IRS Tax code clearly states that churches are NOT ALLOWED TO BE POLITICAL!

for what it's worth, i know a lot of mormons, I LIKE most mormons, the one's I grew up with are decent people!

it's the CHURCH, that's fucking dangerous!!! like ALL "church"es.

I didn't mind that they used California as their breeding grounds, but this... the more I've found out about the LDS, the more I despise it. Their views towards blacks and other minority groups is INEXCUSABLE!!!

It is unacceptable that a people that were HUNTED, for CENTURIES (2? 1+?) would want to restrict ANYONE'S rights is appalling and pathetic. it's to absurd to be beyond laughable, and only rises to the level of pitiable.

[AlbertCat]

46. It's not the CHURCH... it's PEOPLE

I LIKE most mormons, the one's I grew up with are decent people!

it's the CHURCH, that's fucking dangerous!!! like ALL "church"es.

***********

Churches ARE people. If they were just buildings, then there'd be no problem. If no one believes in a religion, then it has no power. So you cannot separate churches from those "nice" followers. Period.

[comtec]

48. It's not people, it's THE CHURCH(tm)

people, in general are rational and can be convinced or talked to about rational things.

The CHURCH is an institution, a megacorp. Have you ever tried to deal with a mega corp?

The people at the top of the CHURCH, are usually power hungry, a-moral people who like lording over others.

The CHURCH (and it's odd because we actually agree) is the one with power, money and influence. the CHURCH feeds off it's parishioners and often causes harm.

many people IN a church are only there out of inertia, they just have always gone. Others are just as horrible as the doctrine tells them to be.

I know lots of nice mormons. sadly they are the minority.

[CubicleGuy]

73. The IRS Tax code clearly states that churches ARE ALLOWED TO BE POLITICAL!

They can't stump for specific people, but they can stump for issues. Get your facts straight.

[comtec]

80. Fair point, I did hear that

But they should still have their tax exempt status revoked. How many of these "impartial" churches stumped for bush, FORCED their parishioners to show bush LIES and campaign bullshit!?

My opinion still stands. But you are correct, they can stand for issues.

[Raster]

33. Correction: funds came from mormon congregations all over the country.

Anti-gay marriage literature was distributed and an anti-gay marriage video was shown in mormon sacrament meetings. In addition, the church distributed thousands of "Yes on Hate" signs to their California congregations on church property. I have no doubt that the mormon high command covered their financial involvement very carefully. They've done this before and know how to bury the bodies: the mormon-funded backlash against the passage of the E.R.A. The church hopes not to have any of their financial involvement called into question, after all they are a Christian religion. And you can be sure there will be more "cutouts" and financial obscureness than a Wall Street huckster. However, if investigators dig deeper they will find direct capability to Salt Lake. I guarantee it.

[nichomachus]

35. Really? Check out this list

I imagine these people just "happened" to donate a few bucks to the cause -- all the way from Utah, meddling in a CA election, with no pressure from the church.

People routinely donate tons of money -- in one case here $1,000,000 from one guy -- to political causes in other states.

Utah donations (so far listed) in support of Prop 8

[Rockholm]

39. Follow the Money...Follow the Link

http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/prop8

From good Old Massachusetts, a Romney and Danny Ainge's wife (Boston Celtics GM). Gotta love it. This will doom any chance in hell that Mittens will get any elected office in MA again.

[BlueJazz]

52. Nice to hear that from a "Professional"

Thanks!

[wryter2000]

67. I'm so glad to hear this

Thanks.

[AntiFascist]

11. Excellent! This is looking better and better...

even the governor has expressed his support for overturning it.

[fascisthunter]

12. Hee Hee

They can also argued that was religiously funded from OUT OF STATE.

Lot's of money the Mormons wasted.... justice!

[ladywnch]

13. I didn't see the numbers on this vote. was it even close or was it a blowout? n/t

[4lbs]

21. Overall it passed by about 5 points, around 52.3% to 47.7% or something like that.

Differential was about 500,000 votes.

[olddad56]

14. No spouses for Gay people, but more than one for Mormon men. Make sense to me.

[goclark]

28. Excellent point that should be put front and center

[lelgt60]

45. the LDS church which promoted prop 8 does not support polygamy

Mormon Church president Wilford Woodruff announced the end of the practice of polygamy in 1890, and it currently forbids its practice. Splinter groups still do practice it, but they are not the Mormon church which promoted and whose members gave so much money to prop 8.

I don't know if you know this, or were just being a bit sarcastic (which is fine).

I find that if people actually believe and restate false assertions, they are counter productive and can be used as a justification against our position.

Just wanted to clarify.

[AlbertCat]

51. So....if Mormons can change their definition of marriage....

....what's the problem here?

[lelgt60]

53. Wonderful point - you know why they did it?

To get statehood for Utah. Not my assertion - they've said so. They re-affirmed it in what's called the "Second Manifesto" in 1906 so the Senate would seat Apostle Reed Smoot as a US Senator.

[fNord]

15. K&R

[bluesmail]

16. K&R Who the hell do those Mormons think they are?

Religious fanatics. Holy crap.

[Mrspeeker]

17. K & R

Good to hear

[Lost-in-FL]

18. K&R nt

[defendandprotect]

19. Wonderul--!!!

Signed the petition ......anything more we can do ---?

Any particular group dupporting legal actions?

[jacobfloyd]

20. Good.

So fuckin stupid!

[HowHasItComeToThis]

22. NO MORMON MARRIAGES SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN CALIF

[jwlashta]

31. As long as we're engaged in the world of fantasy...

and the removal of civil liberties from minorities, the better thing to do would be to evict the Mormons from several of the LDS Church temples should the Proposition be overturned. Then, bring in camera crews and perform gay marriage ceremonies over the course of, say, a week within the temples. Finally, let the Mormons back in (though hopefully they would refuse to enter a place that had been 'defiled').

Back to reality.

Let's hope that more lawmakers in California (and elsewhere) show the courage to step forward and move to have this Proposition overturned. I still can't believe that a matter of civil liberty (enjoyed by the majority of the population) was ever left in the hands of the majority. Referendums, initiatives, and propositions might be "more democratic," but they sure as hell are not good for liberty. They (along with special interests) are the bane of western politics and will be the death of liberty (as well de-legitimize the democratic process).

[VaYallaDawg]

43. Don't forget, you'd have to wear "special" underwear. n/t

[fourvahl]

23. This is great news

It never seemed right to me and I was glad to hear Keith's closing statement today too. Very touching even for Keith.

[bjobotts]

25. Overturn prop 8 or the mormon tabernacle choir gets it.

[mentalslavery]

29. Conflict and conversation-See how that works

I realize that it is du's policy to ban people who disagree with gay marriage but banning people will not change minds. If we do not change minds then what does that say about our ability to change the situation. I understand that it is hurtful conversation, but that does not mean we should not have it. The vast differences between us mean that we should face it head on. It is a shame that we can not talk about this. More radical and liberal democrats need to reach out to conservative democrats, not disown them. It is a counterproductive emotional response. We need all the help we can get. Lots of dems don't support it, so how does our isolation from them create the support we need. Banned people go away mad and deepens their opposition because they feel that one policy issue is the reason for their rejection. I have had lots of conversations about gay rights with dems who don't agree with it. Part of their opposition is because they have been attacked by people regarding their opposition. They are more reluctant to come around because of the hurt feelings. People talk about how much this issue means to them but are not willing to discuss it because of hurt feelings. Shouldn't we forgo our hurt feelings as recognition of higher ideals-open debate-changing minds-changing laws-changing the world? As a sociologist I can tell you this forum has the potential to do that, but banning conversation about this issue with conservative dems will actually lead to internal resistance. It is the same problem that we see with the blue dogs in congress.

[ToolTex]

30. Go argue with a rock. n/t

[mentalslavery]

36. What does that do?

Change anything? Please, our dismissive attitude changes nothing.

[zipplewrath]

37. I don't think you understand the purpose of DU.

This is a place for relatively "like minded" people to communicate and share. No, we aren't going to have on going discussions with white supremacists, and we aren't going to have on going debate with homophobes. There are plenty of places to have those discussions. The originator of this place didn't envision it as one of them. And it is not really a case of "banning people who disagree". It is a case of asking them not to discuss those points of disagreement here.

[mentalslavery]

71. I do understand the purpose of DU

I also understand that those who disagree with gay marriage are not all homophobic. This is not about what the originator envisioned. I understand the rule and the purpose, but what about the other purposes?

[lelgt60]

47. it's perfectly reasonable to discuss how best to change people's minds here

Without actually entering into a discussion with homophobes.

For instance, as I've posted elsewhere, I do not think it helps the anti 8 cause to get angry and cuss at Mormon missionaries. At least, not initially. In doing so, I'm trying to primarily affect the behavior of DU members, not homophobes.

[AntiFascist]

81. I totally agree...

I would love to try to argue the legal viewpoint (from a layman's point of view) with a Democrat who is against gay marriage. Any takers?

[Vattel]

32. It's very promising

and they'll never get the 3/4 of the legislature necessary for a constitutional revision

[Le Taz Hot]

34. Good news but . . .

only a third?????? We have a Dem majority in the leg.

[slackmaster]

38. We have almost 2/3 in the legislature, but well under half of the voters

California voters have a long history of recalling elected officials who go against their will.

Party affiliation is not the issue here. The primary motivation for many members of both the senate and assembly are retention of power. They have gerrymandered themselves into districts that are safe for Democrats, with the remainder becoming safe for Republicans by default.

The people are tired of it. That's why Proposition 11 (probably) passed.

[MiJaMu]

40. Perhaps I am naieve, but i didn't realize...

marriage was a civil liberty. I thought it was a religious thing. Oh well, live and learn.

[yardwork]

42. You're right. You are naive that you didn't realize that marriage is a civil liberty.

I'm glad to hear that you have learned something.

[mondo joe]

44. What rock have you been hiding under?

You can't be serious.

[123infinity]

50. You are joking, yes?

[haele]

54. Marriage can be both -

Marriage as a civil liberty is where two consenting adults who love each other very much make a lifetime commitment and register it with the local government so as to receive equal rights and benefits as one legal unit. That commitment is recognized because the constitution allows for recognition of such contracts between jurisdictions.

Marriage as a religious rite comes when two or more people and sometimes a sacred symbol of some sort are joined under a specific god or goddess in a sacred place. There is no qualification for participation other than that which is proscribed by the religion for that rite.
Thus, you can have a situation similar to one recently in the news where a girl was married to a snake in a specific religious rite for a holiday representing a god married to a virginal supplicant, bringing that god's blessing to the family, village, or tribe.
But that rite is not considered legal binding even in the country it was held, and there are no benefits other than a feeling of comfort and prosperity - and hopefully, the girl doesn't end up sacrificed in some manner or another if the "good luck" doesn't manifest.

My teenager argues like this. But then, she still wants to see the world in black and white.

Haele

[AlbertCat]

57. Oh well, live and learn.

Marriage, over the centuries, has been about property rights more than love. There is no need to get married to have children and live together as a family. But for property, titles, etc. to pass from one generation to another, we have marriage. It could skip the religious part altogether if, when the notion of marriage occurred to our distant prehistoric ancestors, religion wasn't also government (religions are just ancient government, y'know).

Civil Unions are OK by me....but then we get into the very American and very WRONG notion of "separate but equal".


As far as tradition goes....I'll bet if you add up all the forms marriage has taken from the start, all over the world, a harem system is the most "traditional".

One man and one woman is definitely a more recent Western thing... when considering all of history on all of the planet.

[Zhade]

76. Nope. Religion does not own marriage. If it did, there'd be no married atheists/agnostics.

NT!

[AntiFascist]

82. Look at it from a family point of view...

people have the basic right to fall in love with someone and form a family unit, even if it is just a family of 2. Gay couples (in CA) also have parenting rights, but if Prop. 8 is allowed to stand then it would open the door for that right to be taken away as well.

[WillyT]

49. WooHoo !!! - K & R !!!

[WriteDown]

55. This is a terrible idea....

Public opinion is moving toward voters approving this in the next few years. Regardless of the issue, its a pretty slippery slope for a court to be invalidating constitutional amendments after it was deemed worthy of being on the ballot in the first place. What if the 14th amendment to the federal constitution was erased b/c it was too drastic a change from the way things had been before it?

[slackmaster]

56. The only way the problem is going to be fixed is to change peoples' hearts and minds

Undermining the initiative process is a double-edged sword, and invalidating Proposition 8 in the courts would not result in its backers giving up. They are already gearing up to circulate recall petitions (for judges) if it gets overturned by the courts.

[AlbertCat]

58. to change peoples' hearts and minds

Just like Civil Rights...right?

WRONG.

If it had been left up to the people back in the 1950's, Obama would have to enter the White House today through the "Colored Entrance". Racial prejudice is generally taboo now because Civil Rights forced into law has shown that all the fears expressed by opponents never materialized. Just like all the gay fears in MA and VT have yet to appear.

Changing hearts and minds by example after the fact works well.

[slackmaster]

65. Good reply, AlbertCat and I think we need to remember something here

California was the first state to strike down a miscegenation law - Perez v. Sharp was a 14th Amendment case. The same could apply here.

[mondo joe]

59. Not at all. If it's unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional. There's no reason to tolerate

an unconstitutional law.

[WriteDown]

60. The ballot initiative was approved by the CA Supreme Court

very recently. To them it was constitutional. There is real movement on this issue and it will be approved eventually. Better to wait for then than to force it.

[greeneyedboy]

61. Wrong. They did not approve this or any other initiative in advance.

They did dismiss a request to remove it from the ballot because courts are not in the business of anticipating and preventing unconstitutional acts; they respond to facts and laws.

[WriteDown]

63. The ballot initiative process is spelled out..

by the CA state constitution and its amendment process, therefore it is constitutional.

[mondo joe]

70. Maybe I'm not reading closely enough, but I don't see anything in the initiative

process to indicate state Supreme Court review:

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/initiative_guide.htm

[greeneyedboy]

75. It's a revision, not an amendment, and is therefore invalid.

The measure is an illegal revision (removing equal protection from the judiciary and thus altering the balance of powers), not an amendment (which clarifies/adjusts the extent of rights).

Revisions must be approved by a supermajority of the legislature before being submitted to the voters, or a constitutional convention must be called.

[Zhade]

79. A revision that takes away rights is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

You don't understand our constitution. At all.

[mondo joe]

68. The the court will say so, won't it?

?

[Zhade]

78. That's aboslutely untrue. They did NOT approve it in advance. That is a lie.

NT!

[greeneyedboy]

62. Civil rights often come from court cases.

And I say, by any means necessary. The wingnuts will throw a fit regardless of how progress happens, so I am not about to wait and cater to them, esp. when my own civil rights are on the line.

If you would like to put yours on hold until voters endorse them, be my guest.

[WriteDown]

64. Like the Kelo case?

That sure advanced civil rights. I just to prefer not to rule by fiat, regardless of the party.

[mondo joe]

69. Or like Loving v Virginia.

Or Browder v Gayle.

Or Lawrence v Texas.

[Zhade]

77. Boy, it's a good thing MLK didn't listen to advice like yours.

We'd still have segregation.

[AntiFascist]

83. You don't understand what happened...

Prop 8 was approved for signature gathering last year. In the meantime, we had the CA marriage ruling which made gay marriage legal, and it also declared that marriage is a Fundamental Right and that gays and lesbians are a protected group ('suspect classification' in legalise). Then, when enough signatures were gathered, Prop. 8 was submitted to the Sec of State to be put on the ballot. At that point, Lambda Legal sued to have the measure removed from the ballot because they were arguing, in light of the Marriage Ruling, that Prop. 8 should be a Revision to the constitution not an amendment, in which case it would have to go through the legislature first. The court decided not to rule on this issue at that time, because it is customary, once a measure is on the ballot, to allow it to be voted upon first. That way, if it gets defeated, then the court doesn't have to interfere. Obviously the measure wasn't defeated, so now the court is once again in the position of having to rule whether Prop 8 is a Revision or an amendment to the state constitution. Unfortunately, there is also a law that says propositions go into effect the day after the election, so we are in a wierd position of having to live with an amendment, temporarilly, that probably should not be valid, but because of the timing of the Marriage Ruling, it slipped in.

On edit: I very much blame the mass media idiots for trying to sell Prop. 8 the way they did as conclusively passing in California. Now, when and if it gets overturned, they will either have a lot of backtracking to do, or in the case of Fox News, make it appear as if activist courts are interfering with the will of the people, which is not the case when you analyze the filings.

[wryter2000]

66. Awesome

Even Ahnuld is doing the right thing about this.

[wroberts189]

74. It will be overturned.,. heard it here first :)