We were really hoping not to have to report this, but we’re powerless. Sorry.
California’s Secretary of State Debra Bowen yesterday approved four measures for this November’s ballot, including a reversal of last month’s gay marriage ruling:
California voters will have a chance to overturn the recent state Supreme Court decision to legalize gay marriage just five months from now, as the secretary of state certified a measure to define marriage as “between a man and a woman” for the November ballot.
Proponents of the measure submitted more than 1.1 million signatures to qualify for the general election ballot. A random sampling by the secretary of state’s office determined they had collected more than the 694,354 valid signatures needed.
Gay rights activists have already started revving up for a battle to the finish. For now, gay folk can still marry between June 17 and the November election. Unless, of course, the Supreme Court stays its decision, in which case we’ll be back where we began.
fredo777
I could throw up. Seriously.
Somebody in the Cali area, please scratch that *:(*^’s eyes out. Thanks.
CitizenGeek
Ah, this is really bad. So much work to get gay marriage is now gone to waste. There will be a high turnout of black and Latino voters this November, because they’ll be voting for Barack Obama, and those groups are typically homophobic. Plus, the bigots that call themselves Christians will be shouting loudest to get the ban put back in place.
On the other hand, the HRC has given $500,000 to fight against the ban, plus there might be a high turnout of young people, because of Obama again, which could benefit the pro-marriage vote. Still, it’s looking bleak 🙁
Mike
Well, I refuse to let them take this away. If they want to fight, BRING IT! Nothing worth having has ever been received easily. As a black man, I know for a fact, if the Loving case had been placed on the ballot, I would not be able to marry anyone outside of my race to this day. Why is this country allowing the people and not the courts to determine my right to marry as a gay man? The judges are appointed because of their knowledge of the law. If these republican appointed justices could look beyond their personal viewpoints and look at the LAW and come to the conclusion that exclusion is unlawful. Why should the people come along with their homophobic biases and determine my rights underneath the law? I will never understand, BUT I will never give up without a fight.
Paul Raposo
I wonder if all the rightwingers who hate illegal immigrants, will be praying that they turn out to illegally vote against equal marriage?
Woof
CA was able to pass 187 by a landslide, doesn’t look good for us.
Charley
The polls say differently, that the majority of California voters are for gender neutral aka same-sex marriages, including the Gov.
Donate to http://www.equalityforall.com. This is the initiative HRC gave 500 K to. A contribution to Equality For All’s campaign fund will go directly to efforts to defeat this potentially devastating attack on our community.
emb
Can we start organizing to push for state constitutional amendments to prohibit rightwing religious nutcases from marrying? They are clearly abominations.
Anon
If the amendment passes, how soon can a repeal go on the ballot? Does anyone know?
Jaroslaw
There was a two page article on the decision here in our Gay paper in Michigan. I don’t recall the precise language but I thought the California Supreme Court decision also included “Marriage is so fundamental to a person’s core being, we are not inclined to allow this issue to be decided by the legislature or by initiative through the electorate.” (the latter meaning the ballot proprosal).
There was also something about if the ballot initiative passes, then the Supremes promised to review any law or policy that provides disparate treatment. I got the feeling this means if a university or school district provides health insurance to (straight) married couples, they couldn’t then turn around and deny them to “Gay” married couples – they would have to stop giving insurance to everyone.
If I don’t have the right understanding, I’m sure the great legal minds on the site will set me straight 🙂
Anon
Jaroslaw, I raised this question at Towleroad too: is a constitutional amendment the same thing as a statutory initiative?
hells kitchen guy
I think people SHOULD have the chance to vote on it. I’m hopeful that Californians will have sense and vote it down. Hate on me if you want, but this is a democracy last time I checked.
fredo777
HKG, this is not a democracy. It’s a constitutional republic. Check again.
Don'tCareAsLongAsItIsADemocrat
Hells Kitchen Guy: In an ideal world that would be great, but often times it takes a supreme court decision to make something legal so that as a few years go by people realize that it wasn’t a bad idea. Desegregation is a classic example. A lot of the people would have voted against brown v board of education and other Warren court decisions, but a few years later, a majority of the people realized that it was the right direction for the country.
Geek-ish
Fredo777 is right. We’re living in a republic. And unlike a direct democracy, there is no inherent right to vote away the minority’s rights in a republic.
Jaroslaw
To ANON post #8 – Amending the (State) constitution is a process that surely varies from State to State.
I assume it can be amended by legislation (2/3 majority usually) or by ballot proposal.
When you say statutory intitiative I assume you mean something where signatures are collected and then voted on by the public; which would mean the same thing as ballot proposal.
I want to know what happens IF the ballot proposal succeeds what the California Supreme court is going to do about it since they have already indicated marriage is fundamental and can’t (or did they really mean shouldn’t) be voted away.
CHURCHILL-Y
Well say bye bye to the right to marry in California. No. 2 · CitizenGeek , you nailed it.
Saddly one of the ‘benefits’ of having Barack Hussein.
hells kitchen guy
13, 14, 15: of course you’re right. BUT California has direct democracy via referendum. If you don’t like it, change the state constitution to disallow referenda like these. Until you do, this is direct democracy within the framework of a republic, so we’ll just have to deal with it.
JPinWeHo
Let’s give Californians more credit. There is a significant difference between voting to *prevent* gay couples from marrying as they did with Prop 187, and dissolving gay marriages that have already happened.
Assuming that a stay does not occur (which I don’t believe will happen – the CA supreme court would have to decide to suspend constitutional rights it has found “fundamental” merely because there is a chance such rights might be revoked – that’s a hard argument to swallow given the strong language of the marriage decision) thousands of couples are going to get married in California. Celebrities (i.e. Ellen) will tie the knot and serve as spokespersons against the amendment – I can already imagine the Ellen ad. Californians always support their celebrities – just look at the Governor.
A lot has happened since 187…gays are on television, actors have come out, Massachusetts happened, people are more accepting of the LGB (and possibly T) community. I’m hoping that things have changed enough that support for this amendment will dry up.
Even if we aren’t successful, there is no reason we can’t bring our own Constitutional amendment initiative in a few years reauthorizing gay marriage – by then (given current trends) the support for gay marriage and rights in general should be considerable stronger. It worked with the repeal of Prohibition!
hells kitchen guy
^^^ agreed. if it does get voted down, that’s a major victory for our side and a sign that the tide is turning. I resent people acting like voting on something is a bad thing.Yes, people would have voted down brown vs. board of ed. so what? it woudl have proved an embarrassment. all historians agree slavery would have ended w/in 10 years of the civil war anyway. ya know?
Daniel
Yes, I am sure slaves would have jumped for joy waiting 10 more years in an unbearable murderous oppression. Great logic…
fredo777
Daniel, I was going to hold my tongue on this one, but I had to do a double-take upon reading that, too.
Mykel
What we’re told here in Sacramento is that should the ballot initiative “trump” the court’s decision and rescinds our right to marry, then the court can take no further action. They can only interperet the state’s constitution – they cannot override it.
fredo777
I’m hoping this link doesn’t get removed (+ I’m hoping it won’t b/c the poll was advertised on a page of this very site). Take this poll about where you stand on gay marriage:
http://surveyg2.pollingpoint.com/vM5H1179YcgmyS
I just did + it was pretty quick.
michael
All of us that are gay need to keep talking about this and send as much positivity to California as we can. Despite it all, I still think love and truth prevails, we may or may not win this battle but we have to approach it as if we will. I don’t think things are quite the same as they were a few years back. Our neighbor to the North has gay marriage, Bush as all but ruined the credibility of the Republican party and the right wing evangelicals look crazier and crazier every day. I think a lot of people are tired of the hatred and fear and we just may prevail because of it.
fredo777
How long would you have to be a citizen of Cali. before you could vote in the upcoming general election?
The Great Gay Migration of ’08.
Hmmm…
Jaroslaw
great idea Fredo 777 but it would a few months at least and do you know how expensive the standard of living is in California? I love to visit, but a week there wipes out my vacation budget! a DEAL on a hotel is $110!
fredo777
I knew it was a far-fetched idea (partially b/c of the cost of living there), but I just considered the impact if California saw a huge boost in its gay population, hundreds (or thousands) willing to vote against this nonsense amendment.
We could always slum it. You know the gays have a way of bettering the less-than-savory areas, anyway. Just the wild imaginings of an optimistic kid, but it’s good to think unconventionally. ; )