Predict how California's Prop 8 does

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Seeing what's still out there:

county	% precincts reporting	vote margin
Kern	90%	Yes+86,000
San Bernardino	29%	Yes+74,000
San Diego	64%	Yes+60,000
Riverside	64%	Yes+56,000
Shasta	99%	Yes+27,000
Los Angeles	97%	Yes+26,000
Ventura	97%	Yes+15,000
Kings	0% (?)	Yes+10,000
Sutter	56%	Yes+7,200
Imperial	28%	Yes+5,800
Mariposa	29%	Yes+1,400
San Benito	69%	Yes+600
Monterey	41%	No+2,000
Yolo	68%	No+8,400
Santa Clara	64%	No+45,000

     Not promising. Espcially San Bernardino.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

With 99.5% of the precincts reporting, it's
  YES:  5,358,796        52.5%
  NO:   4,866,831        47.5%


However, there are probably a couple of million of provisionals and absentees out there.

[Ronnie]

With 99.5% of the precincts reporting, it's
  YES:  5,358,796        52.5%
  NO:   4,866,831        47.5%


However, there are probably a couple of million of provisionals and absentees out there.

Hm, interesting.  Prop 8 passed...

[Lief 🗽]

ACLU and affiliated groups are suing. FFs.

[Associate Justice PiT]

ACLU and affiliated groups are suing. FFs.

     What exactly are they suing over?

[Ronnie]

ACLU and affiliated groups are suing. FFs.

I thought we lived in a democracy...?

If the ACLU wants to overturn a proposition that people voted on, and it passed, let them go to hell.

[Associate Justice PiT]

ACLU and affiliated groups are suing. FFs.

I thought we lived in a democracy...?

If the ACLU wants to overturn a proposition that people voted on, and it passed, let them go to hell.

     Some things should not be subject to public referendum. I mean, if the people were voting to legalize slavery, I strongly suspect that would be agreeing with Lief here.

     My point is, we have republican forms of government to protect the rights of the minority. To allow the people to vote on what rights the minority has is to undermine the delicate system that the founding fathers set forth in order to help secure those rights.

[Ronnie]

ACLU and affiliated groups are suing. FFs.

I thought we lived in a democracy...?

If the ACLU wants to overturn a proposition that people voted on, and it passed, let them go to hell.

     Some things should not be subject to public referendum. I mean, if the people were voting to legalize slavery, I strongly suspect that would be agreeing with Lief here.

     My point is, we have republican forms of government to protect the rights of the minority. To allow the people to vote on what rights the minority has is to undermine the delicate system that the founding fathers set forth in order to help secure those rights.

Why were they not making law suits before the voting?  Why right after the voting occurs, do they threaten with one?

[Sbane]

Oh whatever it will be reversed within 10 years that's for sure. What a waste of time. And the IE is more bigoted than I thought.

[Associate Justice PiT]

ACLU and affiliated groups are suing. FFs.

I thought we lived in a democracy...?

If the ACLU wants to overturn a proposition that people voted on, and it passed, let them go to hell.

     Some things should not be subject to public referendum. I mean, if the people were voting to legalize slavery, I strongly suspect that would be agreeing with Lief here.

     My point is, we have republican forms of government to protect the rights of the minority. To allow the people to vote on what rights the minority has is to undermine the delicate system that the founding fathers set forth in order to help secure those rights.

Why were they not making law suits before the voting?  Why right after the voting occurs, do they threaten with one?

     If it failed, then there would be no reason for them to waste their resources & tie up the system with a frivolous case. On the other hand, it would look better publically if they sued earlier, since this way they look like they're just bitter over losing.

     Point is that they wouldn't want to sue earlier since the case would potentially be unnecessary, since the proposition might have ended up failing.

[Ronnie]

ACLU and affiliated groups are suing. FFs.

I thought we lived in a democracy...?

If the ACLU wants to overturn a proposition that people voted on, and it passed, let them go to hell.

     Some things should not be subject to public referendum. I mean, if the people were voting to legalize slavery, I strongly suspect that would be agreeing with Lief here.

     My point is, we have republican forms of government to protect the rights of the minority. To allow the people to vote on what rights the minority has is to undermine the delicate system that the founding fathers set forth in order to help secure those rights.

Why were they not making law suits before the voting?  Why right after the voting occurs, do they threaten with one?

     If it failed, then there would be no reason for them to waste their resources & tie up the system with a frivolous case. On the other hand, it would look better publically if they sued earlier, since this way they look like they're just bitter over losing.

     Point is that they wouldn't want to sue earlier since the case would potentially be unnecessary, since the proposition might have ended up failing.

Yes, they are bitter over losing.

Then again, no one gives a sh**t about what the ACLU says except the extreme libertarians and liberals.  I think we are quibbling over nothing.

[Associate Justice PiT]

ACLU and affiliated groups are suing. FFs.

I thought we lived in a democracy...?

If the ACLU wants to overturn a proposition that people voted on, and it passed, let them go to hell.

     Some things should not be subject to public referendum. I mean, if the people were voting to legalize slavery, I strongly suspect that would be agreeing with Lief here.

     My point is, we have republican forms of government to protect the rights of the minority. To allow the people to vote on what rights the minority has is to undermine the delicate system that the founding fathers set forth in order to help secure those rights.

Why were they not making law suits before the voting?  Why right after the voting occurs, do they threaten with one?

     If it failed, then there would be no reason for them to waste their resources & tie up the system with a frivolous case. On the other hand, it would look better publically if they sued earlier, since this way they look like they're just bitter over losing.

     Point is that they wouldn't want to sue earlier since the case would potentially be unnecessary, since the proposition might have ended up failing.

Yes, they are bitter over losing.

Then again, no one gives a sh**t about what the ACLU says except the extreme libertarians and liberals.  I think we are quibbling over nothing.

     I agree actually. There's no reason that the state Constitution can't be changed back just as easily 10-15 years down the line. It's not as if all gay people in California are going to die as a result of prop 8 passing or something.

[Lief 🗽]

Yeah, the gays should just suck it up and accept discrimination for another 10-15 years. Then we can maybe give equality another shot.

I'm sorry, but that's not the America that I love. In my America we fight for equality until we can't fight anymore, and then we fight some more. Frankly, this should have never been an issue put before the people for a vote. 52% shouldn't be able to decide that certain citizens don't deserve the same basic rights that they do.

Here's the ACLU press release: http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/37706prs20081105.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[SPC]

ACLU and affiliated groups are suing. FFs.

I thought we lived in a democracy...?

If the ACLU wants to overturn a proposition that people voted on, and it passed, let them go to hell.

     Some things should not be subject to public referendum. I mean, if the people were voting to legalize slavery, I strongly suspect that would be agreeing with Lief here.

     My point is, we have republican forms of government to protect the rights of the minority. To allow the people to vote on what rights the minority has is to undermine the delicate system that the founding fathers set forth in order to help secure those rights.

There is a difference between civil rights and natural rights. Ideally, the former kind wouldn't exist,but given that the state is unfortunately not going away anytime soon, the "right" to obtain a state-sponsered marital license should be decided by referendum. Yes passed, so I guess gays will have to just live together with a deomstic partnership without having an irrelevent third-party tell them that they're married (). To compare a legal definition to slavery is absurd.

[Associate Justice PiT]

ACLU and affiliated groups are suing. FFs.

I thought we lived in a democracy...?

If the ACLU wants to overturn a proposition that people voted on, and it passed, let them go to hell.

     Some things should not be subject to public referendum. I mean, if the people were voting to legalize slavery, I strongly suspect that would be agreeing with Lief here.

     My point is, we have republican forms of government to protect the rights of the minority. To allow the people to vote on what rights the minority has is to undermine the delicate system that the founding fathers set forth in order to help secure those rights.

There is a difference between civil rights and natural rights. Ideally, the former kind wouldn't exist,but given that the state is unfortunately not going away anytime soon, the "right" to obtain a state-sponsered marital license should be decided by referendum. Yes passed, so I guess gays will have to just live together with a deomstic partnership without having an irrelevent third-party tell them that they're married (). To compare a legal definition to slavery is absurd.

     I wasn't actually comparing legalizing gay marriage to the abolishment of slavery. My point was that our country was instituted as a republican democracy precisely because the founding fathers did not want civil rights to just be voted on by referenda.

     Whether or not those civil rights ought to exist is another issue entirely.

     As a side note, I would like to see a system adopted by the state for amendments like that used by the country at large. The amendment in question would have to be voted on by a two-thirds majority of both houses of the state Legislature. If passed by both, each county's board of Supervisors would vote on it. If it's passed by three-fourths of the counties (or 44 out of 58 in California), then it would be added to the state Constitution. It would be a rather interesting experiment.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

ACLU and affiliated groups are suing. FFs.

I thought we lived in a democracy...?

If the ACLU wants to overturn a proposition that people voted on, and it passed, let them go to hell.

Not every state lets you amend the Constitution with 50% of whichever voters decided to show up.

[Dan the Roman]

People are forgetting that they did sue back in July on exactly these grounds(ie. it was a Constitutional Revision, not an Amendment), and the Court, rather than ruling on the merits, stated they did not have standing until the Amendment passed.

They are taking up the Court's invitation. Anyway the Revision thing is not frivolous. The Constitution has an equal protection clause. There is a real question if you can add to the back of the Constitution "the equal protection clause does not apply to Gays" without editing the clause in question itself. The California Constitution does not allow public referendums to reverse court rulings, or  to add language contradictory to existing sections. Banning Gay Marriage is contradictory to requiring, hence it can only be done through the revision process which requires 2/3rds of the Legislature and then a public vote.

I personally have qualms about this argument, but it is a real one, and there is a strong argument that Prop 8 does not meet the standards for an Amendment. Clearly though the Court was hoping it would fail, hence why they declined to remove it from the ballot this summer. Now they are left with the choice between striking it down, or ignoring it. I think the 52% margin makes them more likely to strike it down though than if it was passed by 62%.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Nothing makes me happier than to see gay marriage outlawed by the people on the state level

[Lief 🗽]

Nothing makes me happier than to see gay marriage outlawed by the people on the state level

You're disgusting. Please never claim to be a libertarian again.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The current status of gay marriage in California is a big question-mark. It looks pretty certain that Prop. 8 passed, although I suppose there's a tiny chance that the provisionals and absentees could overturn the result. However, the state Supreme Court has to rule whether this was a valid amendment passed, was a revision that needed a 2/3rds vote, or was just plain unconstitutional. Meanwhile, there's the question of the existing gay-marriage licenses. Attorney General Jerry Brown says he'll defend anything up to election day, but not the day after.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Nothing makes me happier than to see gay marriage outlawed by the people on the state level

You're disgusting. Please never claim to be a libertarian again.

I'm not libertarian because I believe that voters should decide things on the state level

Oh I guess for some the blinders never come off

[Lief 🗽]

Nothing makes me happier than to see gay marriage outlawed by the people on the state level

You're disgusting. Please never claim to be a libertarian again.

I'm not libertarian because I believe that voters should decide things on the state level

Oh I guess for some the blinders never come off

You're not a libertarian because you believe that a slim majority should be able to take away the civil rights of the minority.

[SPC]

Nothing makes me happier than to see gay marriage outlawed by the people on the state level

While your happiness would be justified if it were caused by the liberal establishment losing a campaign they were expected to win, I don't see how you could have any strong emotions one way or the other about such a trivial issue.

[Sbane]

Nothing makes me happier than to see gay marriage outlawed by the people on the state level

You're disgusting. Please never claim to be a libertarian again.

I'm not libertarian because I believe that voters should decide things on the state level

Oh I guess for some the blinders never come off

By that logic you would be just as happy if the voters decided to legalize gay marriage, as long as the voters had their say. Something tells me you wouldn't be happy if the residents of a state decided to allow gay marriage.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Nothing makes me happier than to see gay marriage outlawed by the people on the state level

You're disgusting. Please never claim to be a libertarian again.

I'm not libertarian because I believe that voters should decide things on the state level

Oh I guess for some the blinders never come off

By that logic you would be just as happy if the voters decided to legalize gay marriage, as long as the voters had their say. Something tells me you wouldn't be happy if the residents of a state decided to allow gay marriage.

It wouldn't make me happy, but it wouldn't make me upset either, I would be happy voters decided just upset that they made the wrong decision