MetaChat - This is where we wring our hands about Prop 8.

I just saw 55 Yes/45 No on the local NBC station. :(

Didn't catch the percentage of precincts reporting.

posted by mudpuppie 04 November | 23:52

I'm watching this map. SF and LA still don't have their numbers in.

Come on, California, you can do this.

posted by Fuzzbean 04 November | 23:53

Real-time CNN results

Only 10% reporting so far... I'm not going to lose hope yet.

posted by BoringPostcards 04 November | 23:53

Voting on each other's civil rights rarely goes well, and was never part of the plan. Apparently the amendment in Florida is winning, too. :(

posted by BoringPostcards 04 November | 23:57

Obama, acceptance speech: mentioning everyone, all ethnicities... straight, gay...

Thank you, Mr. President.

posted by taz 05 November | 00:03

Fingers crossed, guys.

posted by CitrusFreak12 05 November | 00:20

Are you guys seeing bad news? Because what I'm seeing looks pretty good:

≡ Click to see image ≡

52% No from both men and women, and 30-64 yr-old age groups cancelling each other with 50/50, leaving 66% No for 18-29 yr-olds vs 57% Yes for 65 and older.

posted by taz 05 November | 00:34

It's passing. It will pass.

Whatever. We're not the marrying kind anyway. Now we can go out and have as much promiscuous gay sex as we want without worrying about cheating on our spouses.

THANK YOU, ELECTORATE, FOR THIS PRECIOUS GIFT!

posted by mudpuppie 05 November | 00:35

And if I'm wrong, taz, I'll marry you. I swear.

posted by mudpuppie 05 November | 00:36

*wants to marry taz but is not gay* =(

posted by Eideteker 05 November | 00:38

Fingers crossed!

posted by Triode 05 November | 00:38

Well if these pass, that sucks.

But, y'all can come up here and marry -- perfect excuse for a meetup! Montreal even wants LGBT business.

posted by loiseau 05 November | 00:41

Ugh. I'm wondering how this would play out with the Supreme Court. 300K down and WTF LOS ANGELES?

I wish I had kept my registration there.

posted by Fuzzbean 05 November | 00:46

You know, the thing is, I can't think of a single case where I would vote Yes on something like this. I can't think of anything that would make me vote, "Oh no you don't, you can't do that -- even though it doesn't affect me, I don't want you doing it. So, NO! HAHA!"

And that's what gets me. Where do people get off? Obviously they do. But where?

posted by mudpuppie 05 November | 00:47

poop, my computer just had another fainting spell. So... I guess those exit poll numbers haven't been updated or something? Because, yeah, I'm seeing that Yes on 8 is leading, but these bar numbers don't show that, or I'm even worse at math than I thought, or have had too much bubbly.

And I want to marry you all! but be warned, I'm a stay-at-home wife who drinks French champagne.

posted by taz 05 November | 00:47

CNN, about 25 minutes ago:

In California exit polls reported thus far tonight, Proposition 8 appears to be going down to a narrow 52 percent to 48 percent defeat.The proposition would amend California's state constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. Earlier in the year, the California Supreme Court issued a ruling making such marriages legal under the state's constitution

If the trend holds, younger, first-time voters can be said to be responsible for Proposition 8's defeat.

posted by taz 05 November | 00:53

Please, please, please.

posted by ColdChef 05 November | 00:54

Defeat?

I am on my knees, praying, for the first time in many, many years. Seriously, I'm doing it. We'll see if it works.

posted by mudpuppie 05 November | 01:02

Oh yes. Please, please, please.

posted by Fuzzbean 05 November | 01:04

joining the praying. . ..

posted by danf 05 November | 01:05

oh crap. .this is so disgusting. . .

posted by danf 05 November | 01:09

This breaks my heart. Come on.

posted by ColdChef 05 November | 01:11

I can't think of anything that would make me vote, "Oh no you don't, you can't do that -- even though it doesn't affect me, I don't want you doing it. So, NO! HAHA!"

Probably because you're not using faulty reasoning. THINK OF THE CHILDREN and all that.
::eye roll::

posted by CitrusFreak12 05 November | 01:12

53/47 with 26% reporting.

posted by mudpuppie 05 November | 01:13

Somebody please tell me that this thing isn't over yet. Have they counted the San Francisco votes yet?

posted by ColdChef 05 November | 01:15

It should have had a big rainbow stamped NO all over it with a huge percentage.

Sickening.

posted by gomichild 05 November | 01:15

This sucks I hate this. Can't celebrate.

posted by Claudia_SF 05 November | 01:17

No fucking way.
Plo chops is going down.

posted by ethylene 05 November | 01:17

At least 4 is losing (barely).

posted by Claudia_SF 05 November | 01:20

ColdChef, SF is 22(yes)/78(no) at 63%.

posted by unsurprising 05 November | 01:21

Yeah, we can't have them teaching homosexuality in our schools! That's the kind of thing that should be taught at home.

posted by Eideteker 05 November | 01:23

We still have a long, long, long way to go. As much a I loved being a Californian for 15 years, to my very core I hated its schizophrenic politics.

Looks like Amendment 2 in Florida may pass as well. 98% reporting, passing by 62%.

Change has come to straight America.

Sorry, I'm being a downer. Really bad day today. I'm going to go to sleep and hope I'll be as happy as everyone else seems to be in the morning.

posted by WolfDaddy 05 November | 01:24

No, it's totally justified to be pissed off by this ridiculous institutionalized homophobia, no matter who just won the presidential race.

posted by unsurprising 05 November | 01:25

Fuck. Sorry, Californians. Maybe the Fed will come through for you.

posted by eamondaly 05 November | 01:28

If nothing else, maybe this will lead to an initiative forbidding the influx of out-of-state money into state-specific campaigns.

The Mormons tilted this thing. If it was California Mormons who swayed the vote -- and if they represented the CA electorate -- I might feel okay about it. But most of the money came from out of state. Something about that is just not right.

In fact, it is TOTALLY FUCKED UP IN THE EYES OF GOD.

Probably not fucked up in the eyes of Joseph Smith, though. He had fancy glasses.

And lots of wives. GoooooooOOOOOO marriage!!!

posted by mudpuppie 05 November | 01:29

Tightening up -- it's gone from 10 to 9 to 7 to 6.

posted by Claudia_SF 05 November | 01:30

Well, fuck. I started reading about the prop 8 results, and read some fucker's quote in support of it, and threw my mouse at the screen in response. Guess I didn't know how fragile laptop screens are. Now I've ruined our household computer (or at least its display).

Thanks, prop 8.

posted by treepour 05 November | 01:30

i can't watch. Now i think i will cry.

posted by ethylene 05 November | 01:31

Measure R went down. . .but maybe y'all should name it the Sewage Plant of Latter Day Saints.

posted by danf 05 November | 01:34

Odd. Looking at that map, and the map of who voted for Obama, what is it about the coasts of California/the country that make them the most reasonable/liberal?

I'm still holding out hope. Don't give up just yet...

posted by CitrusFreak12 05 November | 01:35

but maybe y'all should name it the Sewage Plant of Latter Day Saints

Voted Best Joke Of The day.

posted by MonkeyButter 05 November | 01:38

If nothing else, maybe this will lead to an initiative forbidding the influx of out-of-state money into state-specific campaigns.

Not just the money, but those nutjobs from other states trying to get injunctions to block the court's decision going into effect in the first place. Call me crazy, but I am a big believer that the state's affairs should be determined by people who actually live there. Good luck mudpuppie, this whole thing strikes me as a huge infraction of your civil rights, and that pisses me off.

posted by King of Prontopia 05 November | 01:39

I'm glad Measure R failed. I really am. We need to move on from that shit.

Back to the other: I have to go to an on-campus employee orientation tomorrow afternoon. I expect to hear election talk. I'm wondering what kind of Prop 8 talk I'll hear.

Honestly, there's one thing I've been dying to say throughout this whole cycle. The Yes on 8 canvassers never knocked on my door while I was home, but I was hoping to spring it on them. Never got to. I'm wondering if maybe tomorrow I will.

What I want to say is this:

"Say it to my face."

And they say, "Whaaaa????"

And I say, "Say it to my face. Tell me that my love for my partner is less real than your love for yours, that it is somehow corrupt, and that it is worth nothing. Tell me it's not worthy of being called a 'marriage.' Tell me it's unholy. Say it TO MY FACE."

I haven't had the chance to have this conversation yet. Maybe tomorrow. It is sad what we begin to hope for, no?

posted by mudpuppie 05 November | 01:45

Staying steady at a six-point lead (prop 8). At least it's tightened from nine. Better than prop 22 in 2000. This still sucks though.

posted by Claudia_SF 05 November | 01:51

I'd say it's understandable what we begin to hope for.

posted by MonkeyButter 05 November | 01:51

Is there a possibility of overturning 8 if the yeses take it?

posted by MonkeyButter 05 November | 01:52

We can ask the California Supreme Court to somehow reject it. We can put it back on the ballot (as our bizarre-oh Constitution can be amended by 50.001 percent).

posted by Claudia_SF 05 November | 01:53

Well, if it goes through it will be by a slim margin. That's a hopeful place to start in getting it overturned. No?

posted by MonkeyButter 05 November | 01:55

Oooh, down to 5 points. That makes me feel a little better.

posted by Claudia_SF 05 November | 01:57

mudpuppie dear, perhaps this will make you smile, a little. I hadn't seen it til today, but I'm guessing you might have already.

Now I'm having my angry nap. /Arrested Development

posted by WolfDaddy 05 November | 02:00

Is there a possibility of overturning 8 if the yeses take it?

I wish I knew that. That's what we need to know now -- what's the next step?

posted by mudpuppie 05 November | 02:10

It's astounding that there are that many bigots still around. .and, in Oregon, the results would likely be similar.

posted by danf 05 November | 02:10

I can't stop checking for minuscule changes, and even though the gap keeps narrowing it's by such miserably tiny increments that I'm going to stop and think about something else for a while.

posted by tangerine 05 November | 02:15

In 2000, proposition 22 was 61.4 percent the bad way and 38.6 the good way. So five points is better. That's what I'm telling myself.

posted by Claudia_SF 05 November | 02:16

WolfDaddy, that article reminds me that there is evil in this world. Now I'm skeerd.

Mudpuppy, I wish I knew the next step too.

posted by MonkeyButter 05 November | 02:17

Me, too, Tangerine -- just under 5 points now. But 5 points is huge.

posted by Claudia_SF 05 November | 02:19

4.6 now ... grr gotta get away from computer

posted by Claudia_SF 05 November | 02:21

I have to flake on you now, my wonderful friends, and go grab a little more sleep (eyes are burning, lids are drooping). Devoutly hoping to see good news on this when I wake up.

posted by taz 05 November | 02:23

Back to 5 points .. fuck ..

posted by Claudia_SF 05 November | 02:27

Night Taz

posted by MonkeyButter 05 November | 02:30

WHAT.
THE.
FUCK.
CALIFORNIA???

Most liberal state, my ass.

posted by grouse 05 November | 02:55

I'm freaking out, right now. What do we do if 8 passes?

posted by Luminous Phenomena 05 November | 03:14

A lot of very smart, in-the-know people will have already begun to work on having it overturned. I am sure of it. All we can do is find and help them. Keep the hope alive.

posted by MonkeyButter 05 November | 03:20

Just want you all to know that I'm praying for a Vote to allow gay marriage (I can never remember if that is no or yes to 8) - whichever it is - I'm hoping that it gets through!

*big big hugs*

posted by jonathanstrange 05 November | 03:32

I'm very sorry, California, if this passes. I'm sad about Arizona, Arkansas, maybe Florida, and Nebraska (ending affirmative action) too.

And about some of our own stupid propositions, 57 and 61, passing in Oregon.

posted by birdie 05 November | 03:40

And I say, "Say it to my face. Tell me that my love for my partner is less real than your love for yours, that it is somehow corrupt, and that it is worth nothing. Tell me it's not worthy of being called a 'marriage.' Tell me it's unholy. Say it TO MY FACE."
This. This brought a lump to my throat. I have no dog whatsoever in this race, but how could anyone, faced with someone saying that to them, continue to support this travesty? How could you do that and look at yourself in the mirror?

I'm happy that something magnificent has happened in the US today, but this will take some of the shine off for me. We've all come so far in some ways, yet have so much to do in others.

posted by dg 05 November | 03:57

This is just downright fucked up. What the hell is wrong with people?

posted by cmonkey 05 November | 03:57

Is there a possibility of overturning 8 if the yeses take it?

As I understand it (from talking to my lawyer brother-in-law this weekend), it cannot be overturned by the CA Supreme Court; it would have to be found unconstitutional federally, on the grounds that it violates due process or the equal protection clause.

I have a lot of thoughts about how this happened politically/socially/strategically, but I can't really gather them right now. Suffice to say that this is a terrible blow for civil rights -- and what an awful, ironic election for it to happen. I'm horrified.

posted by scody 05 November | 04:11

Thats appalling. How the hell was that allowed to pass?

posted by seanyboy 05 November | 04:12

>Voting on each other's civil rights rarely goes well, and was never part of the plan.

That's worth repeating. But I'm still sorry there are so many stupid, stupid bigots in the world. Smart presidents pick smart judges and civil rights are decided in the streets and in the courts. That's how it's always worked.

Fingers crossed for good news in the morning, tho.

posted by Skwirl 05 November | 04:22

How the hell was that allowed to pass?

Funny thing about democracy; the side with the highest number of votes usually wins.

The fundamental problem is with California's insanely fucked-up initiative system, in which small special interest groups (even those who aren't in California!) can put something like this on the ballot and can amend the state constitution with a simple majority, putting it out of reach of the CA supreme court. It's how Prop 13 helped ruin what was once the finest public education system in the U.S.

posted by scody 05 November | 04:23

For the official record, the Daily KOS thread listing results on 8 and other state's similar ballot initiatives. I'm gonna be sick now, then I am going to bed.

posted by MonkeyButter 05 November | 05:05

And I want to marry you all! but be warned, I'm a stay-at-home wife who drinks French champagne

OMG! ME TOO!

Let's all marry each other & Taz & I can stay at home together, drinking champagne all day and playing with the puppeh! With all these working spouses to keep us, I will give up my practice and instead massage our spouses who keep us in the style we are accustomed to and topped up on the bubbly!

*starts packing ~~suitcase~~ trunk*

posted by goshling 05 November | 05:28

what, so cousins and siblings can marry in CA now? Ossem. *eye roll*

posted by chewatadistance 05 November | 07:41

I don't understand why basic human rights are being decided (or redecided) at the state level, by vote. What is stopping any state from voting in a constitutional amendment declaring that marriage is only valid between Republicans, or Baptists? Does a state have that right?

posted by taz 05 November | 08:15

God, this is making me sick. I was hoping that I would go to bed and wake up to find that Prop. 8 has been defeated (even if by a narrow margin). I dreamed that in Florida, Prop. 2 needed a 65% majority to pass. That in Arkansas, the stupid ban on "unmarried sexual partners" adopting children would just disappear.

So I guess in the end I'm extremely ambivalent about last night's results.

posted by muddgirl 05 November | 08:42

Uuugh. Same here, muddgirl. I woke up and jumped out of bed to check.
What the heck, people.

posted by CitrusFreak12 05 November | 08:48

I'm so sorry guys/gals about this, I sincerly hope it gets overturned since it strikes me as abhorent to grant a minority a right only to take it away. I fail to see why this is such a terrible thing to people...Love is love, who cares what "sex" the people involved are. I will never understand this.

In other news: OBAMA!!!! I'm Canadian so the election maybe shouldn't mean as much to me as it does to the Americans, but hot-damn, I loves that man! I'm so happy he got in! African-americans must be so proud! Even if you don't support his politics, you have to support the fact that a non-white made it! Eat shit you racist assholes! Ha! I wish he was our president (stoopid Harper...hate your dead eyes and bland personality). YAY!!! /end mental diarrhea

posted by LunaticFringe 05 November | 08:55

This is so tragic. It's one of those things to me that is so common sense I can't believe we even have to talk about it, let alone vote/revote about it. I guess we're not as far along as a society as I'd like to believe we are.

posted by Slack-a-gogo 05 November | 09:48

What a weird, weird day. We can elect a black man to lead our country, but we can't let our neighbors live and love in peace. Fuck.

posted by BoringPostcards 05 November | 09:57

One of my best friends, a Californian, wrote this on his LiveJournal last night:

To all you folks who voted Yes on Prop 8...

Fuck you. Yes, I'm talking to you. I'm done being polite about this, about pleading my case with civility and discourse.

Fuck your arguments about children, education, or "activist judges", because it's about none of those things, and you know it. You hide your bigotry behind lies and political rhetoric.

Fuck your argument that the only good family unit contains a mother and a father. I was raised by a single, awesome dad, and I turned out pretty fucking great. Fuck you for marginalizing my childhood.

Fuck your arguments about the sanctity of marriage, my partner and I have been together fourteen years, what makes your marriage more worthy of state recognition? Spare me the lecture. Or, make divorce and quickie weddings illegal, too.

Fuck your arguments about the history of marriage, learn its *real* history, which is hardly confined to the last few centuries of Christian belief. If the church didn't want this day to come, they should not have let the government take over marriage. But since they did, and since government should treat everyone equally, we are here now. We're not the concept of marriage as it stood three hundred years ago, we are here, right now. Act like it.

Fuck your argument that it's about freedom of religion, which only proves that it's a clear violation of the separation of church and state. How would you like it if I voted on your religious rights, too?

Fuck your arguments about the "slippery slope" it would create, in either marriage or democracy. Give society some fucking credit for having a modicum of common sense. A sudden wave of marrying dogs and widespread polygamy won't happen, and you know it.

Fuck you when you say that civil unions should be enough, because separate but equal isn't equal, and you know it.

Fuck your excuses about the will of the people, because sometimes all that amounts to is mob rule, especially when that mob is created through fear and lies, religious dogma, and massive out-of-state funding.

Fuck you for saying "oh, please understand that *my* personal decision isn't driven by religious beliefs or moral propriety," because underneath it all, it most certainly is... and if you're dancing around that issue to justify your vote some other way, you're in denial.

Fuck you for saying "some of my friends are gay" and still voting yes, because it doesn't hide your bigotry. Your actions are your words.

Fuck you for making me a second-class citizen.

Thankfully we have a President now who acknowledged my existence as a Gay American in the first few minutes of his acceptance speech. Maybe, in time, his efforts at unifying this country will be successful for all of us, gay and straight. I don't always agree with Andrew Sullivan, but he had a great post tonight that said "We must never let popular votes affect our own internal sense of our worth, our equality, our dignity as human beings. Our marriages are real; all that is at issue is whether a majority will recognize them in law. The next generation already does."

posted by BoringPostcards 05 November | 10:02

BP that is an OUTSTANDING letter. thanks for sharing it.

posted by chewatadistance 05 November | 10:05

I went to bed fed up last night too. This morning they're saying it's still too close to call, though it's passing by 4 points. The issue of mail-in ballots, I guess, is keeping it in play?

Eh. I know what's going to happen. I wish they'd just call it so we can stop thinking about it.

Anyway. Off to work now, as a person with fewer rights than most of you. Ta ta!

Preview: Yeah, BoPo -- that's a good one.

posted by mudpuppie 05 November | 10:11

Thanks for sharing, BP. When I read the returns this morning. I was miserable, but now that I've got a little caffiene in me I'm just incredibly angry, but in a healthy way. Over at shakesville commenter Hawise just posted something incredibly profound:

Sisyphus- as long as you know why you want that rock at the top of the mountain then you will keep pushing it. A few more shoulders to the rock and we will get it there, and we will keep it there for those we love and for future generations.

The other side is fighting an abstract war in support of intangibles like "sanctity". We are fighting for our lives, or the lives of our friends and family.

posted by muddgirl 05 November | 10:12

Very true, muddgirl.

I'm angry over this, too, and have been ever since this was done to me, here in my home state, four years ago. The state I was fucking born in, and have lived in my entire life, decided to write discrimination against me into its constitution. I've never gotten over it.

Up above, taz said:

I don't understand why basic human rights are being decided (or redecided) at the state level, by vote. What is stopping any state from voting in a constitutional amendment declaring that marriage is only valid between Republicans, or Baptists? Does a state have that right?

I think this is what we as a nation have to figure out. Can the majority really remove rights from others just because they don't like them? I'm going to keep up hope that the answer to that is no.

posted by BoringPostcards 05 November | 10:33

I think this is what we as a nation have to figure out. Can the majority really remove rights from others just because they don't like them? I'm going to keep up hope that the answer to that is no.

Yes.

I can only hope that the next generation of voters have are more informed and less fearful.

From an article I read this morning:

Florida will now be one of approximately 30 states with a definition of marriage in its constitution.

John Stemberger, the state chairman of Yes2Marriage.org which had backed the amendment, said he and supporters were "elated" and "thrilled" once it became clear the amendment was headed toward passage.

"It's telling that in a state where (Barack) Obama has clearly won, the marriage amendment has also passed," Stemberger said.

I don't know what that means.

posted by LoriFLA 05 November | 10:45

I feel utterly surreal this morning, and had a thought: why are we still arguing over issues and ideas that came to the forefront of our national consciousness in the sixties? Civil rights, women's rights, gay rights. All these things should have had better resolution nearly fifty years on down the road, and yet it seems every four years at least one candidate makes one or more of these issues a priority. We should be better than that; it shouldn't take half a century to either completely embrace or completely reject the ideas that came from an extremely turbulent era in our history.

posted by WolfDaddy 05 November | 10:49

I cannot express my feelings right now any more eloquently than the letter that BoPo shared and this.

posted by danf 05 November | 10:49

... said he and supporters were "elated" and "thrilled" once it became clear the amendment was headed toward passage.

Bleh. I just can't imagine having that sort of reaction--"Oh, I am just so happy that I could take away someone's rights! Whew! We got 'em!" I know people aren't necessarily thinking of it in those terms, but that's pretty much it. It's so gross and disappointing.

posted by wimpdork 05 November | 10:56

What scody said -- California has an "insanely fucked-up initiative system, in which small special interest groups (even those who aren't in California!) can put something like this on the ballot and can amend the state constitution with a simple majority, putting it out of reach of the CA supreme court."

In most states, there's a difficult process to amend the state constitution. E.g. 2/3rds of the state legislature plus 2/3rds of the voters, something like that.

We could put this on the ballot ourselves. But in addition to being incredibly expensive, it's even harder to get people to vote *for* homo rights. This was "easier," to get people to vote against homophobia.

There are still some arguments to be made to the California Supreme Court about why this initiative should not go forward, but ... well, this is not good.

posted by Claudia_SF 05 November | 10:57

Ugh, my (same-sex) married friends are devastated. Just read a long email from one of my best friends. He is filled with sorrow and anger. I feel sick.

posted by Claudia_SF 05 November | 11:09

If civil rights could be determined state by state, we'd probably still have segregation and worse in some states... This is a civil rights issue, why isn't it being addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court? Where is the Loving vs. Virgina for gay marriage?

posted by taz 05 November | 11:10

I'm fairly sure that if there was a referendum on whether to allow gay marriage in the UK, that it'd be defeated, knowing the general homophobia and ignorance of huge swathes of the population.

Our system is that these things are left to our elected members to decide in Parliament, as a result of which we now have Civil Partnerships, so gay partners have the same rights, duties and obligations as married couples, despite the rantings of the Daily Mail, etc.

I'm sorrier than hell, mudpuppie, et al.

BP, could you post a link to your friend's LiveJournal?

posted by essexjan 05 November | 11:12

Sure, ej, here it is.

posted by BoringPostcards 05 November | 11:16

And danf, thank you for this song.

posted by BoringPostcards 05 November | 11:18

This is a civil rights issue, why isn't it being addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court?

The Supreme Court can't take it up until it's presented with a case that challenges the equal protection clauses in the Constitution and that has already made its way through all the lower courts and still been found to have a question that only the Supreme Court's interpretation of constitutional law can decide. So far, we haven't had the right case. I am sure there are teams working on it, but don't know much about that.

The longer I live in the US, though, the more I appreciate legal activism. Brown vs. Board of Ed., for instance, happened because the NAACP and others were waiting for the right set of cases to come along to challenge the precedent set by Plessy vs. Ferguson. They had the arguments laid out; they just needed the cases.

posted by Miko 05 November | 11:23

So far, we haven't had the right case. I am sure there are teams working on it, but don't know much about that.

Exactly. At this point, it's a matter of getting the right case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. At least it will Obama and not McCain making appointments to the court.

posted by scody 05 November | 11:38

I'm afraid a Supreme Court decision would just trigger the movement for an anti-gay amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I'm not sure I could survive how awful that would be.

(And it's a good thing the racists didn't think of this back in the 60s... just imagine how screwed we'd be today if they had.)

posted by BoringPostcards 05 November | 11:43

This I can't believe. How fucking horrible; talk about the tyranny of the (barely) majority. To my mind, this is not what democracy is for--determining the basic human rights of citizens is not something that should ever be put to a vote. Here's hoping this crap can be overturned.

posted by elizard 05 November | 12:02

I am really saddened by this. I may add flames to an already burning fire, but I noticed that California DID pass a proposition committed to treating FUCKING FARM ANIMALS better. I'm all for treating animals better, but how in hell do people vote for improving the situation for farm animals, while also voting to take way rights to HUMAN BEINGS?

posted by richat 05 November | 12:23

Actually...I wanna apologize. That's inflammatory, and really, I'm just feeling terrible on behalf of lots of people who I can plainly see are hurt by this. You don't need me, hetero guy from Canada, getting all riled up. I'm just really sorry that shit like this happens sometimes.

posted by richat 05 November | 12:34

You are exactly right about the irony though, richat. It just adds insult to injury.

posted by BoringPostcards 05 November | 12:46

So I'm sitting here, trying to figure out "What's next?" A few finer points about what Prop. 8 will mean if it's passed (I refuse to say "when it's passed", putting my faith in the nearly 3 million absentee and provisional ballots).

The CA State Attorney General believes that Prop. 8 cannot be applied retroactively, although this is a matter for the CA Supreme Court to decide.

Unfortunately, I don't think that this can be challenged at the federal level, unless a strong case is made that it violates the US Constition (which hasn't been made yet the 23 previous times such a constitutional amendment has passed). It almost definitely will be challenged in front of the California Supreme Court.

posted by muddgirl 05 November | 13:09

I refuse to say "when it's passed", putting my faith in the nearly 3 million absentee and provisional ballots

You can go ahead and say 'when.' They called it about a half hour ago.

It almost definitely will be challenged in front of the California Supreme Court.

It seems to me that the challenge will be based on whether the existing marriages are retroactively annulled. If they aren't, the effect will be that some gay people can be married, and others can't.

I dunno. I'm tired of thinking about it. Just talked to the gf on the phone. She started ranting about how pissed she was and I finally said, "You know, I just can't have a conversation about this right now." Ugh.

Other states -- many others -- have passed constitutional amendments forbidding gay marriage. Those didn't bother me so much. This bothers me because for a couple months, I had the right. Then they took it away. If they hadn't given that to us -- which I certainly never expected -- it wouldn't feel so bad.

I'm just going to try to be happy about the good stuff that happened and not concentrate on this.

(Though I will admit that while I was at the bus stop this morning, I had a little meltdown. There was a Yes sign in the median across the street from the bus stop. It said "Prop 8 = Parental Rights." After fuming about it for a minute, I marched over there and kicked the sign out of the ground and into the street. The people at the bus stop kind of laughed at me, but it made me feel better. I mean, "parental rights"?? How fucked up is that?)

posted by mudpuppie 05 November | 13:33

"Prop 8 = Parental Rights."

This youtube of parents whose children were used in pro-8 ads against their permission was linked in the metafilter thread. Does anybody have more info on the ad? How is that legal?

posted by danostuporstar 05 November | 13:44

This makes me sad. I don't understand. I just don't.

posted by jrossi4r 05 November | 14:05

I'm afraid a Supreme Court decision would just trigger the movement for an anti-gay amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The US Constitution is really really hard to amend.

posted by Claudia_SF 05 November | 14:25

I've been mulling over the potential for a Supreme Court case as well. It's time--it's PAST time--for another Loving v. Virginia. I'm not sure, though, given the current composition of the Court, that it'd pass. All I can do is hope that that balance will change during the 4 (and I hope 8) years Obama has, and that the new court will be able to make this happen.

The U.S. Constitution IS really really hard to amend, but it's happened before on "moral" issues (#18) and it's been repealed before (#21).

posted by Fuzzbean 05 November | 14:51

I'm all for treating animals better, but how in hell do people vote for improving the situation for farm animals, while also voting to take way rights to HUMAN BEINGS?

Those two things aren't really related. For example, infamous Senators Bob Dole and Rick Santorum both sponsored different animal welfare laws while being complete shitheads about people who weren't heterosexual Christians. And anecdotally, I've met a lot of racist, homophobic, sexist people who would risk their lives to save an animal. People are complicated.

posted by cmonkey 05 November | 15:32

This has really put a downer on what should have been a wonderful day. I'm alternately angry and baffled. I mean, I can actually see why people vote for anti-choice law, even though I vehemently disagree with it, but I absolutely do not understand why anyone would vote against gay marriage. OTHER PEOPLE'S RELATIONSHIPS HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING ON YOUR OWN! argh.

posted by gaspode 05 November | 16:14

I meant that as a good thing -- if the US Constitution is construed to require marriage equality, people can't change it at the drop of a hat like they can here in California. But, you're rights, it's certainly possible.

posted by Claudia_SF 05 November | 17:35

That is fucked up.

posted by gomichild 05 November | 18:13

God, this sucks - I feel extra sorry for the couples about to get their second, unsolicited annulment notice.

posted by goo 05 November | 20:09

Blah, I hate this. My old home state. I've said it before, but I can't understand how this can happen there. But then, this is also the state that brought us Ronald Reagan.

posted by eekacat 05 November | 20:20

I believe marital equality is absolutely a civil right and I'm very disappointed in Prop 8 passing, but I believe this is only a setback on the road towards eventual equality. As Martin Luther King said, "the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice."

I believe banning gay marriage would violate the US Constitution's Equal Protection Clause and Supremacy Clause and the Supreme Court's decisions in Lawrence v. Texas and Loving v. Virginia.

Disclaimer: I'm an English major-turned-web developer with no legal experience other than jury duty.

posted by kirkaracha 05 November | 20:28

I'm really, really sad. I am still in denial and bargaining, I think. I haven't moved to anger. Though, there is a tiny part of me that is very angry that these people robbed the shiny off my election with their bigotry. I'm singing "We Shall Overcome" in my head over and over so I don't burst into tears at school.

posted by Luminous Phenomena 05 November | 20:46

I'm so sorry, guys. This just makes me ill.

They have no fucking right.

posted by loiseau 05 November | 23:31

04 November 2008