• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

My impassioned plea to GAF: Please vote "No" on Prop 8. Please.

Status
Not open for further replies.
ronito said:
.....that piano player was a guy......

OMG!!!! ARE YOU GAY?!!!
Click to expand...
15o8nqp.gif
 
Elizabeth Benjamin said:
Details Of A Leadership Deal

More details have emerged about what, exactly, Senate Minority Leader Malcolm Smith had to give up to the Gang of Three in order to get them to agree to support him as leader of the Democratic majority conference when the Senate reconvenes in January.

Here's what we know so far. Keep in mind that all of this is based on a handshake deal and requires changes in the Senate rules, which is also subject to a vote.

- The positions of Senate majority leader and president pro tempore, which were both held by former Majority Leader Joe Bruno, have now been bifurcated. Senator-elect Pedro Espada Jr. will be the majority leader while Smith is president pro tempore.

The majority leader post in other legislative bodies in New York, the City Council and the Assembly, for example, is not one with a lot of power. Espada told me he has been assured by Smith that his position will "have absolute substance," and, as a result, "the Latino empowerment issue has been substantially enhanced."

Espada said he will have a "meaningful role" (Nick Confessore reports it's vice chairman) with the Senate Rules Committee, arguably one of the more powerful committees in the chamber and the last stop for all the bills before they go to the floor for a vote. He'll also have a part to play in the next big fight coming down the pike: Redistricting.

- Sen. Carl Kruger will not get the Housing Committee, as some activists like ACORN's Bertha Lewis, had feared, but he will chair a pumped-up Senate Finance Committee. Recall that this was something the Republicans proposed in an effort to woo the Gang of Three to their side. The committee will have an enhanced staff and a fair degree of independence.

- Sen. Ruben Diaz Sr. will chair the Aging Committee.

- A bill to legalize same-sex marriage will not be brought to the floor of the Senate for a vote this year. Smith will announce that he does not believe the measure has sufficient votes to pass - a statement that is at this point undoubtedly true, although it's unclear how long that will last if, as Democrats are hoping, the prospect of being in the minority leads to mass GOP retirements.

- Senators will no longer be seated based on political affiliation with all the Democrats on one side and all the Republicans on the other. Instead, they will be seated alphabetically.

Espada said he believes this signals an end to party-line voting, adding: "This doesn't guarantee any voting blocs."

- There will be some degree of equity on resource sharing with the minority. Said Espada: "We are going to be the nice guys."The thinking behind this is that the lopsided allocation of staff, member items, budgets for printing etc. led to what the senator-elect called "a dysfunctional and inequitable Legislature."

According to Espada, Gov. David Paterson was in the room for at least part of today's negotiations. Espada insisted neither he nor any of the other Gang of Three were at any time threatened with reprecussions if they didn't cave in and be good Democrats.

"We don't scare very easily," he said. "This was not about intimidation. The governor never intimidated anyone."

Espada said he spoke to Senate Minority Leader-in-waiting Dean Skelos yesterday to break the news, but he refused to discuss the content of that private chat.
Click to expand...
This is bullshit.
 
you guys need a nationwide law that lets gay marriage happen. it's what canada did because conservative provinces like alberta and saskatchewan probably weren't going to support it for a while. fuck this whole "leave it to the state" thing, theres 50 of them! thatll take forever.
 
btkadams said:
you guys need a nationwide law that lets gay marriage happen. it's what canada did because conservative provinces like alberta and saskatchewan probably weren't going to support it for a while. fuck this whole "leave it to the state" thing, theres 50 of them! thatll take forever.
Click to expand...

The country isn't ready for it, and the risk of backlash is still very real at this point. It's better to fight it out in the states until we're ready to ensure that once it's enacted it's going to stay. I mean, if California and New York aren't ready, what are the chances other states would be? At least we still have two that believe in equality.
 
Gaborn said:
The country isn't ready for it, and the risk of backlash is still very real at this point. It's better to fight it out in the states until we're ready to ensure that once it's enacted it's going to stay. I mean, if California and New York aren't ready, what are the chances other states would be? At least we still have two that believe in equality.
Click to expand...
i guess so but it's irritating to me that america is such a modern nation but it is getting left behind because of it's ancient stigmas and taboo.
 
Welp, I think we've pretty much have run out of states to get gay marriage passed with. There might be a few more small New England ones but overly all the big ones have been denied. Might as well refocus attention on all the other rights denied to gays by removing things like Don't Ask, Don't Tell and all the other national stupidity.
 
grandjedi6 said:
Welp, I think we've pretty much have run out of states to get gay marriage passed with. There might be a few more small New England ones but overly all the big ones have been denied. Might as well refocus attention on all the other rights denied to gays by removing things like Don't Ask, Don't Tell and all the other national stupidity.
Click to expand...

I think that Rhode Island could flip soon, maybe even Washington, but you're right for the most part, we're in a holding pattern until we actually get a few more politicians that understand what equality is.

btkadams - I completely agree but there's only so much we can do about it, the shift is coming, it's just gradual right now, but we've still made huge progress in the last ten years or so.
 
btkadams said:
you guys need a nationwide law that lets gay marriage happen. it's what canada did because conservative provinces like alberta and saskatchewan probably weren't going to support it for a while. fuck this whole "leave it to the state" thing, theres 50 of them! thatll take forever.
Click to expand...
Hey, you can talk crap about Alberta all you want, but Saskatchewan actually legalized gay marriage provincially before the Civil Marriage Act was brought to the federal table.
My home province may be a lot of things, but when it comes to equal rights, Saskatchewan is on board 100%.
 
Terrell said:
Hey, you can talk crap about Alberta all you want, but Saskatchewan actually legalized gay marriage provincially before the Civil Marriage Act was brought to the federal table.
My home province may be a lot of things, but when it comes to equal rights, Saskatchewan is on board 100%.
Click to expand...
last i checked saskatchewan was a fairly conservative province just like alberta. i didn't say the provincial government was against it (the premier said gay marriage was fine) it's the people. and i can say whatever i want since i've lived in both provinces anyways lol.
 
btkadams said:
last i checked saskatchewan was a fairly conservative province just like alberta. i didn't say the provincial government was against it (the premier said gay marriage was fine) it's the people. and i can say whatever i want since i've lived in both provinces anyways lol.
Click to expand...
They're political conservatives, not social conservatives. And how "conservative" can you be when you had 16 years of NDP provincial government from 1991 to 2007? I repeat... SIXTEEN YEARS of democratic socialists running the province. I lived there my whole life, and sure, people disapprove of what other people do, but on the whole are willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. I was a goth homosexual in the prairies... trust me, I KNOW how tolerant they are.

Anyways, to steer back on topic, I agree with btk, the USA will not institute gay rights properly on a state level, you guys will require a national policy before things will get done. Sad to say.
And with that, I give up on American civil rights debates, it's a lot of wasted breath for me.

BUT... I do have a question. Does anyone know the best way I can fight for gay rights in Asia? Seriously, while we're fighting over marriage, they don't even have anti-discrimination laws, not even in democratic Asian nations like Korea or Japan. I think THEY need human rights focus more than America right now. Any suggestions?
 
Sen. Malcolm Smith said today that he will cease negotiations on the reorganization of the Senate with the so-called “Gang of Three”.
“We are suspending negotiations, effective immediately, because to do so otherwise would reduce our moral standing and the long-term Senate Democratic commitment to reform and change,” Smith said. “It became very clear to me, over time, that those negotiations started being more about self interest.”
Last week it was reported that Sen.-elect Pedro Espada Jr. of the Bronx, one of the dissident senators, would be the senate majority leader in January. Smith, if supported by the majority of senators, would lead the Senate as president pro tempore. On Monday, however, Espada told The New York Times that he was displeased that Smith would be reducing the power of majority leader, and will not be supporting Smith.
If the three dissident senators, Espada, Sen. Carl Kruger of Brooklyn and Sen. Ruben Diaz Sr. of the Bronx, do not support Smith as the leader of the Senate, he may not be elected to the position. The decision to suspend talks with the three, which Smith said Gov. David A. Paterson supports, could drive them to the Republican side of the aisle, putting the Democrats back in the minority.
“Frankly, we would rather wait two more years to take charge of the Senate than to simply serve the interests of a few,” Smith said.
He also said limiting civil rights of New Yorkers should not be part of the negotiations, but should be part of the legislative process. It was reported that Diaz would not support a Senate leader who would push a bill legalizing same-sex marriage.

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos, R-Rockville Centre, released a statement saying the Senate Republican conference “stands united and focused on governing.”
“I appreciate the strong support of every member of the Republican conference and we will continue to work together with all the members of the Senate on ways to reform and improve the operation of our house,” he said in the statement. “We will also continue to work in a bipartisan fashion with the governor and the Assembly to address the significant fiscal challenges we face.”
Click to expand...
http://www.legislativegazette.com/day_item.php?item=586

5plkll.gif
 
Prop. 8 sponsors seek to nullify 18K gay marriages
By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer
Friday, December 19, 2008
(12-19) 16:42 PST San Francisco (AP) --

The sponsors of Proposition 8 asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to nullify the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters approved the ballot initiative that outlawed gay unions.

The Yes on 8 campaign filed a brief arguing that because the new law holds that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized or valid in California, the state can no longer recognize the existing same-sex unions. The document reveals for the first time that opponents of same-sex marriage will fight in court to undo those unions that already exist.

"Proposition 8's brevity is matched by its clarity. There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions or exclusions," reads the brief co-written by Kenneth Starr, dean of Pepperdine University's law school and the former independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton.

The campaign submitted the document in response to three lawsuits seeking to invalidate Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment adopted last month that overruled the court's decision in May that had legalized gay marriage in the nation's most populous state.

Both Attorney General Jerry Brown, whose office is scheduled to submit its own brief to the court Friday, and gay rights groups maintain that the gay marriage ban may not be applied retroactively.

The Supreme Court could hear arguments in the litigation as soon as March. The measure's backers announced Friday that Starr, a former federal judge and U.S. solicitor general, had signed on as their lead counsel and would argue the cases.

Proposition 8's supporters assert that the Supreme Court lacks the authority or historical precedent to throw out the amendment.

"For this court to rule otherwise would be to tear asunder a lavish body of jurisprudence," the court papers state. "That body of decisional law commands judges — as servants of the people — to bow to the will of those whom they serve — even if the substantive result of what people have wrought in constitution-amending is deemed unenlightened."

The cases are Strauss v. Horton, S168047; City and County of San Francisco v. Horton, S168078; and Tyler v. State of California, S168066.
Click to expand...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/12/19/state/n150241S64.DTL&tsp=1

Lovely. They're doing god's work :lol :lol :lol
 
Gaborn said:
Not surprising that they'd challenge it but the pro-prop 8 forces will (fortunately) likely lose.
Click to expand...
Let's not re-live the shame of assuming something won't happen, K? The shattering of our perceptions regarding Prop 8 itself still stings enough.
 
Terrell said:
Let's not re-live the shame of assuming something won't happen, K? The shattering of our perceptions of the situation of Prop 8 itself still stings enough.
Click to expand...

The reason I say it's unlikely is because in the US generally speaking ex post facto laws aren't allowed. You can't retroactively claim that someone committed a crime for example if it wasn't a crime (or, to use a simple example, Charles Manson was under the death penalty in California. The US supreme court ruled the death penalty unconstitutional. The death penalty was reinstated a few years later. Charles Manson can never be subject to the death penalty now... unless he commits a new murder of course).

Is it possible? I suppose, but I really have trouble making that case.
 
Gaborn said:
The reason I say it's unlikely is because in the US generally speaking ex post facto laws aren't allowed. You can't retroactively claim that someone committed a crime for example if it wasn't a crime (or, to use a simple example, Charles Manson was under the death penalty in California. The US supreme court ruled the death penalty unconstitutional. The death penalty was reinstated a few years later. Charles Manson can never be subject to the death penalty now... unless he commits a new murder of course).

Is it possible? I suppose, but I really have trouble making that case.
Click to expand...
god will find a way!
 
Gaborn said:
The reason I say it's unlikely is because in the US generally speaking ex post facto laws aren't allowed. You can't retroactively claim that someone committed a crime for example if it wasn't a crime (or, to use a simple example, Charles Manson was under the death penalty in California. The US supreme court ruled the death penalty unconstitutional. The death penalty was reinstated a few years later. Charles Manson can never be subject to the death penalty now... unless he commits a new murder of course).

Is it possible? I suppose, but I really have trouble making that case.
Click to expand...
But getting married while it was still constitutional isn't a CRIME, so I'm not sure it's going to provide the same protection. Oh, and from the Wikipedia page for ex post facto laws:

Another example is the so-called Lautenberg law where firearms prohibitions were imposed on those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence offenses and subjects of restraining orders (which do not require a criminal conviction). These individuals can now be sentenced to up to 10 years in a federal prison for possession of a firearm, regardless of whether or not the weapon was legally possessed at the time the law was passed. Among those that it is claimed the law has affected is a father who was convicted of a misdemeanor of child abuse despite claims that he had only spanked his child, since anyone convicted of child abuse now faces a lifetime firearms prohibition. The law has been legally upheld because it is considered regulatory, not punitive - it is a status offense.
Click to expand...

Look... I just made their case. And it took me 5 minutes.
 
Terrell said:
But getting married while it was still constitutional isn't a CRIME, so I'm not sure it's going to provide the same protection. Oh, and from the Wikipedia page for ex post facto laws:



Look... I just made their case. And it took me 5 minutes.
Click to expand...

No, it's not a crime. Crimes are just the easiest for most people to visualize. Typically when you change a law you grandfather in people acting under existing law. For example, let's say you live in a state where you can get married at 16 (a majority of US states currently I think). You get married to another 16 year old. Then let's say your state changed it's statute and moved the age you can get married to 18. Is your marriage still valid? Yes because your marital status existed prior to the new law.

The same thing doesn't apply to things like drinking age for example. Let's say you were 19 when most US states started moving their drinking age from 18 to 21. You would have been able to drink at 18 through 19... and the day the new law took effect in your state you wouldn't legally be able to purchase alcohol until you turned 21. Why? Because buying alcohol is a series of individual acts, and the day before it would have been legal for you to purchase alcohol but now you're under age and it wouldn't matter what you did before.

Garcia - My pleasure, I'm glad you enjoyed it too.
 
So the attorney general Jerry Brown has changed his mind and will argue to the court that Prop 8 should be invalidated

Positive development for the Prop 8 crowd, but a little worrying as his job is to defend the law, and his maneuvering around that responsibility (by claiming it isn't a valid law) is very similar to what the Bush administration has done in the past (FISA)
 
Gaborn said:
No, it's not a crime. Crimes are just the easiest for most people to visualize. Typically when you change a law you grandfather in people acting under existing law. For example, let's say you live in a state where you can get married at 16 (a majority of US states currently I think). You get married to another 16 year old. Then let's say your state changed it's statute and moved the age you can get married to 18. Is your marriage still valid? Yes because your marital status existed prior to the new law.

The same thing doesn't apply to things like drinking age for example. Let's say you were 19 when most US states started moving their drinking age from 18 to 21. You would have been able to drink at 18 through 19... and the day the new law took effect in your state you wouldn't legally be able to purchase alcohol until you turned 21. Why? Because buying alcohol is a series of individual acts, and the day before it would have been legal for you to purchase alcohol but now you're under age and it wouldn't matter what you did before.

Garcia - My pleasure, I'm glad you enjoyed it too.
Click to expand...
The difference is that the law is highly unlikely to put your theory to the test because teenage marriage isn't going to openly challenged by society. You're going to need to find a plausible example that matches the sort of criteria needed.
And you didn't directly counter the example provided, which is retroactive and effects actions taken before the law was changed.
 
Terrell said:
The difference is that the law is highly unlikely to put your theory to the test because teenage marriage isn't going to openly challenged by society. You're going to need to find a plausible example that matches the sort of criteria needed.
And you didn't directly counter the example provided, which is retroactive and effects actions taken before the law was changed.
Click to expand...

But that's the thing. Their rationale in that example was regulatory and not punitive. So in other words by that statute it's sort of the reverse of when a plea deal is reached and the prosecutor agrees to lower a charge of armed robbery to robbery (it's called "swallowing the gun"). In that case the intent was to protect people by essentially classifying people who use violence but not a weapon (say a man that hits his wife, or in that case child) as using a "weapon," just like martial arts experts are considered possessing a "deadly weapon" legally, that being their fists and feet. So it's not punishing them more harshly for their crime, it's defining that their crime occurred using their fist as a weapon... and thus it's rational to prohibit fire arm ownership in addition because you used a weapon to commit a crime.

Edit: and just to be clear, the argument for overturning same sex marriages already existing in California would BE punitive, they're punishing people for following the law as it was written.
 
Gaborn said:
But that's the thing. Their rationale in that example was regulatory and not punitive. So in other words by that statute it's sort of the reverse of when a plea deal is reached and the prosecutor agrees to lower a charge of armed robbery to robbery (it's called "swallowing the gun"). In that case the intent was to protect people by essentially classifying people who use violence but not a weapon (say a man that hits his wife, or in that case child) as using a "weapon," just like martial arts experts are considered possessing a "deadly weapon" legally, that being their fists and feet. So it's not punishing them more harshly for their crime, it's defining that their crime occurred using their fist as a weapon... and thus it's rational to prohibit fire arm ownership in addition because you used a weapon to commit a crime.

Edit: and just to be clear, the argument for overturning same sex marriages already existing in California would BE punitive, they're punishing people for following the law as it was written.
Click to expand...
I would say that the example is the same. Before the law was introduced, the gentleman in the example was able to continue his constitutional right to own a firearm. Afterwards, he was PUNISHED for adhering to the law and demonstrating his rights in the Constitution by making it inviable for him to possess it. So either the reasoning behind that case is damaged and should be removed, or it is still applicable because taking away a previously-viable constitutional right is not punitive.
 
im not trying to put canada up on a pedestal but why dont more people who support gay marriage in the states use canada as an example? in that jon stewart video (great vid btw gaborn), he brings up great arguments but he fails to say how canada allowed gay marriage and holy shit... wait... wait a second... NOTHING HAPPENED. the most effective no on 8 ad for me was that one with molly ringwald where she said nothings changed since gay marriage was legalized in california.
 
Terrell said:
I would say that the example is the same. Before the law was introduced, the gentleman in the example was able to continue his constitutional right to own a firearm. Afterwards, he was PUNISHED for adhering to the law and demonstrating his rights in the Constitution by making it inviable for him to possess it. So either the reasoning behind that case is damaged and should be removed, or it is still applicable because it has punished him by forcing him to infringe on his rights which he was still able to express prior to the ex post facto law described.
Click to expand...

But that's not what the court held. The court saw it as a regulatory issue, not a punitive issue. I would have the same reaction as you just on the surface, but the holding of the court was vastly different.

I can't imagine the Court saying that an amendment (which it would be if they rejected the "revision" argument, which I hope they don't do) titled: "Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment." can be applied retroactively because that is BEYOND clearly punitive. It's not a regulatory change, it would be removing someone's legal status because the law changed.
 
Glad this is getting a second hearing.

It took us two times (and a couple hundred years) to get the "seperate but equal" thing right, maybe we can get this right the second time around.

Also, I have a friend who is gay but doesn't support gay adoption. I guess you could call him the gay "Clarence Thomas" when it comes to self-loathing.
 
Crazy, so you had to vote NO to allow gay people to vote? Seems very counter-intuitive... what was the wording on the ballot exactly? It should have been simple: e.g. Allow State Recognized Gay Unions: Yes or No.

I wonder how many people inadvertantly voted against Prop8 by voiting "yes."
 
-Rogue5- said:
Crazy, so you had to vote NO to allow gay people to vote? Seems very counter-intuitive... what was the wording on the ballot exactly? It should have been simple: e.g. Allow State Recognized Gay Unions: Yes or No.

I wonder how many people inadvertantly voted against Prop8 by voiting "yes."
Click to expand...
meh the ballot was pretty straightforward IMO.
 
-Rogue5- said:
Crazy, so you had to vote NO to allow gay people to vote? Seems very counter-intuitive... what was the wording on the ballot exactly? It should have been simple: e.g. Allow State Recognized Gay Unions: Yes or No.

I wonder how many people inadvertantly voted against Prop8 by voiting "yes."
Click to expand...

No... you don't understand. The California Supreme Court legalized same sex marriage. Gays could get married in California. The purpose of Prop 8 was to overturn that decision (originally it was to prevent gays from marrying, after the Court legalized gay marriage the purpose became that decision effectively being overturned). So yes on 8 = no right for same sex couples to marry. No on 8 meant that you supported the continuance of our right to marry. The wording on the ballot was as follows. The title was: "Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment." (there is now a challenge to it on the grounds it was a revision rather than an amendment which basically means if it was a revision the legislature needed to approve it by a 2/3 majority for it to be in effect) The summary of the proposition was: "changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California"
 
btkadams said:
im not trying to put canada up on a pedestal but why dont more people who support gay marriage in the states use canada as an example? in that jon stewart video (great vid btw gaborn), he brings up great arguments but he fails to say how canada allowed gay marriage and holy shit... wait... wait a second... NOTHING HAPPENED. the most effective no on 8 ad for me was that one with molly ringwald where she said nothings changed since gay marriage was legalized in california.
Click to expand...
dude its Canada
 
Gaborn said:
No... you don't understand. The California Supreme Court legalized same sex marriage. Gays could get married in California. The purpose of Prop 8 was to overturn that decision (originally it was to prevent gays from marrying, after the Court legalized gay marriage the purpose became that decision effectively being overturned). So yes on 8 = no right for same sex couples to marry. No on 8 meant that you supported the continuance of our right to marry. The wording on the ballot was as follows. The title was: "Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment." (there is now a challenge to it on the grounds it was a revision rather than an amendment which basically means if it was a revision the legislature needed to approve it by a 2/3 majority for it to be in effect) The summary of the proposition was: "changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California"
Click to expand...

Cool. Yeah, I didn't know what the ballot actually said, so it's just natural to associate "NO" with no support, rather than the eradication of a proposed bill which would ban something that you do support.

The commercials were pretty damn funny though. Offensive as hell... but offensive is often funny.
 
Honestly, even though I HATE Proposition 8 with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns, I feel like the Supreme Court is not endowed with the power to disallow it from entering the constitution. The whole POINT of amendments is that they change the precedent of a constitution so as to change what a court is able to rule as constitutional or unconstitutional. Even if I feel that Prop 8 is hateful and a solid case of discrimination, I can't rightfully say that it's not a valid law if it was passed through valid legal channels, despite the fact that in my more instinctual chambers, I would love that.
 
So you're saying if a discriminatory law is passed "validly" it therefor negates its discrimination? It's unethical, and the Constitution won't stand behind it.
 
Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
Honestly, even though I HATE Proposition 8 with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns, I feel like the Supreme Court is not endowed with the power to disallow it from entering the constitution. The whole POINT of amendments is that they change the precedent of a constitution so as to change what a court is able to rule as constitutional or unconstitutional. Even if I feel that Prop 8 is hateful and a solid case of discrimination, I can't rightfully say that it's not a valid law if it was passed through valid legal channels, despite the fact that in my more instinctual chambers, I would love that.
Click to expand...

I understand where you're coming from, but if it was actually enough to qualify as a revision rather than an amendment then it's a perfectly legally correct result to ignore the popular vote because it never should have occurred in the first place. Now, whether it WAS a revision or an amendment I don't know and I'm not nearly qualified to answer but it's probably worth adjudicating.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Burger King will use AI to check if employees say ‘please’ and ‘thank you’
2
92
1K
Svalr93 replied
Please for the love of Christ sort the ads out.
41
873
Ozzie666 replied
Bonjour, my French GAF friends.
2
67
822
p_xavier replied
A little Computer Help Please
2
53
2K
Magister replied
Dinged up my car GAF. Few feelings are worse 😭
Drama  2
56
432
BennyBlanco replied
Top Bottom