you really think that germany would have voted in that fashion if they had the system we have back then? The reason nazi germany was not fighting against the killing of jews was because thier laws where simple you help a jew then you die with them. To assume that the Germans would have voted 50 50 is simply a way for you to justify that being gay is the same as being jewish you are born jewish you are born white you are born black you are born hispanic you are not born Gay you choose to be Gay their is no scientific DNA strands that proves Gayness as many attempts to prove otherwise it is a dead end road their is no gayness gene. The ignorance to say that civil rights of an individual is being taken away is insane when that is a behavior not a genetic code. In the early development of this country we did the same thing to Blacks as the germans did to Jews because the genetic makeup of thier bodies. If you feel like you are an outsider then make a different choice your position is unique you have that choice they did not that is the difference. Now I am Mormon and recognize this as being my choice I voted yes on 8 and will always protect the institution of marriage as being between a man and a women. Call me what you will but to put aside the democratic process would be like reverting to a communistic rule where select individuals choose the way the country is run and there goes our freedom to choose. The Government has shown that they do not make good choices as you can see the crisis we are in to give them more power would only divide this country more. It is time to open your eyes and take solice that the majority vote has been decided and live your life the way you choose without the certificate of marriage from a religious institution which under most churches believes you cannot marry the same sex anyway.

If you look at MANY otherwise-free democracies that began to tilt toward fascism, what was the first thing to happen? In Italy, in Spain, in Germany, in Rome, even in Greece and Turkey and Morocco and many other countries that had brief bouts with authoritarianism, the very first thing to happen – before the book banning, and before other segments of the population were named “other” and jailed, and before the Government rescinded portions of constitutions and legal contracts with its citizens: before all those things, rights were taken away from homosexuals, rights that they had previously enjoyed as equal (or mostly-equal) members of society.

Once again, 10th Amendment, US Constitution:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” See Prop 22, Prop 187, Prop 140. These were all rights not in the US Constitution, and should be reserved for the States to decide. The voters of this State decide frequently, and as long as they fit within the Constitution (US and CA), which they do, these inititaves should not have been overturned.

Certainly for a “state’s rights” issue, they didn’t have much faith that Californians would make the right decision ourselves, and felt that their input was necessary.

CSI Sac’s example is one of many. An enormous number of hospitals don’t recognize domestic partners as next of kin, allowing very serious quality of life decisions to be made by someone other than a patient’s life partner. That is unacceptable. Probate law also makes a very serious distinction between the two, affording far more rights to other family members than it does a domestic partner – not so for married people.

Even the California tax code draws quite a different picture of both benefits and liabilities for married vs. domestic partner individuals, with many more benefits for married couples and married individuals filing singly.

It’s hard not to respond objectively when, as another thread said, you’ve got a boot on your neck. Try it some time and let us know how you feel and what you resort to and what sort of language you use to describe your rights being stripped away out of intolerance and selfishness.

The majority has a mandate – and it’s a very central part of the entire spirit of Americanism, if there is one – to protect the minority, versus destroying it. Here, the comparison with Nazi Germany may be heavy-handed, but it’s not inaccurate. Abuse of homosexuals is often a bellweather of a tilt toward fascism; after all, their rights to own property, and then later their placement in prison (and eventually death) camps preceded similar definitions for Communists and Jews in the first years of Hitler’s administration.

I have to say the anti-8 campaign could have done a lot better to discuss the real issues here, rather than just yelling “bigot” at everyone who asks a question.

As someone in the health insurance industry, I can point out a dramatic and substative right that domestic partners are not entitled to. Federal COBRA coverage. In the case of divorce or death within a married couple, spouses are entitled to 18 months of Federal Cobra coverage under their prior spouses policy. Domestic partners are not. Domestic partners are eligible for 36 months of Cal-Cobra, but to someone with Cancer, HIV, etc, there is a HUGE difference beetween 36 and 54. Maybe a life… it sounds dramatic but we see it more often than you think. Is a yes vote for “morality” worth someones health?

Romer v Evans
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_94_1039/

Facts of the Case

Colorado voters adopted Amendment 2 to their State Constitution precluding any judicial, legislative, or executive action designed to protect persons from discrimination based on their “homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships.” Following a legal challenge by homosexual and other aggrieved parties, the state trial court entered a permanent injunction enjoining Amendment 2’s enforcement. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed on appeal.

Question

Does Amendment 2 of Colorado’s State Constitution, forbidding the extension of official protections to those who suffer discrimination due to their sexual orientation, violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause?

Conclusion

Yes. In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that Amendment 2 of the Colorado State Constitution violated the equal protection clause. Amendment 2 singled out homosexual and bisexual persons, imposing on them a broad disability by denying them the right to seek and receive specific legal protection from discrimination. In his opinion for the Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that oftentimes a law will be sustained under the equal protection clause, even if it seems to disadvantage a specific group, so long as it can be shown to “advance a legitimate government interest.” Amendment 2, by depriving persons of equal protection under the law due to their sexual orientation failed to advance such a legitimate interest. Justice Kennedy concluded: “If the constitutional conception of ‘equal protection of the laws’ means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest.

See: J. S. Mill, de Toqueville, A. Hamilton, Marbury v. Madison, Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia, and our very own Perez v. Sharp.

Thus endeth the lesson. I’m off to eat a bean burger.

P.S. So, comparsion of this government’s homophobic policies to other governments’ homophobic policies is [i]verboten[/i], but comparing gays and lesbians to “elves” and “fawns” (did you mean “fauns”?) is reasonable discourse? Hm.

But seriously, I think your definition is a bit skewed… surely the purpose of a judiciary branch is to interpret the law and ensure that it is applied fairly. The lower courts are responsible for adjudicating disputes, regardless of where they originate. The CA supreme court may well repeal the amendment, which would most likely be appealed to the 9th circuit, which may insist on it being weirder before they will consider it, for example also bestowing marriage rights on fawns and elves.

Argh. This is why we need civics instruction in our schools again.

Fundamental civil rights, such as equal protection, simply cannot be subject to popular vote.

The judiciary branch of our government (state and federal) exists in part to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The court should repeal Prop 8 with all due speed–as it has laws that infringed on other groups’ civil rights throughout our history.

BTW, the widespread civil protests over the past several days have been loud– and predominantly peaceful. Cooler heads DID prevail; one can be royally pissed off at injustice, and still be cool-headed. The protests will continue: http://www.equalityactionnow.org.

And, I whole-heartedly agree that the next change in our constitution should be managed just as you say. We’re working on it.

And, let’s talk about that vandalism. One crackpot vandalizes a church-totally wrong. Thousands upon thousands of gays and lesbians in this country have lost jobs, housing, family, been beaten, bashed, and murdered (and I’m not talking about the Holocaust). Where exactly ARE you going with this? I’m very interested.