Pam's House Blend has coverage and photos of the demonstrations in California over passage of Proposition 8.
I particularly like this suggestion from Lori Jean:
"Today we will send a message to (church President Thomas Monson) that we will not tolerate being stripped of our equal rights in the name of religious bigotry. They're entitled to their beliefs, but not to impose them upon the constitution or laws of California. Let's flood the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City with postcards."
I think we should all do that:
Pres. Thomas Monson
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Salt Lake Temple
50 W North Temple St
Salt Lake City, UT 84150-6500
Phone: 801-240-2640
Fax: 801-240-1550
Keep it civilized.
OK -- As I commented to a correspondent this morning: this election's over, the next one is two years away. See Timothy Kincaid's comment below: my sentiments exactly.
A heads-up from Pam Spaulding: the radical, anti-gay, theocon right is going after all the states that still allow civil rights for gays:
The President of the Christian Coalition of America, Roberta Combs said: "The American people are proud of their fellow citizens in the states of California, Florida and Arizona for upholding traditional marriage between one man and one woman. Christian Coalition of America will continue to fight to ensure that government serves to strengthen and preserve, rather than threaten, our families and our values."
Thus far, 30 states have outlawed homosexual "marriages" by an average close to 70% approval by voters through amendments to the state constitutions. In addition, the voters in Arkansas yesterday approved a measure banning unmarried couples from serving as adoptive or foster parents. It will be the goal of Christian Coalition to ensure that the other 20 states adopt similar amendments banning homosexual "marriages" including the states of Massachusetts and Connecticut which also had two judicial decisions, by one vote margins, legalizing these abominations.
And the usual degree of truth: it's rather odd to take the highest number in a series and call it the "average."
Timothy Kincaid has the perfect response:
We place a constitutional amendment on the ballot of every statewide election until Proposition 8 is overturned. Such an amendment would be written to do nothing other than reverse the language that was inserted on Tuesday night.
This is really all I have the stomach for today. Reading over the aftermath coverage is just bringing the disappointment to the fore again.
So, think about this:
The anime is a compilation of scenes from Bleach; the song is Nickelback's Hold Out Your Hand.
That's your dessert.
4 comments:
I wonder if a measure removing the anti-gay language from the constitution, but also saying that marriage equality can't be imposed by Court ruling, would pass?
As a matter of principal, I don't like the idea. But it might work, because the legislature would (has already) passed marriage equality, and there's a good chance the Governor would sign it this time.
First, I'm going to slap your hand for saying "imposed by Court ruling." That's buying the right-wing framing, and that's not allowed on this blog. The courts interpret laws against constitutional provisions; if the laws don't pass muster, they get dumped. There's no "imposition" of anything there. Go stand in the corner.
Now, to the question: that could run afoul of whatever article in the California constitution establishes the courts and their function. I don't know if the California constitution allows the legislature or the people to limit the courts' jurisdiction, but my guess is that jurisdiction cannot be limited by referendum. That would be a really stupid move. Of course, the California framers made it possible to amend the constitution by 50% plus 1 vote, so they may not have been the brightest porch lights on the block, but my guess is there's a structural issue there that would probably need a separate amendment to make your proposed amendment possible.
Where's PietB when you need him?
Good point about the framing; had I been speaking aloud, I promise you would have caught the sarcastic tone when I say "imposed by Court ruling."
I still think the folks running things should be considering using measures not only to get what we want, but to undercut their arguments. I posted more about this on "Alas," here.
BTW, I reprinted another one of your posts on "Alas" just now, and will do more this week.
I saw that post and was going to leave a comment, but others had pretty much covered my points. Since we're here now, though, I can go there:
It doesn't really matter if such an initiative contains those guarantees, because opponents will do everything they can to bury them -- or they will simply lie about them and bring up some event that may or may not have happened in Sweden at some point. We are, after all, dealing here with people who have no sense of morality or decency. (This is not name-calling -- this is based on the evidence to date.)
But I think any such initiative should be titled "To Confirm the Fundamental Right of Marriage for All Persons." Let them argue against that one.
Post a Comment