News and Politics | November 05, 2008 | 127 comments

Lawsuits against Proposition 8

source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/11/05/state/n082023S02.DTL&type=newsba...

Image
nazbags
The San Francisco City Attorney, Dennis Herrara, plans to challenge the validity Proposition 8. The first lesbian couple to be married in Los Angeles County also plans to file a lawsuit against Proposition 8.

Think their efforts will do anything?
  1. groups:
    News and Politics,   Current News US,   LGBT
  2. tags:
    News and Politics,  California,  Current News US,  Election 08,  3 more
  3.     
    |

127 comments // Lawsuits against Proposition 8

  • Jenkins
    • 0
      Jenkins  
    • joshuaheller:

      If you don't think this is civil rights issue, then you have brainwashed yourself to justify your position. This is absolutely civil rights issue because US citizens are losing their rights.

    • 3 years ago
  • Phadrus
    • 0
      Phadrus  

    • I am dissappointed that Prop 8 passed.

      If you look at the numbers, the younger a person is, the less likely they are to be frightened by gay people and subsequently gay marriage.

      Probably (I'm guessing) because the younger a person is, the more likely it is that they know some (out) gay people and because they are familiar with them the less likely they are to be scarred by them.

      Even if the amendement takes effect, the banning of gay marriage will be fixed in 20 to 40 years by the younger generation when they come to power.

    • 3 years ago
  • Reddi
    • 0
      Reddi  
    • Phadrus:

      Or ... as happened to the Equal Rights Amendment... it will fade into obscurity ...

      I know gay people and not afraid of them ... why is a vote for such a amendment equated with homophobia? Talk about stereotyping ...

    • 3 years ago
  • anglcazn
    • 0
      anglcazn  
    • Phadrus:

      And just because you know gay people doesn't mean you're homophobic. I had a friend whom was friends who hate Jews. But, even though they openly hate Jews, they were still friends were her because she was a "cool Jew" (I dunno and i don't get it)

      The "I can't be racist/homophobic/sexist if I'm friends with (insert race, sexuality, gender)" doesn't always quite work.

    • 3 years ago
  • Reddi
    • 0
      Reddi  
    • Phadrus:

      Easy anglcazn... you are coming close to calling everyone that doesn't agree with the gay agenda homophobic.

      I could see a slim occurrence of homophobics out there knowing gays ... but that would be rare.

      And the implication of your statements is that anyone that isn't in line with the wants of gay community is homophobic ... which is just not true ...

      That's like saying that if you aren't in line with the white community or black community, you are racist ... or if you don't support the feminist community, you are sexist ...

      Get a grip ... you can disagree with a certain community's agenda and not be a negative -"ism" ...

    • 3 years ago
  • mata_dindi
    • 0
      mata_dindi  
    • Phadrus:

      I don't think anglcazn meant that just because you disagree with a group of people means that you're hateful towards them. But at the same time, just because you disagree with a group of people doesn't mean you can deny them their civil rights. If you deny a group of people their rights just because of their age/race/sex/gender/etc, you are, in effect, against that group of people. Anti-gay marriage is anti-gay. And civil rights belong to everyone, no matter their age/race/gender/orientation.

    • 3 years ago
  • Reddi
    • 0
      Reddi  

    • There are court rulings that have upheld such bans ...

      Nebraska is one of the states that added an amendment to its constitution to reinforce existing statutes defining marriage between one man and one woman. The amendment passed by a vote of 70 to 30 percent. In May 2005, a Circuit judge ruled the state constitutional amendment violates the United States Constitution. In July 2006, the Eighth Circuit reversed his ruling, reinstating the ban.

      I did find this fact interesting. Twenty-seven defense of marriage amendments have been adopted up to 2006. Of these, eight make only same-sex marriage unconstitutional, seventeen make both same-sex marriage and civil unions unconstitutional, and two are unique. Hawaii's amendment is unique in that it does not make same-sex marriage unconstitutional; rather, it allows the state to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples.

    • 3 years ago
  • RCS
  • Clutch
    • 0
      Clutch  

    • Rediculous. Look, there was a vote and the people have spoken. This is as rediculous. You don't see voters filing lawsuits against the President-elect.

    • 3 years ago
  • HikoSeijero
    • 0
      HikoSeijero  
    • Clutch:

      This is part of the checks and balances of our democratic system. If we could not challenge the validity of a law then blacks and women would still be unable to vote.

    • 3 years ago
  • comet260
  • rafaelxs
    • 0
      rafaelxs  
    • Clutch:

      you are very ignorant. i for one am not gay, but black and my grandparents had no right to vote, and there parents where brought to the united states as slaves. If we did not fight for our right we would not be in the white house. I for one believe if you are asked to pay taxes, you should have all the same rights, no exceptions.

    • 3 years ago
  • daboz
    • 0
      daboz  

    • Typical Connunist/Democrat move to try and overturn the will of the majority in their Liberal dominated courts

    • 3 years ago
  • seanalyn
    • 0
      seanalyn  
    • daboz:

      damn those Connunists!

      Its hilarious to see all the people using the word Communist when they don't even seem to know what it means...its even more hilarious when they can't spell it.

    • 3 years ago
  • anglcazn
    • 0
      anglcazn  
    • daboz:

      So, blacks should still be segregated from whites like in the 1960s? Because, you know, majority felt that way when the courts overturned the "separate but equal" rule.

    • 3 years ago
  • mjsmith11
  • seanalyn
    • 0
      seanalyn  
    • mjsmith11:

      the people were influenced by the money of out of state people. 2/3rds of the funding for Prop 8 was from out of state (primarily from the Mormons). how can you justifying influencing the politics of another state?

    • 3 years ago
  • anglcazn
    • 0
      anglcazn  
    • mjsmith11:

      We are not a democracy, we are a republic. And there is something called "tyranny of the majority." Just because a certain majority feels one way doesn't mean that they laws they passed are just. This ban takes away rights guaranteed by our Constitution (9th and 14th amendment).

    • 3 years ago
  • eldamon
    • 0
      eldamon  
    • mjsmith11:

      Why can't the people speak for themselves. If you don't like same sex marriage don't get married to someone of your same sex (PERIOD). Why do you care what others do and why do you feel the need to intercede?

    • 3 years ago
  • oi812
    • 0
      oi812  
    • mjsmith11:

      The whole gay marriage thing is quite disappointing! I'm not really sure why there is even an agruement here. I don't care who you love, if you want to get married to someone ofthe same sex the gov should n't have a say. Hetorosexuals have been f'ing up the union of marriage for HOW LONG NOW??? Hell everyone I know has been divorced!!!!
      Secondly, I will just say this....separation of church and state! Done deal.....shouldn't be too hard.

      The amount of pull the Christians have in this country baffles me.

    • 3 years ago
  • seanblossom
    • 0
      seanblossom  

    • I was at this event- the mood was somber. . . Basically what was said - The fights not over. . . Voters passed a similar measure that was overturned by the supreme court, and people believe that the tradition will hold. Is this amendment even legal? Think 30 year plan Susie Orman: NO NO NO Denied!

    • 3 years ago
  • RCS
    • 0
      RCS  

    • It was so disheartening to read about the outcome of the Proposition 8. Then, for some reason, I started to think about Prime Minister Winston Churchill's famous speech when the British and French had been beaten in battle in Europe in WWII, and things looked very bleak.
      It would be good for all fair-minded people in this country to remember that this referendum in California is just one battle in a war for justice, and that war is not over yet. Things may look dismal now, but this is just a temporary setback. Legislation and court cases will continue this fight.
      As we go on to overturn Proposition 8 and to take the struggle to other states, we should keep in mind the words of Churchill when he confronted a defeat. Here is part of his speech:
      "We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender."

    • 3 years ago
  • derk
  • VivienFloyd
  • the_Jack
    • 0
      the_Jack  

    • Hopefully.

      There is legal precedent for even an amendment to the U.S. Constitution (or a state constitution) being ruled sufficiently incompatible with either the main body of that constitution, or a previously-enacted amendment thereto, to render the later amendment unconstitutional, and for courts to strike such amendments down.

    • 3 years ago
  • RCS
  • Illari
12
101 - 127 of 127
more from News and Politics:
from the community

top videos