• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Governator: "We will maybe undo Prop. 8"

Blind_Io

Blind_Io

Exiled North of The Wall
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Location
The Land of Ice and Snow
Moto(s)
'00 VFR, '07 ST1300, '11 Multistrada 1200
Name
Dave
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/11/09/Calif_gov_We_will_maybe_undo_Prop_8/UPI-22871226279859/

SACRAMENTO, Nov. 9 (UPI) -- California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger Sunday said "we will ... maybe undo" a measure passed by voters Tuesday stripping same-sex couples of the right to marry.

Proposition 8 amends the state constitution to declare that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." It came in reaction to a state Supreme Court ruling that laws prohibiting same-sex marriage violated the state constitution.

In an appearance Sunday on CNN, Schwarzenegger said the state Supreme Court might overturn Proposition 8, the Los Angeles Times reported. He also said it is likely Proposition 8 will have no effect on the estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages already recorded in California.

"It's unfortunate, obviously, but it's not the end," Schwarzenegger told CNN. "I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area."

The comments seem to represent a change in Schwarzenegger's thinking, the Times said. In the past he has said he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, but he has also said the matter should be decided by voters or the courts and he opposed Proposition 8.

He told backers of same-sex marriage they "should never give up."

"They should be on it and on it until they get it done," he said.
Click to expand...
 
I voted no on prop 8 but wtf is the point of voting if the politician can just say well that didn't go as expected so we'll just 'un-do it.' Again, I'm not happy with the outcome but isn't the point of a democracy to vote on crap and then stick to that outcome until the next vote? This is the kind of stuff that doesn't instill confidence in voters.

If it shouldn't have even been on the ballot why didn't they figure that out before hand and all the money was spent trying to get people to vote no on this thing? Yet another example of how our representatives suck major donkey balls and why all politicians are assholes.
 
it will get overturned bc the wording is to "insert" language as Article 1 Section 7.5 where no previous such language exists.
this would create a Revision to the CA Constitution, not an Amendment, requiring a legislative vote.
Should this language be added, it comes into direct conflict with Article 1 Section 7 that no group shall be excluded from any privilege that others may enjoy. Its an all or nothing clause. I can't write a Proposition banning people who are 21 (legal age) but of Urouttayerfrackinheadistanian heritage from drinking. I don't like Urouttayerfrackinheadistanians, I would never visit their country, I don't speak their language, I don't even want them for neighbors but I can't single them out for exclusion from something other consenting adults are allowed to do.
 
weak_link said:
If it shouldn't have even been on the ballot why didn't they figure that out before hand and all the money was spent trying to get people to vote no on this thing? Yet another example of how our representatives suck major donkey balls and why all politicians are assholes.
Click to expand...

bc they were exercising their legal right to circulate a voter based initiative- and it is the responsibility of the judicial branch to answer any questions or problems that may arise from it.

someone in another 8 thread brought up mob rule and that a prop could be circulated to ban interracial marriage again. it could. and with the proper deposit of funds to the SoS and the right paperwork, plus the required qualifying signatures it would legally have to go on the ballot.

and if passed, would be immediately challenged and struck down.
 
aminalmutha said:
So, can they overturn 1A and 2 as well? I fucking hate props.
Click to expand...

How about 'the retards of the state voted for a bunch of shit we can't pay for so we're un-doing every prop that is going to cost money.'
 
im split with Prop 8....i believe in free choice (marriage) but damnit! i have to compete with other guys AND girls now?!

:p ahaha jk
all i gotta say is that this is going to be a on-going battle
 
Idontdotrix said:
bc they were exercising their legal right to circulate a voter based initiative- and it is the responsibility of the judicial branch to answer any questions or problems that may arise from it.

someone in another 8 thread brought up mob rule and that a prop could be circulated to ban interracial marriage again. it could. and with the proper deposit of funds to the SoS and the right paperwork, plus the required qualifying signatures it would legally have to go on the ballot.

and if passed, would be immediately challenged and struck down.
Click to expand...

It's funny, the will of the voters is fine and dandy when it goes your way, but when it doesn't you can just "undo it".

The voters of California have on more than one occasion voted against gay marriage. Why won't the politicians of San Francisco just won't let it go.
 
weak_link said:
I voted no on prop 8 but wtf is the point of voting if the politician can just say well that didn't go as expected so we'll just 'un-do it.' Again, I'm not happy with the outcome but isn't the point of a democracy to vote on crap and then stick to that outcome until the next vote? This is the kind of stuff that doesn't instill confidence in voters.

If it shouldn't have even been on the ballot why didn't they figure that out before hand and all the money was spent trying to get people to vote no on this thing? Yet another example of how our representatives suck major donkey balls and why all politicians are assholes.
Click to expand...

To answer your two questions:

The politician isn't saying he's going to "un-do it" - he said the state will un-do it if the COURTS SAY SO. He's currently the "head" of the state, so in effect, he will be supervising the actions, but he's not unilaterally deciding to reject the voters' decision. To leap to that conclusion is a little disturbing, and shows either a lack of reading comprehension, or simple reactionism.

Prop. 8 had nothing to do with the representatives or politians. It was put on the ballot, paid for, and completely backed by crazy church groups. Apparently, with $100K and some signatures, you can ANYTHING on the ballot even if it's uncontitutional or just a joke (see the SF measure to rename the waste plant the Geo. W. Bush waste plant). The only asshole politicians I saw were the ones who either supported Prop. 8 or didn't speak out about it at the top of their lungs for fear of seeming pro-gay, even though it was obvious that it was against the CA constitution.
 
Last edited:
Shotline said:
It's funny, the will of the voters is fine and dandy when it goes your way, but when it doesn't you can just "undo it".

The voters of California have on more than one occasion voted against gay marriage. Why won't the politicians of San Francisco just won't let it go.
Click to expand...
Now apply this logic to interracial marriage and see if it holds water.

Steve
 
MtnRacer said:
Now apply this logic to interracial marriage and see if it holds water.

Steve
Click to expand...

right wing nuts are against same sex because it is against what the bible teaches in certain interpretations. the bible makes no mention of different race marriage. if it did, we'd have the same problem. its not a matter of it being right or wrong, it about a LARGE group of people who oppose it.
 
Shotline said:
That ship has already sailed, this is a new boat coming into the harbor. If it is so "constitutional" then why haven't the courts allowed it?
Click to expand...
I missed the going away party then. I would think that there's a significant different in the ease of passing a law that is not popular but constitutionally legal, vs. passing a law that it popular, but not constitutionally legal. Either way, neither is going to be permanent law, which is the situation we have here with gay marriage.

But if you could humor me, seriously. What's the difference between voting in a ban on gay marriage, and voting in a ban on interracial marriage? I'm assuming you would feel that the interracial marriage ban would be struck down in the courts as unconstitutional, and rightly so. But why would it be the fault of "activist" judges when the same thing happens to a ban on gay marriages?

Steve
 
kingmoochr said:
right wing nuts are against same sex because it is against what the bible teaches in certain interpretations. the bible makes no mention of different race marriage. if it did, we'd have the same problem. its not a matter of it being right or wrong, it about a LARGE group of people who oppose it.
Click to expand...

Wow, you really believe that don't you. Go look at a map of the counties that voted for and against it.

The problem is that you think it is ok, and all your friends think it is ok and so you think everyone thinks its ok. You are so insulated from the rest of the country that you think anyone who doesn't think the way you do must be a hater, or a right wing nut, or a religious extremist or just plain dumb.:rolleyes
 
MtnRacer said:
I missed the going away party then. I would think that there's a significant different in the ease of passing a law that is not popular but constitutionally legal, vs. passing a law that it popular, but not constitutionally legal. Either way, neither is going to be permanent law, which is the situation we have here with gay marriage.

But if you could humor me, seriously. What's the difference between voting in a ban on gay marriage, and voting in a ban on interracial marriage? I'm assuming you would feel that the interracial marriage ban would be struck down in the courts as unconstitutional, and rightly so. But why would it be the fault of "activist" judges when the same thing happens to a ban on gay marriages?

Steve
Click to expand...

I would ask the black voters that voted yes on 8 by over a 2 to 1 margin. I seriously would have thought black voters would have been more lopsided to the no side, Christian or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top