I think it's much less of an uphill battle than a lot of people might think: even having run a shitty campaign for Prop 8 we only lost by 4%. A lot of the work I've done for Marriage Equality has dealt directly with what went wrong, what should have happened, and what people wanted to see but didn't. I think they've learned a lot from this last campaign and will do a MUCH better job this time around: including real people, real family, real children of gay parents, pay attention to the rural areas and the independent voting bracket instead of just the urban coastal areas and the pro-gay base, etc
( ... )
Illinois Civil UnionsrminctMarch 13 2009, 19:52:24 UTC
A bill to legalize same-sex civil unions is working it's way through the Illinois State Legislature. I think the proponents have a bit of cleverness in their strategy - the bill is titled: "The Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act." They take away one of the lies the right wing religious crazies like to use right in the bill:
Section 15. Religious freedom. Nothing in this Act shall interfere with or regulate the religious practice of any religious body. Any religious body, Indian Nation or Tribe or Native Group is free to choose whether or not to solemnize or officiate a civil union.
The notion that some gay couples can be legally married, but not others, would be really, really weird from a legal standpoint I would think. By itself, that would appear to violate equal protection. And, are those marriages somehow blessed or the people? As in, could a couple divorce and then remarry other divorced people? How about a blessed person and an unblessed person? Not to say it couldn't happen, but it would be pretty strange.
Meanwhile, anybody who thinks these people will stop at gay people is being way too naive. Expect the War On Divorce to hit the big time before too much longer. Personally, having had recognition of my equal rights taken away, I'd be severely tempted to vote for a constitutional amendment that would annul all divorces and subsequent marriages. Reap, sow, et cetera.
It is going to be a strange legal situation, since the wording of Prop 8 says "Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California". It completely violates equal rights and protections clauses in our state Constitution, which was one of the main arguments that was given why Prop 8 was unconstitutional.
It does provide a weird anomaly regarding divorce. I do imagine the divorce rate of these couples to be extremely low anyway, as it takes an extreme level of commitment to marry and remarry when it's legal and not legal and legal and not legal, etc. as has been the case here for the past 5 years...
California's legal system is not currently impressing me. This is all a very strong indicator of why we're a representative republic rather than a direct democracy. I really cannot help but feel, too, that this was less about gay marriage and more about having a test case to see how far the law can be used to destroy the law. Some of Starr's remarks reflect this.
Yeah, California loves to place things before the voters and let us decide, which is annoying as fuck - I had almost 40 propositions to vote on in November - but it's a difficult political process to change the initiative process (which would ironically probably require an initiative itself to get anything accomplished), and there is a strong conservative argument about the sovereignty of the people above the other branches of government that must be maintained through allowing us to vote on things ourselves.
It is becoming less about gay marriage now, but the initial proposition was actually given a place on the ballot before the Supreme Court ruling was given, so initially it was exactly about gay marriage (and its placement on the ballot before the ruling is actually the strongest argument against its wording as being retroactive, as there were no marriages to annul when petitions were signed to include it on the ballot)
It was a pretty lame argument he gave. I mean, his point was basically the same, and he should have just agreed that since it was a first time issue before them, that what they needed to do was simply deem that removing fundamental rights from a suspect class will be defined hereafter as a revision, and be done. No one was really clear enough on that point, and that was annoying.
2 Samuel 1:26 Jonathan my brother; Your love for me was wonderful,more wonderful than that of women.upstandingjoshMarch 9 2009, 08:53:54 UTC
ok. do you realize what i went through to FIND this post lol. ok so i began searching the archives of our chats to see if you've ever linked me the url... then i went to the website and figured i'd search ur name but to do that you need a login... at which time i learned i HAD one by my browsers password save feature. and luckily of course here you are as my friend. lord i am so not trendy. i feel like i'm in the wrong parallel universe. :P
anyways. yeah i picked up as much from the papers. will probably stand but not retroactive. justice kennard unfortunately, whom was a key proponent in the vote striking down 22 last may, was a little less easily convinced this time round. that was a turnpoint, some said, during the oral arguments as a whole. it's sad. :'(
Haha. That's funny because I only mentioned it because I knew you had an account and because I didn't friends lock it, so it would be easier to find.
As for Kennard, while it might seem that she's not convinced, we don't really know because apparently this is a standard questioning procedure for her - play devil's advocate, ask ridiculous questions, include all of these hypotheticals... so while we're not counting on her vote, hence our feelings that Prop 8 will stand, we can't be too sure just yet. None of the talk from the attorneys suggested that the direction of her vote was clear yet.
It's frustrating as hell, but it's keeping me really active. And I like that I can be active in something that will matter when I look back and say "you know, I was a part of that - and we fought long and hard to accomplish something, and we finally did." So, only be sad enough to be motivated. ;)
Comments 14
Reply
Reply
http://www.365gay.com/blog/lowenstein-why-words-matter/
Reply
Section 15. Religious freedom. Nothing in this Act shall
interfere with or regulate the religious practice of any
religious body. Any religious body, Indian Nation or Tribe or
Native Group is free to choose whether or not to solemnize or
officiate a civil union.
The full text of the bill is at:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=76&GA=96&DocTypeId=HB&DocNum=2234&GAID=10&LegID=44055&SpecSess=&Session=
Reply
Meanwhile, anybody who thinks these people will stop at gay people is being way too naive. Expect the War On Divorce to hit the big time before too much longer. Personally, having had recognition of my equal rights taken away, I'd be severely tempted to vote for a constitutional amendment that would annul all divorces and subsequent marriages. Reap, sow, et cetera.
Reply
It does provide a weird anomaly regarding divorce. I do imagine the divorce rate of these couples to be extremely low anyway, as it takes an extreme level of commitment to marry and remarry when it's legal and not legal and legal and not legal, etc. as has been the case here for the past 5 years...
Reply
Reply
It is becoming less about gay marriage now, but the initial proposition was actually given a place on the ballot before the Supreme Court ruling was given, so initially it was exactly about gay marriage (and its placement on the ballot before the ruling is actually the strongest argument against its wording as being retroactive, as there were no marriages to annul when petitions were signed to include it on the ballot)
Reply
If I hadn't been watching it at work I would have been yelling at my computer at the idiocy of Krueger.
Reply
Reply
anyways. yeah i picked up as much from the papers. will probably stand but not retroactive. justice kennard unfortunately, whom was a key proponent in the vote striking down 22 last may, was a little less easily convinced this time round. that was a turnpoint, some said, during the oral arguments as a whole. it's sad. :'(
I'm sad Chris. It's not fair. :'(
Reply
As for Kennard, while it might seem that she's not convinced, we don't really know because apparently this is a standard questioning procedure for her - play devil's advocate, ask ridiculous questions, include all of these hypotheticals... so while we're not counting on her vote, hence our feelings that Prop 8 will stand, we can't be too sure just yet. None of the talk from the attorneys suggested that the direction of her vote was clear yet.
It's frustrating as hell, but it's keeping me really active. And I like that I can be active in something that will matter when I look back and say "you know, I was a part of that - and we fought long and hard to accomplish something, and we finally did." So, only be sad enough to be motivated. ;)
Reply
Leave a comment