POL: California Prop 8

[sabotai]

Well I think it was up at 57% yes, but it has been steadily decling as more numbers come in so it's not over by a long shot (Unfortunately, it is for Arizona and probably Florida).

[MrBug708]

If it can't pass in California, will it ever be a national issue?

[DaddyTorgo]

San Fran + Bay Area are yet to report apparently - that should help drive it down

[JediKooter]

If it passes, I see a lawsuit on this in the near future.

As DT said, I don't think the Bay Area has been counted yet.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

If it can't pass in California, will it ever be a national issue?

Assuming wikipedia has an accurate count, I'd say that it remains a national issue regardless of what happens this week in California.

In contrast, twenty-six states have constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage, confining civil marriage to a legal union between a man and a woman. Forty-three states have statutes restricting marriage to two persons of the opposite sex, including some of those that have created legal recognition for same-sex unions under a name other than "marriage."

So the number of states restricting "marriage" to the opposite sex is well beyond the threshold for a Constitutional amendment, and the number who have amended their own constitutions to do so appears to be moving closer to the same.

So yeah, from the standpoint of could it pass, it appears definitely a national issue regardless of what California does with it. A much more practical question would be how to get it through Congress & back to the states for ratification.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

San Fran + Bay Area are yet to report apparently - that should help drive it down

Yeah, noticed Pelosi overcame the Sheehan, with nary a ballot counted. I guess Cynthia McKinney will not be at Sheehan's victory party this evening. Too bad.

[sabotai]

It's at 52.5%, and according to the LA Times, 98% of the SF County have reported. San Mateo county 78% reported. The other side of the bay is still in the 20-30% reported.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sabotai

It's at 52.5%, and according to the LA Times, 98% of the SF County have reported. San Mateo county 78% reported. The other side of the bay is still in the 20-30% reported.

You may have already seen it, but if you drill down in the menus far enough, cnn.com map has county by county results (on mouseover) including vote totals & percent reporting.

I'm not familiar with how the counties & such breakdown in Cali but just scrolling over it, it looked like the Yes vote total could be in line for a boost from the LA area where it was running high 50's Yes and just under half the vote was counted so far.

[Karlifornia]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

If it can't pass in California, will it ever be a national issue?

Oh, yes it will. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that this will be a battle for a good long while, eventually ending up with gays rightfully getting the right to marry countrywide.

It's gonna take some time, that's for sure. We may all be dead by that time, but I have zero doubt in my mind that gay marriage will become the rule in America. Just like civil rights for blacks and women were wars of attrition, this fight will take the scenic route. I'm thinking two generations from now is when these votes will start to tilt towards lifting the bans. I was hoping this would be sped up, to free up time for people to think about issues that actually bear negative consequences, but my beloved state is not there yet.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

Oh, yes it will. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that this will be a battle for a good long while, eventually ending up with gays rightfully getting the right to marry countrywide.

It's gonna take some time, that's for sure. We may all be dead by that time, but I have zero doubt in my mind that gay marriage will become the rule in America. Just like civil rights for blacks and women were wars of attrition, this fight will take the scenic route. I'm thinking two generations from now is when these votes will start to tilt towards lifting the bans. I was hoping this would be sped up, to free up time for people to think about issues that actually bear negative consequences, but my beloved state is not there yet.

I'm sure a judge will overturn this vote anyway, so I wouldn't get all worked up about it.

[miked]

Once the old bigots die off, these things will be repealed. Also, Arkansas decided to ban gay couples from adopting children, because apparently only straight people can raise more bigots and the kids may catch teh gheys from their parents.

Interestingly, Washington voted to allow doctor-assisted suicide and Michigan voted yes on both initiatives. I wonder if the will of the people should be followed there.

[Sun Tzu]

Not looking good here. Equality took a major step forward, and backward in the same day.

[JediKooter]

Welcome to Seperate but Equal version 2008.

Restating what I said before: I think since the anti gay marriage people don't want to share the proverbial ball, then California needs to void any and all marriages and only recognize civil unions. That way, no one can complain.

I hope there will be a judge with common sense and see this as nothing BUT discrimination and over turn it. Just because the majority of people voted Yes for it, doesn't make it any less discriminatory.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I'm sure a judge will overturn this vote anyway, so I wouldn't get all worked up about it.

Waaaaaaaaa! Activist judges ruin everything!!!

[JPhillips]

It's very disappointing that neither Ahnold or Obama took any risks on this.

[DanGarion]

It's sad.

[Kodos]

At least the proposition to amend the constitution in Connecticut (and ban gay marriage) failed by a healthy margin.

[Tekneek]

It is disturbing that, given the history of the treatment of minority groups in this nation, that members of any minority group would come out in support of something like this. It can only be from complete ignorance of how the same arguments and positions were once used to deny them equal standing under the law. That is a very sad place to be.

In my opinion, the legal rights gained from a marriage are a civil rights matter (not a religious issue), and civil rights really shouldn't be up for a vote. If it were left up to much of the southeast, you can bet that there would still be segregation throughout South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and so on. We've been there and done that. Jim Crow was shown the door. Now it is time to take down the 21st century version that has targeted a new minority.

[JediKooter]

Well said Tekneek.

This constitutional amendment doesn't even pass the sniff test: Replace gay with any other group of people and what does it sound like? Discrimination? Yes indeed.

[Glengoyne]

I've got mixed feelings about this.

First off I'm against the banning of gay marriage. I believe that the state should stay the hell out of the business of drawing distinctions between its residents.

On the other hand, the original bill banning gay marriage passed, although I voted against it. I didn't like it, but I accepted it as "the law of the land".

Then, a mayor comes along and snubs the law with the goal of qualifying some residents as plaintiffs in a lawsuit to eventually overturn the law. Then a group of judges steps in and overturns the existing law. I didn't agree with the law, but I don't particularly like the way this was dealt with, either by Gavin Newsome(sp?) or by the courts.

So, I'm disappointed that we've forced the state to draw distinctions between residents based on things that government should be agnostic to...yet I'm happy to see that the public has been heard out over those who sought to overturn a valid, if bad, law.

[Glengoyne]

Oh I forgot to add that, due to my mixed feelings on this, I'm much more upset that our stupid proposition that requires that farm animals be given "freedom to move about" passed. People are stupid.

As if the economy wasn't being challenged enough, lets throw a feel good law at an industry that just about every american is a consumer of. You can't reasonably own a farm in CA right now. All of those chickens and turkeys are going to be moving out of state. Good for other poultry producing states, bad for the industry and the people of CA, essentially bad for the public in general as this will at least in the relatively short term affect prices nationwide. Most ridiculous landslide ever!

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Oh I forgot to add that, due to my mixed feelings on this, I'm much more upset that our stupid proposition that requires that farm animals be given "freedom to move about" passed. People are stupid.

As if the economy wasn't being challenged enough, lets throw a feel good law at an industry that just about every american is a consumer of. You can't reasonably own a farm in CA right now. All of those chickens and turkeys are going to be moving out of state. Good for other poultry producing states, bad for the industry and the people of CA, essentially bad for the public in general as this will at least in the relatively short term affect prices nationwide. Most ridiculous landslide ever!

Of course we are talking about the same industry that was recently caught colluding on the price of eggs in California....

[fantom1979]

Sorry to go off topic here, but I was wondering if anyone in California could post the results of Prop 1. I can't seem to find the results on MSNBC or CNN

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by fantom1979

Sorry to go off topic here, but I was wondering if anyone in California could post the results of Prop 1. I can't seem to find the results on MSNBC or CNN

It looks to have passed!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by fantom1979

Sorry to go off topic here, but I was wondering if anyone in California could post the results of Prop 1. I can't seem to find the results on MSNBC or CNN

Election Results - November 4, 2008 - California Secretary Of State
99.5% ( 25,314 of 25,423 ) precincts partially
or fully reporting as of Nov. 5, 2008, at 2:07 p.m.

1A - Safe, Reliable High-Speed Train Bond Act
YES: 5,053,258 52.2%
NO: 4,640,775 47.8%

[fantom1979]

thanks

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's very disappointing that neither Ahnold or Obama took any risks on this.

I saw ET, or something reporting Arnold as saying he was against Prop. 8.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Matthean

I saw ET, or something reporting Arnold as saying he was against Prop. 8.

Arnold came out in the last week or two in opposition of Prop 8.

[Alan T]

What is the High Speed train bond supposed to be about just out of curiosity? My in-laws live in California and I at least visit once or twice a year.

[JediKooter]

To continue the off topic theme for a second: I voted Yes on Prop 1. No on Prop 2. Yes on 3. No on 4. No on 5. No on 6. No on 7. No on 8. Yes on 9. No on 10. Yes on 11. Yes on 12.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Alan T

What is the High Speed train bond supposed to be about just out of curiosity? My in-laws live in California and I at least visit once or twice a year.

9 Billion in funding to start a high speed rail system between San Fran and LA. Of course additional funding will be provided by the Fed.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

9 Billion in funding to start a high speed rail system between San Fran and LA. Of course additional funding will be provided by the Fed.

Is it planned to be an express train with no stops, or would it make stops along the way (such as San Mateo, San Jose, etc)?

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Alan T

What is the High Speed train bond supposed to be about just out of curiosity? My in-laws live in California and I at least visit once or twice a year.

Here's a link to the Pro Prop 1A backers: Yes on 1A - Californians for High Speed Trains

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Here's a link to the Pro Prop 1A backers: Yes on 1A - Californians for High Speed Trains

Thanks for the info. Looks pretty neat, but that is alot of money!

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Alan T

Thanks for the info. Looks pretty neat, but that is alot of money!

Hopefully the little part I said matches what they are saying. But it would be pretty neat, I'd love to be able to take a trip to San Fran in 2 1/2 hours.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Alan T

Thanks for the info. Looks pretty neat, but that is alot of money!

No problem. Yes, a lot of money and I debated it with myself thinking that the money could go towards schools, but, I like the idea of the job creation potential and it will get me off of the teat of the airlines for long distance travel within California.

[Sun Tzu]

No On 8, Don't Eliminate Marriage For Anyone shows Obama as well as Arnold saying they are/were against Prop 8.

[DanGarion]

Also this would lead to a high speed rail system to Las Vegas!

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

Also this would lead to a high speed rail system to Las Vegas!

Oh heck yea!!

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

No On 8, Don't Eliminate Marriage For Anyone shows Obama as well as Arnold saying they are/were against Prop 8.

Well, hopefully with their encouragement, Prop 8 will be overturned.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Matthean

I saw ET, or something reporting Arnold as saying he was against Prop. 8.

They both said they were against it, but neither did much of anything. Obama in particular could have spoken up to African Americans more during the last week.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

They both said they were against it, but neither did much of anything. Obama in particular could have spoken up to African Americans more during the last week.

But that may have affected his presidential race...

[fantom1979]

Originally Posted by Alan T

Thanks for the info. Looks pretty neat, but that is alot of money!

I am very hopeful that this project will be successful. I would love to see "bullet trains" connecting the major cities in the US.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by fantom1979

I am very hopeful that this project will be successful. I would love to see "bullet trains" connecting the major cities in the US.

How is California going to pay for this? Aren't they like billions and billions short right now? Wouldn't investing in creating a city-wide transportation system (trains/subways/more highways) for LA and the Bay Area provide a better use of money?

[Galaxy]

I see that protests broke out yesterday.

[jeheinz72]

I'm sure this will win me even more fanfare in this thread, but yeah, I voted no on 1A.

I mean I like the idea and all that, kinda...but it just seems destined to be a gigantic money-sink. I can completely see them getting 3-4 years into this project only to realize that with all of the environmental and property laws there is really no shot for it to actually happen.

And research like that is beneficial to a point and in the right economic state. Given our schools, our actual roads and our inability to budget what we have now, this seems like it should've been much much lower on the priority scale.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

I'm sure this will win me even more fanfare in this thread, but yeah, I voted no on 1A.

I mean I like the idea and all that, kinda...but it just seems destined to be a gigantic money-sink. I can completely see them getting 3-4 years into this project only to realize that with all of the environmental and property laws there is really no shot for it to actually happen.

And research like that is beneficial to a point and in the right economic state. Given our schools, our actual roads and our inability to budget what we have now, this seems like it should've been much much lower on the priority scale.

I don't think your voting no on this one is as controversial. I think it sounds like a neat idea too but I have no idea what the state of the California economy is currently. If you all have the money to sink into this and are doing well fiscally elsewhere then it is just a case of asking whether this much money is going to improve things more than sinking that same amount of money into other things such as education, research or whatever.

If the budget out there is already hurting though, then this seems like something that would be better to cut than education or public services that are worthwhile.

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I don't think your voting no on this one is as controversial. I think it sounds like a neat idea too but I have no idea what the state of the California economy is currently. If you all have the money to sink into this and are doing well fiscally elsewhere then it is just a case of asking whether this much money is going to improve things more than sinking that same amount of money into other things such as education, research or whatever.

If the budget out there is already hurting though, then this seems like something that would be better to cut than education or public services that are worthwhile.

Yeah, CA's economy ain't so hot right now. The budget was really really late and wrong, if I'm understanding it correctly. Just seems like a great idea with poor timing to me.

And nice San Mateo shout-out Alan earlier (as I sit, in San Mateo).

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

Yeah, CA's economy ain't so hot right now. The budget was really really late and wrong, if I'm understanding it correctly. Just seems like a great idea with poor timing to me.

And nice San Mateo shout-out Alan earlier (as I sit, in San Mateo).

My wife used to teach there for about 5 years back in the first part of this decade. I only know the area barely though.

[heybrad]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

I'm sure this will win me even more fanfare in this thread, but yeah, I voted no on 1A.

I mean I like the idea and all that, kinda...but it just seems destined to be a gigantic money-sink. I can completely see them getting 3-4 years into this project only to realize that with all of the environmental and property laws there is really no shot for it to actually happen.

And research like that is beneficial to a point and in the right economic state. Given our schools, our actual roads and our inability to budget what we have now, this seems like it should've been much much lower on the priority scale.

I voted against this as well. We can hardly balance the budget in California as is, so while this sounds really cool, we don't have the money.

[JediKooter]

If I remember correctly about 1A, is if the money isn't there, they won't use deficit spending to build it, so it won't get built. I seem to remember a provision in it that the money has to be there first before they start on it.

I don't have my voter book with me, so I'm not 100% sure if I am correct.