|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
Peacetrain (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 05:49 PM Original message |
Prop 8, what I understand, and what I don't... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
amdezurik (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 05:50 PM Response to Original message |
1. the equal protection clause in our state constitution |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Peacetrain (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 05:52 PM Response to Reply #1 |
2. Then it is back to another vote? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
amdezurik (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 05:54 PM Response to Reply #2 |
4. at least until the morman church gets it's tax exemtion yanked, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Peacetrain (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 05:59 PM Response to Reply #4 |
7. I was reading some of the threads, and trying to get a feel for what |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dems_rightnow (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 05:59 PM Response to Reply #1 |
8. Can courts strike down a Constitutional provision? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
amdezurik (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 06:05 PM Response to Reply #8 |
12. AFAIK the existing clause would have to be |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tsuki (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 05:53 PM Response to Original message |
3. What I cannot understand is this: |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Peacetrain (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 05:55 PM Response to Reply #3 |
5. Oh my God that is a lot of uncounted votes!! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tsuki (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Nov-09-08 12:09 PM Response to Reply #5 |
68. I thought so. In LA, there were 239,096 provisional ballots. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Unvanguard (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 06:04 PM Response to Reply #3 |
10. Because they have a several hundred thousand vote lead. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
EFerrari (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Nov-09-08 12:13 PM Response to Reply #3 |
69. Thank you! I'm very disappointed in the No on H8 leadership |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tsuki (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Nov-09-08 02:21 PM Response to Reply #69 |
72. But, isn't that a lot? Maybe even enough to change the election? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
EFerrari (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Nov-09-08 02:26 PM Response to Reply #72 |
73. We need more than half a millions votes IF the totals are correct |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AntiFascist (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 05:57 PM Response to Original message |
6. Check into the lawsuits by Lambda Legal, Gloria Allred and others... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dems_rightnow (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 06:04 PM Response to Reply #6 |
11. Not true |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Peacetrain (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 06:10 PM Response to Reply #11 |
16. If they had 5% signatures, do they have to verify those names |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Unvanguard (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 06:13 PM Response to Reply #16 |
18. Yes, and I'm fairly sure they did. Those legal battles are over. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dems_rightnow (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 06:16 PM Response to Reply #16 |
20. I was wrong, it's 8% |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AntiFascist (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 06:18 PM Response to Reply #11 |
25. Not in the case of a REVISION to the constitution... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Peacetrain (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 06:05 PM Response to Reply #6 |
13. So let me make sure I understand.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Unvanguard (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 06:12 PM Response to Reply #13 |
17. If the courts rule that it is a "revision", then it will be invalidated. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Peacetrain (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 06:15 PM Response to Reply #17 |
19. So no matter if the votes were there or not, then prop 8 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Unvanguard (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 06:16 PM Response to Reply #19 |
21. Yes. IF the courts rule that way. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Peacetrain (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 06:17 PM Response to Reply #17 |
22. Thank you for your patience and answering all these questions |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Unvanguard (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 06:22 PM Response to Reply #22 |
26. You're welcome. Glad to help. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Unvanguard (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 06:03 PM Response to Original message |
9. It's a constitutional amendment. The courts can't overrule it. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nikki Stone1 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 06:06 PM Response to Reply #9 |
14. That is depressing as hell |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Unvanguard (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 06:10 PM Response to Reply #14 |
15. It is, yes. But don't give up hope. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dems_rightnow (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 06:17 PM Response to Reply #15 |
24. I agree with that |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nikki Stone1 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 06:33 PM Response to Reply #15 |
30. Will we have to put another proposition with an amendment to counter this one? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Unvanguard (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 06:38 PM Response to Reply #30 |
33. Yes, we will. But that's easy in California, as our opponents have proven. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nikki Stone1 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 06:40 PM Response to Reply #33 |
34. True enough |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AntiFascist (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 06:26 PM Response to Reply #9 |
28. I don't agree... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Unvanguard (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 06:37 PM Response to Reply #28 |
32. Unfortunately, that's not how the standard works. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AntiFascist (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 06:48 PM Response to Reply #32 |
37. Have you read the actual complaint? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Unvanguard (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 06:58 PM Response to Reply #37 |
40. Not in its entirety, but I know what it says. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AntiFascist (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 07:11 PM Response to Reply #40 |
42. I'm not an attorney myself, but it seems that to put it simply... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Unvanguard (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 07:18 PM Response to Reply #42 |
43. Those are all standards applied to ordinary laws, though. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AntiFascist (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 07:30 PM Response to Reply #43 |
47. So, from the point of view of the "governmental plan"... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Unvanguard (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 07:36 PM Response to Reply #47 |
49. The question is not strictly whether it would be a "mistake to allow such amendments." |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AntiFascist (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 07:49 PM Response to Reply #49 |
52. Thanks! At least you gave me a little hope... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Unvanguard (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 07:54 PM Response to Reply #52 |
53. I don't believe so. But I think the "narrowness" aspect will carry it. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AntiFascist (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 08:19 PM Response to Reply #53 |
56. From that same website, I found further arguments supporting my argument... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Unvanguard (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 08:46 PM Response to Reply #56 |
60. Not convincing. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AntiFascist (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 09:03 PM Response to Reply #60 |
63. But you did admit earlier that Prop 8 IS precedent setting... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Unvanguard (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 09:16 PM Response to Reply #63 |
64. I'm not sure where I admitted that. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AntiFascist (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 09:22 PM Response to Reply #64 |
65. In post 53, where you said "I don't believe so"... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Unvanguard (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 09:35 PM Response to Reply #65 |
66. I see what you're saying now. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AntiFascist (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 10:27 PM Response to Reply #66 |
67. Here is a "governmental plan" related argument someone used to support the previous lawsuit... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
depakid (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 06:49 PM Response to Reply #9 |
38. While I'm not completely objective on the matter, I found the arguments persuasive |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Unvanguard (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 07:04 PM Response to Reply #38 |
41. Your analysis of suspect classification is accurate. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
depakid (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 07:23 PM Response to Reply #41 |
44. Abstracting- under the principles of common law |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Unvanguard (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 07:28 PM Response to Reply #44 |
46. No, it simply doesn't. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
depakid (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 07:38 PM Response to Reply #46 |
50. Missing my Witkin at the moment |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Unvanguard (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 07:49 PM Response to Reply #50 |
51. You're missing the point. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AntiFascist (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 07:58 PM Response to Reply #51 |
54. But, please keep in mind that the CA Supreme Court also ruled that... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Unvanguard (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 08:01 PM Response to Reply #54 |
55. Right, that's why changing it required a constitutional amendment. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
depakid (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 08:24 PM Response to Reply #55 |
57. You're still not getting it |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Unvanguard (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 08:29 PM Response to Reply #57 |
58. That doesn't address at all the issue of whether it is an "amendment" or a "revision." |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
depakid (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 08:45 PM Response to Reply #58 |
59. Changing a fundamental- and damn near univerallly accepted paradigm |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Unvanguard (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 08:52 PM Response to Reply #59 |
61. No such "paradigm" is being altered. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
depakid (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 09:02 PM Response to Reply #61 |
62. Whoa |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
justiceischeap (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 07:23 PM Response to Reply #41 |
45. Does California have a law against gender discrimination? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Unvanguard (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 07:31 PM Response to Reply #45 |
48. In re Marriage Cases was not decided on Fourteenth Amendment grounds. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheWraith (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 06:17 PM Response to Original message |
23. Prop 8 amends the California constitution. It can't be overruled except by a federal court. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AntiFascist (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 06:36 PM Response to Reply #23 |
31. Not true, amendments have been overruled in the past.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
depakid (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 06:25 PM Response to Original message |
27. "will they overrule this second one?" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Peacetrain (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 06:28 PM Response to Reply #27 |
29. Thank you!..the more information the better |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cleita (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 06:41 PM Response to Original message |
35. We have a problem in California with our initiative process. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jeepnstein (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 06:47 PM Response to Original message |
36. Of course they're running in circles. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
prayin4rain (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Nov-08-08 06:51 PM Response to Original message |
39. I think the courts ruled that gay marriage was legal under the |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
EFerrari (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Nov-09-08 12:15 PM Response to Original message |
70. It isn't obvious but gay marriage will win in California. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Peacetrain (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Nov-09-08 01:20 PM Response to Reply #70 |
71. I was thinking about something along those lines when I got up this morning |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Sat May 11th 2024, 03:41 AM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC