California Proposition 8

[Safe-Keeper]

'Obamanation' seems to be a pretty typical insult from the religious fundamentalists and others who seem to think him the Anti-Christ or something.

 

[gumboot]

I find it quite surreal and mind-blowing that some countries still do not recognise Gay Couples. Then I find it even more surreal and mind-blowing that my own country only did so very recently.

What is wrong with us? There is absolutely no justified reason for not giving Gay people equal status. Nada. Zilch.

 

[332nd]

I find it quite surreal and mind-blowing that some countries still do not recognise Gay Couples. Then I find it even more surreal and mind-blowing that my own country only did so very recently.

What is wrong with us? There is absolutely no justified reason for not giving Gay people equal status. Nada. Zilch.

Well gay rights are special rights and thus (in a way) they are taking rights from us and giving them to the gays thus the reason is justified.

(Of course using that convoluted logic I have a justified reason to insist one of the cats at this rescue is a vampire...)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ok, now I get it.

Obama was quite the politician when it came to Prop 8. He came out against it, while at the same time stating he was opposed to gay marriage. Thus we welcome yet another hypocrite to Washington. Say hello to your Jesus-boy Obama supporters.

And yes, I'm pissed.

Yeah, on the one hand they claim to be for change, then on the other they seem afraid of pissing off too many voters. Clinton did the same with the 'don't ask don't tell' policy.

 

[Alt+F4]

Another reason to support gay marriage, it might help save the economy:

A recent study (.pdf) conducted by the Congressional Budget Office found that if all 50 states and the federal government extended the rights and obligations of marriage to same-sex couples, gay weddings would generate almost $1 billion in revenue each year. According to other estimates, same-sex marriages could tack on more than $16 billion annually to the $70 billion wedding industry.

 

[Bill Thompson]

I was for Gay Marrage but have any of you watched the Yes to Prop 8 ads on YouTube that the Mormons put out?

Let me play the devils advocate for a second. Some of the gay people I have met say that they were molested as a kid and that is why they are gay or that their mother wanted a girl.

Now, even WEB MD admits that some part of being gay is genetic and envoronment might also play a role. Does that even matter? Are all gay people born that way? Does having an envoronmnet that confuses kids (as the LDS ads seem to imply) actually MAKE people gay.

 

[GreNME]

 

[linusrichard]

Er.

I think most people believe that being a redhead is caused by genetic factors. I believe that. What if it were discovered that having red hair was actually caused by a combination of genetic and environmental factors? Would that fact (if WebMD "admitted" it) justify discrimination against redheads?

 

[Bill Thompson]

So is there no potential new proposition that could overturn Prop 8 or is the issue cast in stone for good in California?

 

[linusrichard]

So is there no potential new proposition that could overturn Prop 8 or is the issue cast in stone for good in California?

Yes, Prop H8 could be overturned by the same process that put it in. It is not cast in stone for good.

 

[Cavemonster]

Does having an envoronmnet that confuses kids (as the LDS ads seem to imply) actually MAKE people gay.

The American Psychological Asociation thinks otherwise.

Research suggests that sexual identities (including gender identity, gender-role behavior, and sexual orientation) develop in much the same ways among children of lesbian mothers as they do among children of heterosexual parents."

So do a lot of other people

Norman Anderssen, PhD, Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Bergen, Norway, et al. wrote in a Feb. 2002 article, "Outcomes for Children with Lesbian or Gay Parents. A Review of Studies from 1978 to 2000," published in the Scandinavian Journal of Psychology:

"Twenty-three empirical studies published between 1978 and 2000 on nonclinical children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers were reviewed (one Belgian/Dutch, one Danish, three British, and 18 North American). Twenty reported on offspring of lesbian mothers, and three on offspring of gay fathers. The studies encompassed a total of 615 offspring (age range 1.5-44 years) of lesbian mothers or gay fathers and 387 controls, who were assessed by psychological tests, questionnaires or interviews. Seven types of outcomes were found to be typical: emotional functioning, sexual preference, stigmatization, gender role behavior, behavioral adjustment, gender identity, and cognitive functioning. Children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers did not systematically differ from other children on any of the outcomes. The studies indicate that children raised by lesbian women do not experience adverse outcomes compared with other children. The same holds for children raised by gay men..."

There is no reason to think that having same sex parents is "an environment that confuses kids". There have been many studies of gender identity, sexuality and many aspects of the emotional health of kids raised by gay parents and NO evidence that they experience any undue confusion or any kind of ill effects whatsoever.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, Prop H8 could be overturned by the same process that put it in. It is not cast in stone for good.

That all depends on if removing it is considered the same level of constitutional modification as adding it was. If the court rules that it requires the higher form, then it could be much harder to remove than it was to add.

 

[linusrichard]

That all depends on if removing it is considered the same level of constitutional modification as adding it was. If the court rules that it requires the higher form, then it could be much harder to remove than it was to add.

Good point - either way, the answer to the question is "yes," but you're right, if removing it is a "revision," then a different process is required.

 

[ZirconBlue]

That all depends on if removing it is considered the same level of constitutional modification as adding it was. If the court rules that it requires the higher form, then it could be much harder to remove than it was to add.

Such a ruling wouldn't make much sense, though, would it? Surely, removing rights is not a lesser modification than restoring them?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Such a ruling wouldn't make much sense, though, would it? Surely, removing rights is not a lesser modification than restoring them?

Depends. Adding something to the constitution migth be easier than removing the same thing.

I am taking nothing for granted with regards to how california treats its constitution.

 

[linusrichard]

Depends. Adding something to the constitution migth be easier than removing the same thing.

I am taking nothing for granted with regards to how california treats its constitution.

I agree. There is almost no precedent within California on the subject, and what precedent there is is pretty much impossible to apply to this, because the subject matter is so different in every case. And there is no precedent, AFAIK, outside of California, because only California, AFAIK, has this amendment/revision distinction. So it's all about just arguing it out and seeing how it's decided. Or, if you want to be cynical, what the justices had for breakfast that morning.

 

[Bill Thompson]

http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/archives/181230.asp
and
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/10/05/microsoft-donates-100000-to-approve-r-71

Asserting itself as a powerful advocate for gay rights, the Microsoft Corporation donated $100,000 to the campaign trying to approve Referendum 71, a report filed today with the state Public Disclosure Commission shows (.pdf). If voters approve the measure, they will uphold the state's domestic-partnership law, but a recent poll shows that only 51 percent of likely voters support the referendum.

This took guts. Microsoft's brazen role in R-71 will outrage the Ken Hutchersons of the world, who pressured Microsoft for years to back off from supporting gay-rights legislation. And it could also summon conservative interests—e.g., the Mormon Church—to dump money in on the other side. After October 12, state rules block any person or group from donating more than $5,000 to the campaign.

Microsoft's donation is larger than all the contributions combined for the campaign to reject R-71, called Protect Marriage Washington, run by a handful of Christian extremists who have reported only $55,217 in contributions.

Microsoft, which historically has supported gay rights, was highly criticized in 2005 after it took a neutral stance on a state bill that banned discrimination against homosexuals. Gay-rights proponents, The Stranger and Microsoft employees claimed the software company bowed to pressure from the Rev. Ken Hutcherson, a Redmond pastor who threatened a national boycott of Microsoft if it supported the bill.

CEO Steve Ballmer later reversed Microsoft's position, saying "that diversity in the workplace is such an important issue for our business that it should be included in our legislative agenda." Fifteen days earlier, the bill had been defeated in the state Senate by one vote. It was subsequently approved during the next legislative session.
​