Sunday, May 18, 2008

Gay Marriage Ban DISSOLVED!

It is truly unbelievable -- and unexpected to this blogger. I was not expecting ANY movement on this issue until winter, when the California public is due to vote on amending our state constitution with a BAN on gay marriage.

[Could anything be more disgusting than wishing to amend our constitution in order to DENY a minority group of CITIZENS their human rights?!? Is this the 1800s? Are we not due the same damn rights as the straight citizens of California? Can a decent, loving, straight voter in this state REALLY stand in the voting booth and morally cast his vote to deny rights to me and my beloved friends...? If you can somehow justify doing this in your mind, all I can say is SHAME ON YOU.]

And yet, perhaps temporarily, those who wish will shortly be able to join their partner in marriage. If you are at all the marrying type, and you are in a committed, loving relationship -- by all means, MARRY!

If any one thing could keep this from being a short-lived blip on the radar screen, it is a large, vocal group being threatened with having their marriages revoked by the evil majority.

- T

p.s. If you have the stomach for this kind of bile, read an LA Times article describing the kind of hateful people we will be up against this November....


Chris said...

Speaking from a point of ignorance - don't you have something in your constitution? about all men being equal?
Plus isn't there a UN declaration of human rights saying the same that the US signed up to?
See the christians poking their noses in still.....

Oh just Ehu. said...

HEY! When I heard the news you came to mind and I was happy for your happiness... Not like I know your relationship status or anything. But at least you now have the option of marrying here in Cali! YAAAAAY!

Todd said...

Hey Chris -- Nice to see ya here on my blog!

Yeah, you'd think so, wouldn't you. BUT -- we're the country that put the phrase "all men are created equal" in our Declaration of Independence in 1776 (in response to the English Divine Right of Kings), and yet kept slavery legal until 1865. How about that for hypocrisy?! (England did a bit better on the abolition front -- slavery was abolished in 1833 in the British Empire.)

I think we just barely tolerate the UN because they're still headquartered here in the US. If they moved everything to Geneva, we'd probably drop out. (I hear we don't even keep up our membership dues!)

And as for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights -- have you heard of Guantanamo Bay, extraordinary rendition, Abu Ghraib, waterboarding, etc...?

(Really, though -- I'm a pretty upbeat person. I just usually blog about what bugs me!)

Todd said...

Hiya Ehu!

Nice to see you comment here, too!

Like I said in my post, I was shocked by the news that the ban was overturned by the Supreme Court here in CA. Weren't you? I didn't even know it was being discussed! (And I kinda keep up on these things, you know?!)

Nope, not in a place right now relationship-wise to take advantage of the marriage option myself.... Sometime, over Jamba Juice or a couple virgin piƱa coladas, I'll have to give ya the details!

Nonetheless, I was and continue to be happy about this -- for all my friends and fellow gays and lesbians who wish to join with their partners in marriage. YAAAAAY is right!

- T

Oh just Ehu. said...

Hmm, maybe we'll have to snag some virgin Pina Coladas since I've never had one before. The closest thing to it, that I have had, was just a 7-11 slurpee. I'm sure it probably doesn't compare. (Sorry, totally random!)

Anywho, yeah-that was quite a surprise that it was just all of a sudden in the news! Clearly out of left field!

As for my camera, no he hasn't replaced it. I'm thinkin' that he feels like he doesn't need to replace it either. We haven't talked since. What a punk!

chris said...

It's a pleasure being here! Might start a blog myself, not sure..

Pretty sure the US is the same as the UK and others....good in some respects, bad in others.

Civil partnerships instead of marriage here, exact same rights as a 'marriage' - just not the name....

Get a bit confused by the US way of things - federal law/state law

Looks like there's reason to be upbeat at the moment - will be interesting....

Oh just Ehu. said...

By the way, I love your photos from the Farmers Market! Oh, I love that place! I wish we had a Farmers Market like that here in SD.

Todd said...

Have you ever been? It's a great place, Ehu -- we had a really nice day up there. You have to go hungry -- there are so many food options.

Make a day of it and go to The Grove shopping center right next door. Movie theaters, shops, a book store.

I wish we had something like that here, too. Another excellent market is in Vancouver, BC. It's called Granville Island Market -- best I've ever been to!

Adam Michael Kratt said...

The recent California Constitutional Right to Marry case, according to my analysis, calls into question the currently proposed “Limit to Marry” Voter Initiative Constitutional Initiative. If Secretary of State Debra Bowen places it on the ballot, she would be wise to have the Legislative Analysts’ opinion consider the following cited cases and also discuss the issue with Attorney General Jerry Brown to inquire whether or not the proposed initiative can even be legally placed on the ballot.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Assembly member Mark Leno, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome, and Equality California Executive Director Geoff Kors, and one of the main attorneys on the winning side of the marriage case, David Codell would be wise to immediately contact Bowen and Brown to raise the issue of the legality of the proposed initiative so that the voters of California are properly informed that there may be a potential problem in enacting the initiative if it passes this November (assuming it qualifies for the ballot).

As noted in McFadden v. Jordan (1948) 32 Cal.2d 330, 333: “The initiative power reserved by the people by amendment to the Constitution in 1911 (art. IV, s 1) applies only to the proposing and the adopting or rejecting of ‘laws and amendments to the Constitution’ and does not purport to extend to a constitutional revision.”

The proposed initiative appears to now attempt to revise the California Constitution to remove the fundamental right to marry and equal protection that gays and lesbians are now afforded under the California Constitution.With that in mind, the Secretary of State must be aware of the following case:

Rippon v. Bowen (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1313:

Article XVIII of the California Constitution allows for amendment of the Constitution by the Legislature, or initiative and revision of the Constitution by the Legislature, or a constitutional convention. There is no other method for revising or amending the Constitution. (Livermore v. Waite (1894) 102 Cal. 113, 117, 36 P. 424 (Livermore).)