Proposition 8 (and later same-sex marriage developments)

Raucous Bitch

Apparently, Winter is Coming
Joined
Nov 26, 2004
Messages
18,281
Location
Fangtasia
I just got linked to video in a journal on my LJ friends list.

The poor girl is just filming the Yes on 8 people and then she gets physically attacked. YES, YOU ARE ALL PEACEFUL AND NOT FUCKING CRAZY CUNTS.

Shit like this gives me THE RAGE.

Apparently 40% of the donations for Yes on 8 are from mormons, lets get them first.

You can watch it here:

http://theremina.livejournal.com/224143.html?view=1114255#t1114255
 

Zodiac

Registered Ulser
Joined
Feb 24, 2004
Messages
3,860
Location
Lapland
Nutters.

When is the vote? I was glad to see that Apple are publicly supporting the no campaign with a £1000,000 donation. This makes me more kindly disposed towards ipods.
 
L

Lunar Foetus

Guest
Beccy I would join you in ATTACK OF THE MORMONS but Brandon F and BDEN <3 are mormons so I can't.
 

Raucous Bitch

Apparently, Winter is Coming
Joined
Nov 26, 2004
Messages
18,281
Location
Fangtasia
They aren't practising.

Madison 40% of the donations to support the Yes on 8 campaign are from Mormons.
 
Last edited:

Raucous Bitch

Apparently, Winter is Coming
Joined
Nov 26, 2004
Messages
18,281
Location
Fangtasia
Doesn't mean I'm going to starting attacking them. Even the ones that support this proposition.

Nor am I, it was a figure of speech.

However I will challenge people who support views like this if confronted with them.
 

funky

User
Joined
Apr 30, 2004
Messages
84,406
Comedian Sacha Baron Cohen is causing more chaos as his fictional alter-ego Bruno - gatecrashing an anti-gay marriage rally in California.

The funnyman is currently filming scenes for his new movie Brüno: Delicious Journeys Through America for the Purpose of Making Heterosexual Males Visibly Uncomfortable in the Presence of a Gay Foreigner in a Mesh T-Shirt.

Cohen has already been ejected from a string of high-profile fashion shows across Europe after a series of stunts, including sneaking onto the runway.

And on Sunday he caused a commotion in Los Angeles by arriving at a rally backing the controversial Proposition 8 bill - a high-level state vote in the upcoming November election to make same-sex marriages constitutionally illegal in California.

Cohen turned up in disguise wearing a blond wig and preppy outfit and marched along with protesters. But he was quickly whisked away by his production team when people began to discover his real identity.

LOL at the name of the movie...
 
Last edited:

Raucous Bitch

Apparently, Winter is Coming
Joined
Nov 26, 2004
Messages
18,281
Location
Fangtasia
Yeah, what a shame :(

My friends at Stanford are all up in arms

I know, it would of really been a glorious end had it not passed. Apparently it is still to be called but I don't have much faith no, especially as similar things passed in Florida.
 

POP!

Running on stardust
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
44,931
It's one thing to NOT GIVE the equal rights to everyone, it's another thing to GIVE equal rights and then TAKE IT AWAY. It would be like not allowing black and white people to marry, it's such a backwards step.

There's no doubt that it will be fought though.
 

Raucous Bitch

Apparently, Winter is Coming
Joined
Nov 26, 2004
Messages
18,281
Location
Fangtasia
Surely it will get overturned in the Supreme Court?

What happens to all the people who are already married? They aren't married anymore?

It is so fucked up.
 

jonhawk

Bluffin' with my muffin
Joined
Jun 15, 2005
Messages
7,395
Location
LUHNDUN
I imagine that they may become invalid once it gets written into the Californian Constitution. Though there may be some kind of deal whereby they are "commuted" to civil unions or something.

You're right, it's beyoned fucked up. The California Supreme Court decided it was unconstitutional to ban same-sex marriage (and in fact discriminatory to have "civil unions") and now the Constitution itself is being amended on the wishes of the religious right. ERGH. Of course this should and probably will be taken to the US Supreme Court. It's so hard to tell what would happen there. What a mess.
 

lolly

Rowena? From Kuwait?
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Messages
159,224
But you can't retrospectively make something invalid which was perfectly legal at the time, can you? Is there a precedent?
 

jonhawk

Bluffin' with my muffin
Joined
Jun 15, 2005
Messages
7,395
Location
LUHNDUN
The new line in the Californian Constitution will read "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognised in California".

However Wikipedia says:

According to Joan Hollinger, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, "Constitutional scholars agree that the amendment cannot be effective retroactively."[28] The principal reason the amendment cannot be effective retroactively is the provision of the United States Constitution that prohibits the states from enacting laws which impair the obligation of contracts in Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution.[citation needed] The Ex Post Facto clause of the Constitution generally has been construed to prohibit the enactment of statutes which impose criminal penalties on conduct not previously defined as criminal, or which increase the penalties for act after the act has been committed.
 

Christian

GOOD BYE!
Joined
Apr 28, 2005
Messages
40,865
Location
Darkness
It's a crying shame and no mistake - such a massive step backwards for one of the most forward thinking states in the union. I don't hold out much hope for any other states to attempt similar legislation any time soon.

Still, at least Apple's donation to the No cause last week has upset a vocal minority of their customers. That's about the only good that's come out of this whole shambles :evil:
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
197
Who cares ?

Gays will still be able to bum each other etc they just won't have a piece of paper, marriage is overated anyways be it gay or straight
 

Ellie

Super talented triple threat
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Messages
49,917
Location
From Despair To Where
What if you have a gay daughter who has an uncle that repeatedly rapes her and she gets pregnant at the age of 15, then kills herself when you reject her because of her sexuality and refuse her permission for an abortion?
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
197
What if you have a gay daughter who has an uncle that repeatedly rapes her and she gets pregnant at the age of 15, then kills herself when you reject her because of her sexuality and refuse her permission for an abortion?

If I had a 15 year old daughter who was raped by an uncle I would be serving a life sentence for the murder and torture of that uncle so it is irrelevant

But staying on topic I would support her if she was my daughter but also tell her to put the child up for adoption if she does not want to bring it up
 

d22ghj

User
Joined
Aug 15, 2004
Messages
795
$70m down the drain then. A huge paradox given the election result yesterday, it goes to show that Obama was probably elected simply because enough of the swing voters wanted a change after 8 years of Bush. You can't change the conservative undercurrent though. I am sure a percentage of voters of Obama voted "yes" for Proposition 8, that is the irony.
 
Last edited:

POP!

Running on stardust
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
44,931
This is not about whether you think marriage is overrated or not, it's about EQUAL RIGHTS. They can flatter the gays and give them as many 'CIVIL UNIONS' as they want, but it still ISN'T EQUAL. Unless it's called a MARRIAGE and is *officially* recognized by the state and gay couples get ALL the rights straight couples get it's NOT EQUAL. It's HOMOPHOBIA, period....regardless of what they tell you is the DEFINITION of marriage, fuck off. If I was the mass gay population I'd cause an UPROAR and once President Obama appoints some more democratic/liberal supreme court judges, I'd go STRAIGHT to the supreme court and say that it's unconstitutional.
 

POP!

Running on stardust
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
44,931
GOOD, the gays need to stand up for their rights to get anywhere

I think it's BEYOND ridiculous that this was even a proposition, it's hardly a VOTING matter, its place is in the Supreme Court where it's unbiased (unbiased as something like this gets) and it's a matter of RIGHTS, not what Joe six pack thinks about Henry and John's or Jennifer and Janet's marriages and if it grosses him out.
 

Zodiac

Registered Ulser
Joined
Feb 24, 2004
Messages
3,860
Location
Lapland
I agree. I've always thought it odd that such issues come before the electorate in America. The idea that the general populace should be able to deprive minorities of their rights is really bizarre.
 

Floppet

Spider murderer
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
21,519
Location
Dining room table
This is all totally ridiculous. Marriages used to be performed in a church by a vicar or priest (or rabbi or imam) who, if the ones that I've known are anything to go by, are usually small-minded bigots with immense sets of double standards. Marriage nowadays is mostly not about religion but about having that piece of paper to show the world your commitment to each other. I'm lucky enough to be able to have one of those pieces of paper and I couldn't give a monkey's chuff about whether it's two men, two women or one of each getting married - everyone in love should be able to get married if they want to. The USA likes to put itself across as a wonderful nation leading the civilised world but they really need to put the important things in order (like ghetto's, gun crime and poverty for a start) rather than squabbling about who is and who isn't allowed to get married.
 

POP!

Running on stardust
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
44,931
It sure is ridiculous, the money spent by both sides could have helped other issues that we should be fighting about, rather than a group of people's rights that should be a given regardless of the majority of the public's opinions. MOST Americans were against civil rights for black people, but the laws were still passed because the unequal rights were simply unconstitutional...it wasn't a POPULAR decision, but was a FAIR and LOGICAL decision. And there's for sure going to be more unnecessary money being flung around on this issue which should be a simple and fair Supreme Court decision.
 

POP!

Running on stardust
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
44,931
I don't want to sound INSENSITIVE or anything but I want to see Ellen's reaction to the news.
 

POP!

Running on stardust
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
44,931
ELLEN VS. MCCAIN :o

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/A7addd1-SY8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/A7addd1-SY8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
 

skizzo

User
Joined
Feb 14, 2004
Messages
1,803
Location
Porto
Some exit poll info:

Men and women voted the same way.
White men and women both voted no more often than yes.
The largest group voting in favor was black women with approximately 72%, followed by Latino men with 51%.
The only race that, as a whole, voted "yes" more often than "no" was African Americans.
66% of people aged between 18-29 voted "no".
57% of those aged 65 and older voted "yes".
67% of Democrats voted "no".
79% of Republicans voted "yes".
52% of heterosexuals voted "yes".
68% of Obama voters voted "no".
82% of McCain voters voted "yes".

I don't believe that any minority has ever had civil rights which they already possessed taken away from them in the history of the US.
 
Last edited:

POP!

Running on stardust
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
44,931
Well not to sound racist/ageist at all, but I'M NOT SURPRISED by those demographics....
 
Last edited:

Madison

Everything goes up by six
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
63,452
Location
ex-European Union
I don't believe that any minority has ever had civil rights which they already possessed taken away from them in the history of the US.
Maybe native americans at some point?

Still, shameful news. Hopefully, there's nothing to stop groups from posting ballot initiatives every 2 years to repeal the amendment (is there?) - I'm sure it won't last long.
 

POP!

Running on stardust
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
44,931
But then the right wing conservatives will just keep on fighting against gay marriage, no matter how many propositions the gays are able to pass. Which is why some brave couple needs to bring this over to the Supreme Court to make a law saying gays/lesbians must be given 100% equal rights when it comes to marriage. I don't know why they haven't brought it over already, my only guess is that they're waiting for a stronger liberal Supreme Court that would come with who Obama appoints.
 

Christian

GOOD BYE!
Joined
Apr 28, 2005
Messages
40,865
Location
Darkness
How much danger is there of the constitution of the entire USofA being changed to head off a Supreme Court ruling? I remember it being mooted at one stage by W.
 

Madison

Everything goes up by six
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
63,452
Location
ex-European Union
It would certainly require a few more liberals on the court - I can't exactly see the constitutional right to marriage.

Sadly, I think the most likely candidates for retirement/death are the existing liberal judges. I can't wait for Clarence Thomas to fuck off.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom