We need some kind of a system that allows votes from everyone, but increases the value (perhaps by letting you cast double the ballots) if you’ve received an actual education of some kind, as England had a long while back. Otherwise, we might as well get used to the brainwashed masses voting as though they’d like to see America become a theocracy.

Of course these religious bigots are the same people who claim the CourageCampaign’s Mormon home invasion ad was mean. Shut the fuck up, whiny little cunts. The fucking douche behind SaveCalifornia did say after all:

“Now the false marriages done this summer must be declared null and void.”

http://www.savecalifornia.com/.....ewsid=9924

The Mormon church has insulted people by preventing further marriage and they are indeed metaphorically trying to force themselves into LGBT people’s homes and shred their marriage licenses. The bastards are lying for their cause, and idiotic voters are buying into it, since they’re too fucking lazy to look up the legal differences between a civil union and a marriage license!

Would act any differently in the future? Is he even aware of the impact of his actions? Has he made any public acknowledgment of his error in judgment? If not, what’s to prevent Gavin from saying something horribly stupid and damaging in the future?

That SINGLE sound-bite has doomed all that everyone has worked for. Now the road forward is VERY difficult.

Without that electrifying sound bite that caused many a voter to cast a vote AGAINST the mayer, rather than for the ban, Prop 8 would have passed.

Here’s another question – do you belong to any “minority” groups – do you wear glasses, have a non-Christian relative, don’t like sports – better yet, don’t go to any church at all? Since you apparently believe in majority rule only,it is okay with you to start a referendum to exterminate whichever minority group you belong to, right? OOPS I’m asking you to think which probably isn’t possible for you!

And Moonstone – see your paragraph starting: ‘The question presented by this case is stark and simple….” Somewhere in there it says “in deference to the long and universal tradition..” [marriage has always been between a man and a woman]

This is flatly untrue, even in THIS country which is not yet 300 years old. Indian tribes had a man married to another man visit the White house even somewhere around 1904. Mi Wha I think was his name.

You’re free to believe what you like of course, and even promote it, but STOP LYING. The folks on this blog are way to smart for your shit.

Justice Baxter & Justice Chin

“So far, Congress and virtually every court to consider the issue, has rejected it. Nothing in our Constitution, express or explicit, compels the majority’s startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage – an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law – is no longer valid.”

“California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights this state can bestow.”

“The question presented by this case is simple and stark. It comes down to this: Even though California’s progressive laws, recently adopted through the democratic process, have pioneered the rights of same-sex partners to enter legal unions, do those laws nonetheless violate the California Constitution because at present, in deference to long and universal tradition, by aconvincing popular vote, and in accord with express national policy (see fns. 1, 2, ante), they reserve the label “marriage” for opposite-sex legal unions? I must conclude tht the answer is no.”

“… a bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves. Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority, the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from ordinary process of legislative consideration. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will.”

The majority has violated these principles. It simply does not have the right to erase, then recast the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice.”

The problem is that people don’t fully understand the nature of our democracy, and not that we have tended to become more representative over the years. Well, this is true except one exception– there shold be no way that anyone in any state can overturn rights by a simple majority like CA’s proposition system. My rights and those of others should not be subject to the whim of whether someone a) understands the ballot b) confuses their religious belief for what is a question of what the law should be and/or c) requires deception rather than fact based analysis to pass it.

As for the health insurance issue and the restaurant business – the PUBLIC doesn’t want to pay restaurant prices that will afford owners to give those kinds of benefits, so don’t put ALL the blame on the owners – anyone who regularly reads these posts know I seldom take the side of corporations, business or management.

You are stating the obvious that politicians have their own agenda – and you are right – but again, the PUBLIC hasn’t demanded taxpayer funded campaign laws so we get things like this. Remember Paul Tsongas? He told people 3 or 4 presidential cycles ago that we need to tax gasoline and support public transportation. How far did he get after that remark? Again, we get what we deserve a lot of the time.

In a society where only a small percentage of the population could read (not to mention vote), Jefferson’s privileging of press freedom wasn’t so much for the benefit of “Joe the Plumber” or “Joe SixPack.” It was, in fact, designed to make sure that the educated elite would remain well informed enough to rule effectively. He wasn’t thinking “free” in terms of FOX News and the National Inquirer saying whatever they want. He was thinking “free” more along the lines of law reviews and medical journals being able to publish without undue influence.

No, what we have today isn’t liberal democracy. It is a far more seductive and dangerous beast. We have Athenian direct democracy. That rudderless scourge that killed off Socrates on a whim and sent a fleet out to war – and recalled them – three times in one day. Sound like any failing country we know?

I agree with you, but the American public has been dumbed down over the last 30 years so they don’t even understand that we live in constitutional democracy that affords rights to the minority without regard to mob rule. I doubt many people here, including moonstone, have read the Federalist Papers or anything else about how our system is meant to work. Their version of democracy is simply majoritarian rule. Of course, the danger of that thinking (essentially a conservatie position) can be found here with Prop 8 and in theocratic societies such as some of those you might find like Iran. Again- how many people here even know why we balance the rights of the majority against those of the minority? Hell- how many even know that there is suppose to be a balance?

What people? The majority?

Yes, because we should always be willing to modify the constitution in a way that discriminates against more people + offers less “liberty + justice” based on what the majority votes. Keeping in mind that America is a constitutional republic, of course.

That, moonstone, is a load of shit. The Cali Supreme Court called it exactly right + that is the decision that should (+ if justice prevails, will) stand.

Is the U.S. Supreme Court to blame for the bombing of black churchs after it ended segregation?

That Churchill, Queerty’s resident bigot emeritus, thinks you are right should tell you the dark corner of history in which your thought processes now tread.

The danger is not in the thinking. The danger is in not knowin the history and the answer to the question you ask.

Or short anwer: If know what ever dared challenge the status quo, nothing changes. Ask the queens of Stonewall do they think it was a bad idea to fight back against hatred.

Yeah…right. I asked because I wondered: if you’re not gay, why are you posting on a gay-themed blog?

Sorry fella, me likey the girls. Your advances notwithstanding, I’m still voting yes on 8.

Just out of (bi-)curiousity(?), Francis, are you gay?

Thank you. I like badgers. A lot.

But I’m still voting ‘yes’ on 8.

Even now, he still has some conservative tendencies,especially when it comes to fiscal policy. He has been pretty merciless with the budget cuts. And he insists on having a balanced budget every year, despite strong opposition from the Green/Socialist wing of the Board of Supervisors.

Having said that, I believe Newsom when he says attending Bush’s SOTU in 2004 changed his attitudes towards social conservatism. Bush has that affect on people.

All in favor, say “aye”.

- Queerty’s readership, in unison, chants “aye” -