California votes on same-sex marriage again

[Montrose1100]

I'm surprised, I guess California isn't as liberal as once portrayed.

Then again, Regan came from CA.

[VicMan]

Be more specific. How exactly would a person in Houston punish several million people in California?

This was explained in detail earlier in the thread (Page 4).

Anyway, you know gentrification pushes up property tax rates? My idea is that wealthy California celebrities and other individuals in favor of homosexual marriage buy property in Pro-Prop 8 inland counties in an effort to increase taxes. This would induce the residents to move out of California and into Arizona, Utah, Nevada, etc.

I'm surprised, I guess California isn't as liberal as once portrayed.

Then again, Regan came from CA.

It's not that so much as there are opposing factions in California. The inland conservatives are opposed to the coastal liberals. Also poor Hispanic and African American populations along the coast are opposed to homosexual marriage. BTW many conservatives have already moved out of California.

[BryanS]

Wasn't the whole point of making it a constitutional amendment to make sure the judges couldn't mess with it? The judges are sworn to uphold the constitution of California, not their own personal beliefs or the beliefs of the loudest group of people.

If my civics is amiss, someone please correct me.

The California Supreme Court has struck down amendments before, under operation of CA law. There is nothing unusual here in terms of the legal challenges that are ahead of prop 8, regardless if it is an amendment or statute. Both can be challenged.

If an amendment fundamentally alters the CA Constitution, in such a manner as to make the Constitution inconsistent with itself (claiming equal protection for all, but at the same time denying rights to a specific group), or seeks to strip the judicial branch of its rights and obligations to protect minority rights... then such amendments - enacted through popular petition - MUST be deemed unconstitutional as they are NOT amendments, rather radical revisions to the Constitution. Such revisions must originate in the legislature, with 2/3rds approval and then a vote by the people. That is not what happened here.

The CA Supreme Court has declared that gay and lesbian individuals, as a group, are a suspect class. No other gay marriage case/amendment process in the country has been decided on such grounds whereby a suspect classification was granted, rights were secured and exercised... and then voted away by popular vote; raping a minority of its rights. This is a first in the nation event.

If the CA Supreme Court does not strike down prop 8, we will have witnessed one of the most tragic abortions of justice this country has ever seen; damn California. Had the Court not elevated CA gay and lesbians to suspect class status, you could argue this would go down just like Oregon... but that is not what this current situation looks like...

[musicman]

BTW many conservatives have already moved out of California.

evidently not enough for the prop to fail.

[editor]

Anyway, you know gentrification pushes up property tax rates? My idea is that wealthy California celebrities and other individuals in favor of homosexual marriage buy property in Pro-Prop 8 inland counties in an effort to increase taxes. This would induce the residents to move out of California and into Arizona, Utah, Nevada, etc.

While I applaud your use of the free market to achieve your goals (like when PETA mulled buying SeaWorld), I think you underestimate the trillions of dollars it would take to achieve that goal in even one county. I doubt there's that much private wealth in California or enough people willing to part with enough of it to make a dent in the direction you're going. A couple of these counties are 5-20% the size of Texas. Imagine trying to buy up all the land in Southeast Texas from Louisiana to Austin. I don't think it could be done.

It's not that so much as there are opposing factions in California. The inland conservatives are opposed to the coastal liberals. Also poor Hispanic and African American populations along the coast are opposed to homosexual marriage. BTW many conservatives have already moved out of California.

There is a difference of 1,724,332 between votes cast for McCain and votes cast for Proposition 8. While there's no way to tell exactly how the numbers shook out, it looks like there were an awful lot of people in California who were liberal enough to vote Obama, but not liberal enough to fight 8. I don't know what it means, but I still find it interesting.

The CA Supreme Court has declared that gay and lesbian individuals, as a group, are a suspect class. No other gay marriage case/amendment process in the country has been decided on such grounds whereby a suspect classification was granted, rights were secured and exercised... and then voted away by popular vote; raping a minority of its rights. This is a first in the nation event.

Could you explain "suspect class" and how it changes the normal process of how this would be ap/re-pealed?

[RedScare]

If the CA Supreme Court does not strike down prop 8, we will have witnessed one of the most tragic abortions of justice this country has ever seen; damn California.

I would be tempted to put the Dred Scott decision slightly above Prop 8, but maybe I just have a soft spot for slaves being denied citizenship.

[BryanS]

I would be tempted to put the Dred Scott decision slightly above Prop 8, but maybe I just have a soft spot for slaves being denied citizenship.

"...in recent history..." ... on about the same plane though.

[HtownWxBoy]

Wasn't the whole point of making it a constitutional amendment to make sure the judges couldn't mess with it? The judges are sworn to uphold the constitution of California, not their own personal beliefs or the beliefs of the loudest group of people.

If my civics is amiss, someone please correct me.

The judges could rule that the amendment itself that the voters voted for is unconstitutional if it violates what's currently in the California Constitution. If that does not happen this could go to the U.S. Supreme Court where it will be decided if this violates the U.S. Constitution. I am not an expert on the U.S. Constitution but I could have sworn there was something in it that guarantees equal rights to American citizens. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[BryanS]

Could you explain "suspect class" and how it changes the normal process of how this would be ap/re-pealed?

What I found on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification

Basiclly, race, national origin, religion, and the like are considered "suspect classes" - meaning these groups have had a history of discrimination, are politically impotent, minority groups, etc. Both states and the federal government have their own lists of what constitutes a suspect class, they are usually very similar.

California has added sexual orientation to its list, effective of its May 2008 same-sex marriage decision.

What this means is that a higher standard, a more strict process, and/or a compelling state interest - above and beyond the typical "rational basis" test - must be met if you attempt to treat these groups differently under the law.

The challenge to prop 8 is built upon the Supreme Court's own declaration of sexual orientation as a suspect class and that a more stringent standard (via the constitutional revision process in CA vs. the simple amendment process) - must be followed if that group is to be singled out and treated differently, under the constitution. That such human rights cannot be decided on a simple majority vote, side-by-side with farm animal rights/amendments.

If sexual orientation were not a suspect class in CA... the amendment would be added, the suits dismissed almost immediately because a "more stringent standard" test does not apply in such cases and the human rights of gay and lesbian people would be on the plane as farm animals in that case.

In other words... you can treat suspect classes differently... but you must follow a more stringent process to achieve the end result.

[VicMan]

evidently not enough for the prop to fail.

The gay marriage ban barely passed (52% in favor) - If only a few more Prop 8 supporters leave, then there would no longer be a slim majority.

While I applaud your use of the free market to achieve your goals (like when PETA mulled buying SeaWorld), I think you underestimate the trillions of dollars it would take to achieve that goal in even one county. I doubt there's that much private wealth in California or enough people willing to part with enough of it to make a dent in the direction you're going. A couple of these counties are 5-20% the size of Texas. Imagine trying to buy up all the land in Southeast Texas from Louisiana to Austin. I don't think it could be done.

There is a difference of 1,724,332 between votes cast for McCain and votes cast for Proposition 8. While there's no way to tell exactly how the numbers shook out, it looks like there were an awful lot of people in California who were liberal enough to vote Obama, but not liberal enough to fight 8. I don't know what it means, but I still find it interesting.

1. There has to be a pro-Prop 8 county that is relatively poor (I believe California's wealth is mostly along the coast) and an easy target. We don't have to remove that many people before the pro-Prop 8 people lose their majority.

2. I would say they are liberal in different ways; I.E. they are in favor of more social programs but they are socially conservative.

[editor]

The judges could rule that the amendment itself that the voters voted for is unconstitutional if it violates what's currently in the California Constitution. If that does not happen this could go to the U.S. Supreme Court where it will be decided if this violates the U.S. Constitution. I am not an expert on the U.S. Constitution but I could have sworn there was something in it that guarantees equal rights to American citizens. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Boy, imagine the uproar if SCOTUS declines to hear it. The 2000 election will seem like a tea party with crumpets and doilies by comparison.

[BryanS]

The judges could rule that the amendment itself that the voters voted for is unconstitutional if it violates what's currently in the California Constitution. If that does not happen this could go to the U.S. Supreme Court where it will be decided if this violates the U.S. Constitution. I am not an expert on the U.S. Constitution but I could have sworn there was something in it that guarantees equal rights to American citizens. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Actually, the CA court is being asked to rule that the process that was used to put the amendment forward was incorrect. Properly executed amendments are binding on the Constitution and judges/courts have no say in the matter whatsoever... The key word is "proper." If you are going to deny a woman's right to free speech, but not a man's right to free speech, that can be added to the CA Constitution - but could only be added via the revision process vs. the popular amendment process. That is the argument here. The CA Supreme Court has rightly elevated sexual orientation to the same plane as gender, religion, etc... so if you are going to deny gays and lesbians their rights... whoever wishes to do that must follow the correct process and that process must be more stringent than typical statute processes.

Provided we had a balanced Supreme Court (which we do not), it is obvious that 14th amendment protections are being denied to gay and lesbian Americans by way of state constitutional amendments. Even the most strict constructionist justices can see, in plain writing, right under their nose... the words of the 14th amendment:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[HtownWxBoy]

What I found on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification

Basiclly, race, national origin, religion, and the like are considered "suspect classes" - meaning these groups have had a history of discrimination, are politically impotent, minority groups, etc. Both states and the federal government have their own lists of what constitutes a suspect class, they are usually very similar.

California has added sexual orientation to its list, effective of its May 2008 same-sex marriage decision.

What this means is that a higher standard, a more strict process, and/or a compelling state interest - above and beyond the typical "rational basis" test - must be met if you attempt to treat these groups differently under the law.

The challenge to prop 8 is built upon the Supreme Court's own declaration of sexual orientation as a suspect class and that a more stringent standard (via the constitutional revision process in CA vs. the simple amendment process) - must be followed if that group is to be singled out and treated differently, under the constitution. That such human rights cannot be decided on a simple majority vote, side-by-side with farm animal rights/amendments.

If sexual orientation were not a suspect class in CA... the amendment would be added, the suits dismissed almost immediately because a "more stringent standard" test does not apply in such cases and the human rights of gay and lesbian people would be on the plane as farm animals in that case.

In other words... you can treat suspect classes differently... but you must follow a more stringent process to achieve the end result.

The courts in California are going to do the right thing and overturn Prop 8... just watch. Even Governor Arnold said he hopes they do.

[editor]

What I found on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification

Basiclly, race, national origin, religion, and the like are considered "suspect classes" - meaning these groups have had a history of discrimination, are politically impotent, minority groups, etc. Both states and the federal government have their own lists of what constitutes a suspect class, they are usually very similar.

California has added sexual orientation to its list, effective of its May 2008 same-sex marriage decision.

What this means is that a higher standard, a more strict process, and/or a compelling state interest - above and beyond the typical "rational basis" test - must be met if you attempt to treat these groups differently under the law.

The challenge to prop 8 is built upon the Supreme Court's own declaration of sexual orientation as a suspect class and that a more stringent standard (via the constitutional revision process in CA vs. the simple amendment process) - must be followed if that group is to be singled out and treated differently, under the constitution. That such human rights cannot be decided on a simple majority vote, side-by-side with farm animal rights/amendments.

If sexual orientation were not a suspect class in CA... the amendment would be added, the suits dismissed almost immediately because a "more stringent standard" test does not apply in such cases and the human rights of gay and lesbian people would be on the plane as farm animals in that case.

In other words... you can treat suspect classes differently... but you must follow a more stringent process to achieve the end result.

Thanks for the explanation. That helps a lot. But they should come up with a better term than "suspect class." To a layman it makes them all sound like criminals.

You seem to have an unusually firm grasp of this stuff. Is it part of your vocation?

[BryanS]

Boy, imagine the uproar if SCOTUS declines to hear it. The 2000 election will seem like a tea party with crumpets and doilies by comparison.

They've already declined to hear it... in a previous case from CA. Which is good. Because a bad ruling is worse than no ruling/no action taken by that court... until it changes its composition.

[HtownWxBoy]

Boy, imagine the uproar if SCOTUS declines to hear it. The 2000 election will seem like a tea party with crumpets and doilies by comparison.

Well I don't think this will go to the U.S. Supreme Court... California's courts will overturn Prop 8 most likely.

[editor]

2. I would say they are liberal in different ways; I.E. they are in favor of more social programs but they are socially conservative.

I've always thought of them as going hand-in-hand. I'll have to think about that for a bit.

Actually, the CA court is being asked to rule that the process that was used to put the amendment forward was incorrect. Properly executed amendments are binding on the Constitution and judges/courts have no say in the matter whatsoever... The key word is "proper." If you are going to deny a woman's right to free speech, but not a man's right to free speech, that can be added to the CA Constitution

So, can an amendment can be added to the California constitution even if it conflicts with another portion of the same document?

[HtownWxBoy]

Actually, the CA court is being asked to rule that the process that was used to put the amendment forward was incorrect. Properly executed amendments are binding on the Constitution and judges/courts have no say in the matter whatsoever... The key word is "proper." If you are going to deny a woman's right to free speech, but not a man's right to free speech, that can be added to the CA Constitution - but could only be added via the revision process vs. the popular amendment process. That is the argument here. The CA Supreme Court has rightly elevated sexual orientation to the same plane as gender, religion, etc... so if you are going to deny gays and lesbians their rights... whoever wishes to do that must follow the correct process and that process must be more stringent than typical statute processes.

Provided we had a balanced Supreme Court (which we do not), it is obvious that 14th amendment protections are being denied to gay and lesbian Americans by way of state constitutional amendments. Even the most strict constructionist justices can see, in plain writing, right under their nose... the words of the 14th amendment:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

But the U.S. Constitution which says everyone has the right to free speech trumps the CA Constitution, so even if that happened it would be overturned quickly since states can't amend their constitution in ways that violate the U.S. Constitution.

[HtownWxBoy]

I've always thought of them as going hand-in-hand. I'll have to think about that for a bit.

So, can an amendment can be added to the California constitution even if it conflicts with another portion of the same document?

Just b/c someone calls themselves "liberal" doesn't mean they are "to the left" on all issues. I consider myself a liberal... I am obviously pro gay rights, pro choice (i don't like abortion, but my pro individual privacy stance trumps that), anti-organized religion... if the church says something is wrong and immoral, I do it and I do it often!! At the same time, though, I side with conservatives on issues like the death penalty, affirmative action and fiscal issues.

And to answer your second question... No.

[BryanS]

But the U.S. Constitution which says everyone has the right to free speech trumps the CA Constitution, so even if that happened it would be overturned quickly since states can't amend their constitution in ways that violate the U.S. Constitution.

In my man-woman free speech example... it would be overturned quickly because 1.) gender is a recognized quasi suspect class at the federal judicial level and 2.) as such, would be in direct conflict with the 14th amendment. You are correct.

But not when it comes to gays and lesbians, outside of California, or at the federal level.

That is because, at the federal level, gays and lesbians have no suspect classification and are a missing group from the 1964 civil rights act. A conservative judiciary would have no reason/basis to rule in the same fashion as the CA state Supreme Court... even though it is just as obvious that 14th amendment protections were being violated. The federal judiciary (and even legislative and executive branches) has proven to be quite hostile to gay rights.

[BryanS]

So, can an amendment can be added to the California constitution even if it conflicts with another portion of the same document?

That is the question. The no on 8 side is basically saying if the amendment is accepted into the constitution, as written, then the constitution as a document will lack "harmony" and that ALL minority rights would be up for vote/revocation - because the equal protection clause would be meaningless. That the only way to intentionally inflict that kind of damage onto the Constitution would have to be done via a constitutional convention/revision process. You'd have to really intentionally screw it up (through a deliberate,

[millennica]

For anyone interested in a more complex analysis of the voting patterns on Proposition 8 within the city of San Francisco, today's issue ( 14 November 2008) of the San Francisco Chronicle published an article worth reading. Other information--interactive features, photos-- is available for within the article.

For all the talk of San Francisco values, a Chronicle analysis of how the city voted on the state's same-sex marriage ban shows a city geographically divided on the issue - and voting trends that turn San Francisco's typical political spectrum on its head.

One in 4 San Franciscans voted in favor of Proposition 8, far fewer than the 52 percent who voted to ban same-sex marriage statewide. But a closer look shows race, age and education influenced voters more than anything else - even among those living in one of the world's most gay-friendly cities.

Voters in 54 of San Francisco's 580 precincts supported the ban, with a high of 65 percent of voters favoring it in parts of Chinatown and downtown. More than half of voters in large swaths of Bayview-Hunters Point, Visitacion Valley, the Excelsior and areas around Lake Merced also voted to ban same-sex marriage.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../MNIQ144185.DTL

[editor]

For anyone interested in a more complex analysis of the voting patterns on Proposition 8 within the city of San Francisco, today's issue ( 14 November 2008) of the San Francisco Chronicle published an article worth reading. Other information--interactive features, photos-- is available for within the article.

For all the talk of San Francisco values, a Chronicle analysis of how the city voted on the state's same-sex marriage ban shows a city geographically divided on the issue - and voting trends that turn San Francisco's typical political spectrum on its head.

One in 4 San Franciscans voted in favor of Proposition 8, far fewer than the 52 percent who voted to ban same-sex marriage statewide. But a closer look shows race, age and education influenced voters more than anything else - even among those living in one of the world's most gay-friendly cities.

Voters in 54 of San Francisco's 580 precincts supported the ban, with a high of 65 percent of voters favoring it in parts of Chinatown and downtown. More than half of voters in large swaths of Bayview-Hunters Point, Visitacion Valley, the Excelsior and areas around Lake Merced also voted to ban same-sex marriage.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../MNIQ144185.DTL

Interesting, but I'm not sure the word "influenced" is correct there. Your genes and your paycheck don't decide how you vote -- your brain does that. People make choices in the voting booth, their choices aren't made for them by how old they are.

For those interested in protesting or supporting organizations that were for or against 8, here's a list of everyone who donated money to support or oppose it: http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Meas...mp;session=2007

[sevfiv]

The protest Saturday was quite well attended..

[millennica]

Interesting, but I'm not sure the word "influenced" is correct there. Your genes and your paycheck don't decide how you vote -- your brain does that. People make choices in the voting booth, their choices aren't made for them by how old they are.

If you think the word influence is inappropriately used in the article, I'm sure the reporter would be glad to hear from you. While I don't want to get into a semantic argument with someone whose handle is "editor" the word influence applies to a force exercised and received consciously or unconsciously. So as much as people make choices with their brains, they are often subtly influenced by other factors, at least that's what cognitive psychologists, anthropologists and sociologists argue. Of course, it's possible that you are correct and they are wrong. But I believe that is a debatable proposition.

[N Judah]

You're in "correlation v. causation" country 'round these here parts!

[memebag]

Interesting, but I'm not sure the word "influenced" is correct there. Your genes and your paycheck don't decide how you vote -- your brain does that. People make choices in the voting booth, their choices aren't made for them by how old they are.

For those interested in protesting or supporting organizations that were for or against 8, here's a list of everyone who donated money to support or oppose it: http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Meas...mp;session=2007

My favorite donating group (supporting prop 8): "BIGOTS AGAINST LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS"

[BryanS]

The protest Saturday was quite well attended..

It was. I really liked Ray Hill.... NOT A WORD from the chronicle... did I miss the story in the chronicle? Or did they simply ignore the story?

EDIT: Found this: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/life/r...on/6114711.html

[sevfiv]

The Iowa Supreme Court just unanimously approved same-sex marriage, overturning the 1998 law against it.

Iowa became the first state in the Midwest to approve same-sex marriage on Friday, after the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously decided that a 1998 law limiting marriage to a man and a woman was unconstitutional.

The decision was the culmination of a four-year legal battle that began with a suit filed on behalf of six same-sex couples in the lower courts.

The Supreme Court said same-sex marriages could begin in Iowa in as soon as 21 days, making Iowa only the third state in the nation, along with Massachusetts and Connecticut, to legalize gay marriage. While the same-sex marriage debate has played out on both coasts, the Midwest — where no states had permitted same-sex marriage — was seen as entirely different. In the past, at least six states in the Midwest were among those around the country that adopted amendments to their state constitutions banning same-sex marriage.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/04/us/04iow...rss&emc=rss

[gto250us]

What is the big deal about same sex. My wife and I have been having the same sex for years.