RE: Opinions Requested--Could this Repeal Actually Happen?

Amending the Constitution is no easy feat, I remember ERA too well. :D

Republicans and conservatives will have to tread lightly on that issue as opposed to their emotional outcry about the "illegal immigration problem."

But I do think we need to keep an eye on them...as usual. :D

I'm waiting for the excuse that he has a full plate, too busy with other important matters to be burdened for his full support for equal rights for ALL Americans.

Fluff post: Did that one guy toward the end of the video compliment the cop on his boots? I think he did! It made me squee with delight.

I love getting delighted.

A Republican (Bob Barr--Georgia) authored DOMA and it was passed in the Republican controlled Congress (majority of both sides did support it). Clinton was the one who signed it.

From what I understand, it was a (sad) compromise for Clinton--it was either DOMA or a Constitutional Amendment redefining marriage as b/w a man and a woman that would probably would have passed.

Our family at the end of THIS video, our kid Anita was absolutely eloquent. Me in the wheelchair? So sexy.

Thank you!
I must confess that I was watching them interview random people,
and was getting super irritated. I wanted them to interview some of
the families that were there, because the supporters of Prop 8 were
adamant that we can't be parents and families.

So I told the guy, you should talk to some kids with gay parents today.
He said, how about yours?

She gave a great answer when he asked her what she wanted to say to the Prop 8 supporters who don't believe her Moms can love her and raise
her well.

She said: "I feel very sad for them because they'll never know the kind of unconditional love that makes OUR family the only one I'd ever want to be in".

I cried. again.

HERE is a link to the PDF of the ruling.
all 135 pages of delicious gooodness.

actually, the finding of the CA Supreme Court (that prop 8 overturned) DOES spell out quite specifically that Churches do not have to marry us, and that Religious organizations cannot be sued or face action for NOT marrying us.

It'll probably be identical to our law, then.

it's a pretty good one (for our side) maggie's got nothin'.
 

That is a very good point to remember, especially for me who likes to remember Clinton as a traitor and a sell-out to the cause...

The haters sure do like changing the constitution, don't they?

I have two bumper stickers on my car- one of which has been on there for about 20 years and the other is from the original Mass Equity campaign and states "No Discrimination In The Constitution". A hard concept for some to grasp...
:readfineprint:

She says (7:28)
"This is a big stretch to imagine that our founding fathers were banning gay marriage in passing our constitution".
Freudian slip baby, stick to arguing your own side.... :)

Maggot Gallagher does bring up a good issue though: The fact that the EU does not recognize Same-Sex Marriage Discrimination as a human rights issue. :readfineprint:
Gays in Austria appealed to the EU and the EU stated:

http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/vi...C1166DEA398649

A few weeks ago a Russian Lesbian couple also filed an appeal to the EU, that response (as far as I know) is still pending...

Lots of work left to do worldwide.
:LGBTQFlag:

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/wp-conten...y-marriage.gif

Mexican court upholds capital's gay marriage law
(AP) – 2 hours ago

MEXICO CITY — The Mexican Supreme Court has voted to uphold the constitutionality of Mexico City's 6-month-old law allowing same-sex marriages.
The justices have voted 8-2 to uphold the law against challenges filed by federal prosecutors, who argued it violates the constitutional principle of protection of the family.
Hundreds of couples have been married so far under the law, the first of its kind to be enacted in Latin America.
The court ruled Thursday that the law did not violate the constitution. Justices on the majority side argued that nowhere does the constitution define what a family is.
:hangloose:

Awesome news....Thank you for sharing it!!

I just wanted to repeat your post.

A little off-topic, but.....
 

I hear you! She was flamed by several people, but I thought I'd be radical and just reach out! It doesn't always work, but it was at least worth a try! And as you saw, you never know what the ripple effect might be! :)

QUICK - I am about to pick a fight with Nick's uncle on facebook. I need to know the name of that rule (I think it might even be in your constitution) that makes it okay/required for judges to overturn votes by the popular majority if said vote holds the minority down.

the 14th amendmenat

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourtee...s_Constitution

(Hope that's what you were looking for) ;)

Thanks guys. I'm not gonna lie - I don't really understand how the US works. :)

Anyway.

He said: "I don't have a problem with the ruling, with one exception, and it troubles me; a judge overruled the will of the people of California. This seems to be an ever increasing trend that really bothers me. Measures are put on a ballot, voters approve them, special interests that are negatively affected by the laws file suit and the courts step in. This happened before recently in California that I can recall, with a judge overturning voter approved immigration legislation. Judicial meddling just bugs me."

So now I'm saying: "It's seems to me that this "judicial meddling" is written into your constitution.

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Yeah, I am sooo articulate with all of my copy and pasting!

Wellll.... you could tell him (if you are asking for input from posters here) that in 1968 it was the will of the American people that marriage between blacks and whites should not be recognized, and it was the judiciary that forced the populace to stop illegally prohibiting interracial marriages. The parents of our current president were denied marriage rights in 32 states.

In the USA we have three branches of government: Executive (president), Legislative, and Judicial, that all have EQUAL power. In theory any branch can "meddle" with the decisions of another- this is set up as a sort of fail-safe mechanism within our government. Another example of this would be the Presidential Veto, whereby the pres can completely disregard the wishes of our elected legislative officials and single handedly strike down their decisions.

(Not sure if this is too simplistic or too detailed or if you even wanted leverage for your position so I'll shut up now :0)
:goodluck:

I'll take what I can get. :) Thanks

(Sometimes I just like to randomly bait him. Like yesterday Nick posted that he wanted to go on vacation and his uncle said he should get an RV so I posted that there was no way Nick was getting an RV because there's only so much I can do to reduce me and Nick's collective carbon footprint.

I am just an ass sometimes.

No, he does not believe in global warming.)

Oh it's like that, huh? Hmmm, baiting.... tell him that all the gays are going to marry "illegal immigrants"... that should work.
:byebye:

ooooooooooooh! That -would- get him riled up!

:canadian: why is this thingy a canadian? Blame Canada!!!!! (and now that damn song is in my head)

It's your damn fault that 'judicial meddling' is in our Constitution.....

oh yeah.......I heard on the radio driving home that Argentina has legalized same-sex marriage all over the country.........the first Latin American country to do that and it's like 80+% Catholic.......they also have a woman President

Yup, always worth a try. Sure, there are the way crazy ones that make me cringe (and become angry sometimes, too) that I know nothing will reach, but, some out there will listen.. and change.

In thinking that a major component of allies being younger people (heading toward voting age) and these kind of people that are open to discussion and examining their values and willing to make changes. Numbers in alliances is critical, especially over the next couple of years as this case moves toward being heard by the SC. The opinion goes to the fact that, constitutionally, voting doesn't carry weight, but, positive public opinion about same-sex marriage can override the negative (and actually minority voice) around this issue.

Its too bad the woman you talked with got flamed for her ability to hear you. That very thing can prevent someone from taking a chance with new ways of thinking.

Really, Toughy? I can't tell if you're just fucking with me or not...but it's because of Canada that the whole "judicial meddling" thing is in your Constitution?

Break it down for a girl, wouldjaplease?

Sesame Street Gets it.
 

Highlights that kids view marriage as between "two people who love each other".

Maybe the kids should make the laws? ;)

laughin............I'm just fucking with ya woman!!!....laughin..............I guess I didn't put enough of those smiley things in there cuz it was late when I posted.......


(Blame Canada!.....ya know the South Park movie about everything being the fault of Canada and we should invade and blow Canada open....)

Ah, there she is. Kept me up all night researching to find evidence of something that never existed! Why, I oughta....

I did get the South Park reference, I'm a fan of the show.

That'll teach me to take things at face value!

(You people are just jealous because Canada is so nifty.)

Yes...cuz not only can you get married, but you also have Violet Crumble bars, which somehow YOU have and we don't, even though they're made in Australia. It's unfair. (sob)

I used to ask a Canadian friend to bring me some every time she visited, but with my memory I always callled them Lavender Smashies. Good thing she knew me well enough to understand. :canadian:

Not to rain on our Gay Parade, but
 

I find it disappointing how very few politicians (especially our liberal "equal rights for all" politicians, and more especially our first minority President) have made public statements about this historic federal ruling.

Not that I think it will make a difference, but it might be a good time to call the Whitehouse and ask them to speak up. In case you care to, call the comment line at 202-456-1111.

All that negative stuff being said. Hoooooraaaaaaaay. I may actually be able to get married soon....................now to find someone to marry!:frog:

From the Prop 8 blog
 

First Maggie Gallagher, now Debra Saunders: Another shocking display of ignorance in the San Francisco Chronicle
(The San Francisco Chronicle is on a roll, following Judge Walker’s historic ruling striking down Prop 8. On Thursday, they went full FOX News, publishing Maggie Gallagher’s Red Dawn op-ed warning of a “Soviet-style” government takeover of marriage. Not to be outdone, Debra Saunders also published a column in the Chron on Thursday revealing her failure to understand basic civics, as Brian Devine demonstrates below. Of course, that’s not very surprising coming from Gallagher and Saunders. What is surprising is why the Chronicle wastes so much ink on such ignorance. Just another “fair and balanced” #FAIL. — Eden James)

By Brian Devine

The San Francisco Chronicle’s conservative commentator, Debra J. Saunders, published a column about Judge Walker’s decision overturning Prop 8. Her article is a shocking display of a lack of understanding of the United States Constitution and the role of the independent Judicial branch in our system of government:

So one judge overturned a measure approved by 52 percent of California voters in 2008 and upheld by the California Supreme Court in a 6-1 ruling.

Some Californians will see this decision as the work of an elitist gay judge imposing his preordained political views on voters.

And then she goes on to describe why she’s one of those “Some Californians.”

Debra Saunders must have been absent on the day her Civics class taught the most important case ever decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, so let’s take a walk back in time. In 1803, the Supreme Court decided Marbury v. Madison. This case articulated the Judiciary’s power of “judicial review,” the power to decide the constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches of government (a law passed by the Legislative branch or an action by the Executive branch.) Ever since then, every citizen’s rights have been protected by the Court’s power of judicial review. The reason judicial review exists is to protect the rights of unpopular minorities against what Alexis de Tocqueville described as the “tyranny of the majority.” In our system of government, the majority does not get to take away rights that are protected by the Constitution from a minority group, no matter how unpopular that group is.
Using the power of judicial review, our Courts have decided several controversial issues and have forced the majority to accept ideas with which it vehemently disagrees. Ideas like school integration. In Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that laws that created segregated schools violated the Equal Protection rights of racial minorities. Like Proposition 8, those laws were passed with a majority of people supporting them. And like Proposition 8, those laws were unconstitutional because they violated the rights of the minority.

Another idea popular among the majority was prohibiting inter-racial marriage. In the 1950′s and 1960s, most people believed that non-white people should be prohibited from marrying white people. Several states (including California) passed laws making interracial marriages illegal. These laws were very popular and passed with a majority of the people’s representatives. They were based on many of the same arguments on which Proposition 8 is based (fear of the slippery slope: absurd arguments like “if black people can marry white people, how long before people can marry dogs?”) But the laws were unconstitutional because they violated the rights of the minority. And in Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional all laws that prohibited inter-racial marriage.

Our history is rich with cases where the Courts have overturned the will of the majority and protected the rights of the minority. In Debra Saunders’ ideal world, however, these cases would not exist. In Debra Saunders’ world, Brown v. Board of Education would have been decided the other way, leaving the dreadful Plessy v. Ferguson decision to be the law of the land and permitting racial segregation. In Debra Saunders’ world, Loving v. Virginia would have been decided the other way, and states would be free to prohibit inter-racial marriages.

Is this really the world in which Debra Saunders wants to live? As a straight, white, and relatively affluent person, it’s easy for Debra Saunders to say that she doesn’t need the Courts to protect her rights. But that’s exactly the point, isn’t it? The Courts are there to protect the rights of those who are least liked by society, not to blindly enforce the will of the majority.

Good luck with that!! (f)