Leave a Comment Sagesse
To Repeal or Not to Repeal? Prop 8 Town Hall Report Part II: You and What Army?
May 23, 2011
Part I can be found here. The author’s views are his own -Adam
By jpmassar
I attended an Equality California town hall Thursday evening 5/19/11 in San Francisco, the first of many to be held around the state. The point of the town hall was to present information about and hear opinions on whether a repeal of Proposition 8 — the constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriages in California — should be put on the November, 2012 ballot.
Part I reported on the results of a poll David Binder Research conducted which was commissioned by Equality California and presented by Mr. Binder at the meeting. In Part II I’ll talk about some of what else was discussed at the meeting and my impressions.
The Presentations
Leading the meeting was Andrea Shorter, Marriage and Coalitions Director at Equality California. With her were
- Jim Carroll, Executive Director of Equality California.
- Shannon Minter, a lawyer at the National Center for Lesbian Rights (and occasional essayist at Prop 8 Trial Tracker).
- David Binder, of David Binder Research, a nationally known pollster who polled for the Obama campaign in 2008.
- Tawal Panyacosit, Director of API Equality at Chinese For Affirmative Action
At its peak, there were about 40 non-EQCA, non-panelists in attendance.
Shannon Minter provided us with the status of the Proposition 8 Trial, and the possible paths the appeals process might take in the future. He gave what seemed to be a realistic estimate of 2014 before the US Supreme Court would issue a ruling, assuming the case gets to the SCOTUS following a path that would have them rule on the merits (versus a ruling on standing).
David Binder unveiled the results of the polling his organization had done, which is reported on in detail in Part I. Briefly: 45%-45%-10% legalizing same-sex marriage; 47%-43%-10% legalizing same-sex marriage with a ‘religion exception’ for clergy.
Tawal Panyacosit talked about outreach to ethnic communities; the work that has been done and the work that needs to be done.
The Floor Debates
The floor was then opened for people to ask questions and make statements, which they were more than happy to do.
Here are my impressions of this. This is not a report of who said what, when — more a general take on tenor. As I am an unabashed partisan for putting a repeal amendment on the ballot in 2012, you may filter my impressions appropriately. With that in mind…
1. (Almost) no one trusts Equality California. From the perception that they botched the 2008 campaign, to the perception that they don’t listen, to the perception that they have not learned their lesson or figured out how to fight the good fight in 2012, there was little or no confidence expressed in them.
2. The audience was divided into at least four camps.
- Those who thought the fight was not worth fighting. They seemed traumatized by 2008, unwilling to go through anything like that again, and afraid that even if a repeal was passed the opposition would just put it up for re-repeal in the next election.
- Those who felt that the money such a campaign would need to spend would be better spent elsewhere.
- Those who were unsure, but said that if a decision to go for repeal was made, that they would of course fight. There were some who felt that more time was needed to prepare the general population.
- Those who think that it would be a sad day if no effort was made, and that the stars are as aligned as they will ever be for such an effort to succeed.
3. Very few, if any people spoke of the ethical principles at conflict: being against putting repeal on the ballot, because
“No one should be voting on the rights of others.”
vs. being for putting repeal on the ballot, because
“Every day without marriage equality is another day that couples and families go without the respect, dignity and rights they deserve.”
Pragmatic and emotional issues seemed to dominate.
4. Pretty much everyone seemed to support the sentiment that if there is to be a repeal effort
- An effective campaign against opponents’ “But what about the children?” fear-mongering is an absolute must.
- The strategy of playing nice is no longer tolerable. If and when NOM attacks, they must be attacked in turn.
Andrea Shorter made a few remarks along these lines. First, that some good work has been done in developing memes to counteract opponents’ fear ads. Second, that while counteroffensives may be appropriate in some cases, in some California ethnic cultures this would be exactly the wrong approach. And third, that one meme that really seemed to be effective in general when talking to religious people was to ask them something like “What about the Golden Rule?”
5. I had the distinct impression that most people in the room believed (or, perhaps, wanted to believe) that the Prop 8 Trial, were it to go to completion, would all-but-inevitably be a major victory for marriage equality. Even Shannon Minter, in his summary of the trial, never once actually said the word ‘lose’ with respect to the Supreme Court decision, nor did he discuss the ramifications of such a loss (to be fair, neither did he say ‘win’, as far as I can recall).
My opinion: Reality is a pain. When people debate putting repeal on the ballot, they need to consider the very real possibility that the Supreme Court of the United States will rule that the fundamental right to marriage does not apply to same-sex couples. Possibilities are not sure things, but failing to understand that there is a non-negligible chance of failure, and the serious consequences thereof, is tragically dangerous when such a serious decision has to be made.
6. I was surprised that no one from the Courage Campaign, Freedom to Marry, Love Honor Cherish, MoveOn, Democracy for America or other progressive organizations was there (or at least identified themselves as such). Presumably some or all of these organizations — and others I may have left out — would play a big role in any campaign. At a minimum, I find it difficult to believe that Equality California alone is going to be able to gather 1,000,000 signatures for the ballot initiative! Certainly the opting-in of other organizations would be an important consideration in whether or not to commit to taking a repeal amendment to the ballot, but it wasn’t really discussed.
My opinion: Given point (1), if this is not done as a collaborative effort, or by a new organization jointly set up by all the major players, there is likely to be trouble.
What Happens Next?
Equality California will be holding meetings around the state these next weeks. It’s not clear to me what will happen after that, or when a decision will be made, or even who will make it.
Andrea Shorter said at least twice that (paraphrasing) “it is the community’s decision to make” but how that sentiment translates into a concrete process for making a decision is obscure.
Doris Day may be correct — the future’s not ours to see, but it would be nice to have a clue.
Filed under: Marriage equality
52 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
peterplumber | May 23, 2011 at 8:04 am
New brief submitted in the Perry case, REPLY (re [768] MOTION to Vacate Judgment ) by proponents:
In our opening motion papers, we posited that “[s]urely no one would suggest that Chief
Judge Walker could issue an injunction directing a state official to issue a marriage license to him.”
Doc. # 768 at 13. We stand corrected. For Plaintiffs argue in response that even “iron-clad proof of
Judge Walker’s desire to marry” his partner “would [provide] absolutely no basis for questioning
his impartiality in this case.” Doc. # 779 at 8. It follows, then, that even if Judge Walker and his
long-time partner planned to marry if and when his injunction in this case became final and
enforceable in California, he had no duty to recuse himself or even to disclose this fact to the
parties.
They then go on for 15 more pages about how Walker's ruling still needs to be vacated because he is gay and in a long term relationship.
2.
Kathleen | May 23, 2011 at 8:20 am
UPDATE: Perry
Proponents' Reply in support of Motion to Vacate:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/56103459
3.
jpmassar | May 23, 2011 at 8:32 am
Justice Kennedy provides fifth vote in civil rights case involving California prisoners.
diary here
4.
John D | May 23, 2011 at 8:35 am
As much as I would like to see Prop 8 gone sooner rather than later, I wonder about our real chances for success when the polling suggests a razor-thin margin. I really want to see something better than a tie on the option without a (meaningless) religious exemption.
Even the 47/43 numbers leave me a little queasy. What? Can't we get a 5 percentage point difference at this point? I'm just impatient.
My suspicion is that the endgame to Perry is all going to be over the standing issue. It won't be fast. It won't be pretty. I don't see SCOTUS opening the standing issue.
I don't want to wait. I want Prop 8 repealed by a vote of the people yesterday. Realistically, I have to wait.
5.
jpmassar | May 23, 2011 at 8:40 am
@John D
At the rate public opinion is changing, and with a year and a half to go before November, 2012, you are very likely to get your 5% spread, maybe more, before the vote.
6.
Reformed Conservativ | May 23, 2011 at 9:17 am
Any comment related to the need for a targeted boter registration drive and the need for election day followup?
7.
Reformed Conservativ | May 23, 2011 at 9:17 am
That would be "voter" registration drive.
8.
Chad | May 23, 2011 at 11:39 am
Even if California voters vote for repeal of Proposition 8, it would just be a hollow victory. Your marriage still wouldn't be recognised in most of the other states. If you moved you'd lose your rights, and your marriage. You couldn't even take that certificate with you when you travel, lets say, in Texas. You would be in the same boat with Massachusetts couples. They are fighting DOMA in the courts, already. We don't need another court battle, like that. It's a waste of resources, when you consider these things, because you already have a court battle, and are almost guaronteed victory in that. You don't need to blow all your money, and efforts on such a minor, and hollow victory, especially considering there are bigger, more important battles which demand our attention. Californians need to stop trying to get too far ahead of themselves, and the rest of the country. There are people in other states who have absolutely no alternatives, except to hope that the battles being fought in CA and MA turn out in our favour. To proceed to a victory at the polls would be a crime to the rest of us. Please, don't be so selfish! Even if you lose at the court, it's still a win, because it would not only provide further justification for a battle at the polls, in which you'd have my support, but it would also make the case for institutionalized discrimination for future court battles. It's a win-win situation for us, no matter what happens. Furthermore, lets not forget that we are on the side of good, and they are wrong. Eventually, we'll win, one way or another. However, we must stick together, and fight this battle for all americans, not just Californians, because we all deserve full equality, and we need each other, at the same time, to fight for that equality. We have many allies, but we are still a small minority with limitted resources. We need to make certain that we don't get too far ahead of each other, or people might think that we should all go and live in a state that accepts us, and stay out of their backyard. We are in it, and they need to accept that. Lets not create gay ghettos, and live a separate but equal "lifestyle". We need to make the point that we are them, and they are us. We can't settle for being apart from, because we deserve full participation in all societies. We can't allow our haste to hinder our progress. There are other countries which kill us! We need to fight this battle with those people in mind, also. We don't live in a bubble. We are as much a part of their lives as their fellow citizens, and as long as we permit them to be oppressed, we are a party to the oppression!
9.
Chad | May 23, 2011 at 11:47 am
DOMA is the biggest obstacle to our progress, and it demands to go before all of our other priorities. Even if we win other battles, DOMA could still be used to limit, and contain that victory, making it effectively minor, and hollow. Until we get that out of the way, then we need to proceed with extreme caution on all other fronts.
10.
Ann S. | May 23, 2011 at 11:53 am
@Chad, victory in Perry is far from certain. I don't think anyone advocating for the 2012 proposition battle is being selfish — rather it's a matter of exploring all options.
The sooner we can restore equality, the better. A California proposition battle is not going to affect the DOMA battle, which won't be successful anyway until we can get a Democratic majority in the House (and hopefully hang onto a filibuster-proof majority on this issue in the Senate, if we even have that now).
11.
JC (1 of the 18,000 | May 23, 2011 at 11:57 am
I feel like a broken record since I've said this every time EQCA has asked, but since there didn't seem to be many in attendance at the EQCA meeting re: putting marriage equality on the ballot….
I stand by the faded and slightly tattered bumper sticker on my car (from NCLR) that says that no one's civil rights should be put up for a vote.
That means for Prop 8 or against it.
It's not a voting matter. Punto final And I stand by that principle no matter who (including me) is inconvenienced. To me, principles are not matters for poll numbers, political expediency, nor "friendly fire" among gay groups.
There is precious little in my life that is black and white except for the few principles by which I lead my life and this is one of them.
/soapbox
12.
jpmassar | May 23, 2011 at 12:00 pm
@Chad
DOMA is the biggest obstacle to progress. But I think the higher percentage of the US that has statewide marriage equality the higher probability that it will either be repealed by Congress or declared unconstitutional.
If both NY and CA can get marriage equality that's a large chunk of the entire US population, almost 20%.
13.
Chad | May 23, 2011 at 12:15 pm
Heading into June (gay pride month, most places), lets not forget that Russia used to be the only rival to the USA, and they can't even have a pride parade! There's also Australia, Malaysia, Taiwan, and China, just to name a few. It isn't only people of color, or third-world countries who oppress us! We have to fight our battles collectively, as one people, and always, with each other in mind!
14.
Marco | May 23, 2011 at 12:58 pm
I was at that town hall as well and didn't speak, because it seemed like there were a few bitter old men insisting on revisiting 2008 to the exclusion of anything else.
I say go back to the ballot! If we don't, what on earth are all these civil rights organizations good for–purely tracking a court case?! What does it say that we consider ourselves a civil rights movement and yet do nothing to advance our cause in California? The black civil rights movement fought and lost and fought and lost over and over for a century before finally winning. We lose once and then throw in the towel? Or we just retreat into constant fundraising and strategizing, winning over no one in the process? Or we take a righteous stance that rights shouldn't be voted on and lose by refusing to participate? All of this projects weakness, and none of it wins allies.
And what does it say that we allow our fight to be led by two heterosexuals? We should remember that HRC and EQCA and Lambda Legal and all the others were opposed to a Supreme Court challenge when they first started. Apparently the straights are the only ones really fighting for us!
I'd sooner lose in 2012 than not fight.
To those gays outside California, the Prop 8 repeal is for Californians alone to decide. A court case can always be filed in another state, and Olsen and Boies have already promised to stick around for it. A high-profile ballot fight–win or lose–would do more to galvanize our movement than another two years fretting over standing issues and updating an endless list of amicus briefs.
15.
Marco | May 23, 2011 at 1:10 pm
@Chad: It is not selfish for Californians to fight for their rights–you are not hindered by others fighting for themselves. That's not a productive discourse.
16.
Chad | May 23, 2011 at 1:13 pm
@ Ann S.
Allow me an analogy, if you will.
I don't know if you're a tea drinker, but I am. One thing every tea grower knows, is that it's better if your tea bushes grow slowly. In Taiwan, they grow their tea at high altitude where the mist which shrouds the mountain tops filters the sun's rays. In Japan, they cover their bushes with mats, or netting to block a portion of the sunlight. The reason they do this, is because the slower the tea grows, the more nutrients it absorbs from the soil. The leaves grow fuller, and thicker, and this provides a fuller, more robust flavour to the tea. One of the reasons that our produce in the US has less nutrician than it once did, is because the farmers now dump chemical fetilizers, and growth hormones onto their crops, and it grows too fast. It loses it's flavour, aroma, and makes it more prone to disease and deformity.
We need to grow our grass-roots movement slowly, if we want to win a full, and robust victory, and be stronger against the backlash which is sure to come down. We need time to gather our strength, and win more allies. It's especially important that we move slowly on repeal referendoms until we can gain a greater majority; which can withstand a push from the other side, because we don't want a back and forth tug of war. We to bring an a$$ kicking to the polls! That's how we'll ensure, not only our own success, but set the stage for other people's victories, as well.
17.
Ann S. | May 23, 2011 at 1:16 pm
@Chad, you've kind of lost me with your tea analogy (and I am a tea drinker, if that has anything to do with anything).
If you're saying 2012 is too early, well, you may be right. But a lot of people are suffering in the meantime.
18.
JC (one of the 18,00 | May 23, 2011 at 1:27 pm
Well, Chad, give me righteous. If I recall history correctly, black civil rights were not decided by a state by state popular vote, and I'll be damned to agree to support putting my rights up for another popular vote, even if we were guaranteed to win. What's to stop the next popular vote against us? Nothing good that is lasting comes from damn the torpedoes (aka Constitutional principles) strategies that I can think of.
19.
jpmassar | May 23, 2011 at 1:27 pm
@Marco
I’d sooner lose in 2012 than not fight.
Yes! But we won't lose if we indeed commit to fight. The world is different than 2008.
20.
Chad | May 23, 2011 at 1:34 pm
@ Ann S.
You're absolutely right. Our people have suffered for millennias. So did women, and so did peoples of color. However, they didn't win their fights in 20 or 30 years, either. It took them hundreds! Our movement began at the close of the others, and we've only been fighting in a stronger, more united way for a mere 50 years. Gay people have always found a way to cope. 2012 is not the end of the world. We can perservere for a little bit longer. We're a strong people.
What I'm saying, is that 2012 is not only too late, but also too early. I want our victory to really mean something, and we need our movement to be even stronger than it currently is for that to happen. It needs time to strengthen and grow.
Lets also not forget that Californians have another alternative. Domestic partnerships are still legal, and unless we want marriage to effectly mean the same thing as a civil union, then we need to defeat DOMA, first. Otherwise, how is your marriage any different from a domestic partnership, which you can already get?
21.
Straight Dave | May 23, 2011 at 1:38 pm
@2: Proponents Reply
In footnote 2, p 5, "But our argument
is that adoption of same-sex marriage will likely harm the institution of marriage over time, not that
any individual's existing marriage will be affected.".
Isn't that quite the fine line to walk? Isn't the institution simply the collection of individual marriages? How can they really separate the two? What exactly is this institution they speak of, and how is it harmed? Gee, all the hetero couples should be greatly relieved to know that their marriages won't be harmed, and should therefore be glad to vote with us.
When will they run out of stupid arguments and stop contradicting themselves?
22.
Chad | May 23, 2011 at 1:39 pm
Furthermore, we should not be asking our neighbors for their permission to get married. Their permission should neither be required, or desired. As long as we'll accept that it is, then they'll continue to deny it to us.
23.
Chad | May 23, 2011 at 1:58 pm
We need the Perry case so that we can make California an example for the fact that it doesn't matter if the overwhelming majority is adamantly opposed to our equal rights, it's not up to their discretion. They can't just vote us out of existence, now, in 2012, or at any other time. We're here, whether they like it or not, and as long as we are, then they're going to have to respect our basic human rights. A referendum can't give us that. We need the Perry case, whether we like it, or not. That case is a blessing, and everything we could possibly hope for. They practically handed it to us, and we need to make the most out of this opportunity, because we don't know when we'll ever get another one like it.
24.
Ann S. | May 23, 2011 at 2:08 pm
@Chad, ironically I *can't* get a DP, as I'm a straight ally in a legal marriage. But I understand your point.
If we don't fight in 2012 we will lose by default.
I think a lot of people are depending too heavily on the Perry case, the outcome of which is very far from certain.
25.
Chad | May 23, 2011 at 2:13 pm
A referendum might bring us a speedy victory, but it would also deprive us of all the other, more important things. We can't sacrifce all of that for the sake of expediency. A court victory is not always guaronteed, but neither is the other way. However, I still think that the courts are more reliable, because they have to base their decisions on the Constitution, and the forward-thinking of our ancestors, who wrote it. We have a better shot with that, than virtually anything else, and the Perry case is providing us evidence of such. Not only that, but it makes our opponents look so retarded! They suck on that front.
26.
Chad | May 23, 2011 at 2:17 pm
A referendum would be just what they need to spread more lies, and harm more gay people in the process! A teenager in my home state of Oklahoma committed suicide after listening to those types of statements. A referendum would place our youth into harm's way! You people need to stop and think of others. Stop being so selfish, and wreckless!
27.
Chad | May 23, 2011 at 2:23 pm
The previous gay generation was wreckless, and irresponsible, and that got us AIDS! What will furture generations think of us, if we don't place their needs before our own?
28.
Chad | May 23, 2011 at 2:36 pm
I hope that we can all agree on just one thing. The anti-gay statements durring a referendum would increase the likelyhood that a gay teenager will commit suicide. Their young gay lives are in our hands, and we don't want our hands to get blood on them, do we?
29.
Chad | May 23, 2011 at 2:38 pm
There's more than our rights at stake in this battles. People's lives hang in the ballance!
30.
Chad | May 23, 2011 at 2:40 pm
Lets not hand them a podium, or they'll surely use it to kill some of us.
31.
David | May 23, 2011 at 2:47 pm
Marco, I couldn't agree with you more. Are we that lazy and beaten down that we're not willing to keep fighting?
To those who say that this is shallow or doesn't matter until DOMA is repealed…I guess we just see things differently. To me, DOMA is finishing work. When people fall in love and want to get married…they just want to get friggin married, not go "oh, only if the federal government recognizes it. "
Lastly, if the effort is to succeed sooner than later, debate must happen. And to spur that debate, it should be brought back to the ballot. Yes, nobody should be voting on civil rights, but they already have and for the foreseeable future, this may be the only way to get them back. And think of the galvanizing message this would send to the rest of the country if we do win.
32.
Chad | May 23, 2011 at 2:47 pm
Our children are not innoccent lambs in a blood sacrifice. Our haste makes waste. So, if this battle can afford to wait until 2012, then it can just easily wait until 2014, or 2016.
33.
nike free | May 23, 2011 at 3:43 pm
Civiliser internet … Mais où avez-vous quelque part sur la planète un pays civilisé ? Un pays où l’égalité serait la règle, un pays sans condamné à mort, un pays où l’armée n’aurait pas d’autre objectif que d’aider les populations en difficultés ?
Depuis quand l’humain est-il civilisé ?
34.
Luke Robuck | May 23, 2011 at 4:58 pm
Let's target each and every Democratic Senator to get them on the record for co-sponorship of DOMA-repeal. That should be our focus while we let this Prop 8 trial wind its way through court.
35.
christian louboutin | May 23, 2011 at 5:33 pm
My neighbor and I have been just debating this particular subject, he is usually in search of to prove me incorrect. Your view on that is nice and exactly how I truly feel. I just now mailed him this web page to point out him your own view. After wanting over your website I e book marked and might be coming back to read your new posts!
36.
Tasty Salamanders | May 23, 2011 at 7:48 pm
@Chad On the Prop 8 court case it's highly unlikely the Proponents will even get standing to appeal further (let along get to SCOTUS) which means the continuation of the case at the moment will probably have no effect beyond California and instead the appeals just serve to slow down the enforcement of Judge Walker's ruling.
I think many of us understand where you are coming from and want a federal precident affirming equality but they just probably won't be the case with Prop 8.
Also the fact is that if it is taken to the ballot again and we win this time that it would be a slap in the face to NOM and their "let the people vote" rhetoric.
37.
Joe | May 23, 2011 at 10:01 pm
You should be wanting the proponents to have standing to appeal.
Otherwise, same sex marriage will only be legal in two counties in California, as Judge Stephen Reinhart has already said:
"There can be little doubt that when the Plaintiffs filed this action their purpose was to establish that there was a constitutional right to gay marriage, and
to do so by obtaining a decision of the Supreme Court to that effect. Yet, according to what their counsel represented to us at oral argument, the complaint they filed and the injunction they obtained determines only that Proposition 8 may not be enforced in two of California’s fifty-eight counties."
"Whether Plaintiffs are correct or not, it is clear that all of this would have been unnecessary and Plaintiffs could have obtained a statewide injunction had they filed an action against a broader set of defendants, a simple matter of pleading. Why preeminent counsel and the major law firms of which they are a part failed to do that is a matter on which I will not speculate."
38.
BK | May 23, 2011 at 10:24 pm
Is the preceding comment by Joe correct? That without standing being granted, only two counties would allow marriage equality? That seems awful… well, awful. Thanks for any answers.
39.
RAJ | May 23, 2011 at 10:49 pm
I was at the town hall meeting in Long Beach last night. I would say there were roughly 40 people in attendance (this figure is very ballpark, could have been slightly more, could have been slightly less). At the informal straw poll taken at the start of the meeting, there were a substantial number of people in favor if a 2012 ballot measure and a substantial number of undecideds. I was the only one who raised my hand in opposition to a 2012 ballot measure.
I want to make two points:
1.) As was brought up at last night's meeting, with the developments in Minnesota there will now be a SSM measure on the ballot in 2012. A measure we did not ask for, but one that we must defend ourselves against and one that we have a reasonable chance of defeating. That fight will take resources and energy and that fact should be considered when contemplating a California measure as well.
2.) A possible third course was mentioned, what Andrea called the "money in the bank" option. We mount a large effort, collect signatures for a measure (with OUR more favorable language attached to it) and then we're ready to go if developments and/or court decisions don't go our way. As was mentioned in last night's meeting, "we may not end up buying the house, but if we need to and want to, the money is there to make a quick move".
40.
fiona64 | May 24, 2011 at 1:26 am
To Chad and many others:
Letter from a Birmingham Jail
Quote from same:
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
Love,
Fiona (who is again too lazy to log in)
41.
Tasty Salamanders | May 24, 2011 at 1:33 am
@Joe If that is accurate then that would be a reason for us to not want the proponents to have standing. Judge Walker's ruling covered all of California, if Judge Reinhart and the other appeal Judges uphold Walker's ruling but think that in the scope of the case that his ruling was too broad then they could limit it too the two counties.
Also may I just say that it doesn't sound accurate in the first place, the case was determining if Prop 8 violated the federal constitution, unless my understanding of law is incorrect if it is ruled unconstitutional then it can't be enforced at all, the idea that something that has been ruled unconstitutional can still be in effect elsewhere because of something about filing doesn't really make sense. I could be wrong so I would like anyone who has more knowledge in this to weigh in.
42.
Chad | May 24, 2011 at 4:09 am
@ Tasty Salamanders
Even if the Perry trial doesn't work out. You already have domestic partnerships, and if you went to the polls, all you'd win is the word marriage. What I'm saying is, that unless you want your "marriage" to mean esentially the same thing as a domestic partnership, or civil union, then you need to, at least, give the Perry trial a chance at success. A referendum will not be able to give you full equality. Besides, couples who needs the right assotiated with what a referendum would bring you already have them, and a referendum would make those families no better off. You'd be throwing away their oportunity. I know you want to win. I do too! But we deserve better than that, and 2012 is not the end of the world. There's alway 2014, or 2016. Gay people can live with separate but equal until we see where this trial is going to end up. Not to mention that a referendum would provide the podium to our rivals to spread their bigotry, and anti-gay messages, and some of that might harm a young gay teenager. It could even inspire them to take their own life. We need to have the word marriage so badly, that we should life, and comprehensive equality in order to get it. We can all wait just a little bit longer. Slow down a little.
43.
Chad | May 24, 2011 at 4:14 am
Sheesh! Lots of typos. Sorry about that. I just woke up.
What I meant was. It would be a hollow and symbolic victory, and it would lose us the Perry trial, our oportunity at national repeal, and possibly even some innoccent lives. It's not worth the risk, and we can wait a little bit longer.
44.
Mark Mead-Brewer | May 24, 2011 at 4:20 am
@ Chad # 27
Chad wrote: The previous gay generation was wreckless, and irresponsible, and that got us AIDS!
Can you please explain how Gays of any generation are the cause of AIDS?
This statement is VERY offensive to me
AIDS is NOT a gay disease….please do a bit of research
45.
Maggie4NoH8 | May 24, 2011 at 4:39 am
@44 – Mark…
Thank you for calling Chad out on this VERY offensive comment. I agree with you…
When I first read Chad's remark, my first thought was "that sounds an awful like a proponent of Prop 8"… It's without merit, baseless, prejudicial and incredibly insensitive, disrespectful and tactless.
46.
Mark Mead-Brewer | May 24, 2011 at 4:40 am
Forgot to subscribe……..
47.
Gino | May 24, 2011 at 5:27 am
If there is going to be a serious effort to put Prop 8 repeal on the 2012 ballot, then someone better get cracking and write up the ballot language….like a few weeks ago. There are other initiative campaigns that are working on that now and one campaign that I know of that has already turned in their summary and fiscal impact report to the Attorney General.
I'm more apt to support local LGBTQ groups than EQCA. They dropped the ball on the No on 8 campaign. I would be more comfortable supporting an initiative campaign where they were not the chief proponent. Until that happens, my time and energy will be directed towards other ballot initiative campaigns that have their act together.
48.
Lester Aponte | May 24, 2011 at 6:26 am
Thank you for calling attention to the Town Hall meetings. I have attended the ones in West Hollywood and Long Beach and I have to say they seemed far more positive than what you describe. Given the time short frames for taking action on a ballot initiative, it is a conversation we need to have now and it needs to be done openly and honestly. Our view is that it is important that we take all necessary steps to preserve the option of a ballot initiative. That means submitting language, gathering signatures, having the conversations and helping to move public opinion. If the court case goes our way, we don’t have to turn in the signatures. If it doesn’t, we have an alternative. If, on the other hand, we don’t prepare, the next window of opportunity may not be until 2016, i.e., 8 years after Prop 8 yanked our rights away.
Lester F. Aponte
Outeach Director
Love Honor Cherish
49.
jpmassar | May 24, 2011 at 9:43 am
@lester aponte
Absolutely! It makes no sense to give up any option of putting the question to the people in 2012 when no one knows what the next several months will bring.
I am not so confident as some that the California Supreme Court will come back with a ruling of 'no standing'.
50.
fiona64 | May 25, 2011 at 2:49 am
Chad wrote: The previous gay generation was wreckless, and irresponsible, and that got us AIDS!
Wrong.
It's been known for YEARS that what got us AIDS is, in fact, consumption of bushmeat. Simian immunodeficiency virus is able to cross species because we share so much of our DNA with the great apes. (Bushmeat is also one of the major sources of ebola). Check out http://www.bushmeat.org if you would like more particulars on the matter. Alternately, you can look at this 2002 abstract from the CDC: http://chge.med.harvard.edu/programs/policy/brief…
I don't care which side of the fence you're on; it behooves you to educate yourself on the matter. So-called Patient Zero was a flight attendant who happened to have Africa as part of his routing — and consumed bushmeat. That the disease turned out to be sexually transmittable is almost irrelevant to your comments — which smack of AIDS being a "gay disease" (which is why there was no focus on dealing with it for such a long time). The largest growing population of HIV/AIDS patients nowadays is heterosexual women of color.
Okay, my rant is over.
And I'm still too lazy to log in.
51.
fiona64 | May 25, 2011 at 2:50 am
Chad wrote: You already have domestic partnerships, and if you went to the polls, all you’d win is the word marriage.
Wrong. Domestic partnerships do NOT afford even all of the STATE-level benefits of marriage. Honestly, Chad, I appreciate your enthusiasm/concern — but your facts are a little thin on the ground.
52.
Mark Mead-Brewer | May 25, 2011 at 3:05 am
Thank you Fiona!!!
My love for you is ever renewed
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.