Many states have much tougher requirements that have to be met to change the state const.. CA needs to at least change its referendum process to require a certain percentage of voters to arrive at a certain conclusion, not just a simple majority.

Do you realize that gays in CA could lose their RIGHTS because of ONE individual!

If CA were some unimportant backwater, it’d be one thing, but to be the power house that it is, having such a system is absurd. You just wait. If Prop 8 wins, the right will lobby to change the referendum process right away. They can’t take the chances that another generation will simply overturn their beloved amendment with another one at another time.

You may have a point. But I wasn’t referring to gay people when I referred to the credibility of the Mormon church. The Mormons already lack that with gay people, I think especially after their “apostle”, Boyd K. Packer, said that gay people should tie boulders around their necks and throw themselves in a lake, rather than bring shame on their families.

However, I was referring to the general population of CA, who might think that church is a general force of good, when it really represents a racist, bigoted belief system in many ways. Also for example, it would be nice for people to know, the next time they see Mormons like Marie Osmond piss and moan about religious bigotry, exactly what a big hypocrite the Mormons are, for coming from such a racist/bigoted belief system themselves.

http://www.aaanet.org/press/an/0405if-comm4.htm

That ruling would have not allowed them to marry in every state — just like abortion rights was a state by state issue before Roe -v- Wade– but if would have forced each state to recognized that marriage. Instead the US Supreme Court went the Fourteenth Amendment route in Loving -v- Virginia which basically mandated interracial marriage must be performed in every state — not just recognized.

The Majority decision in Loving -v- Virginia is as follows:

“ Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”

Substitute sexual orientation for race and our case is made.

As far as DOMA is concerned, that is uncharted territory. The power of Congress to grant power to the states, as well as to the federal government, to opt out of recognition of legally binding contracts performed in individual states is an issue the US Supreme Court will have to ultimately decide as a separate issue.

I do agree with you that DOMA will probably come first, but its outcome will not be the final arbiter of same-sex marriage rights in the United States. SCOTUS can still come down on the side of Congress’s power to draft such a federal law as DOMA, but SCOTUS may also invoke the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equality Clause in allowing for equal protection and equal status and equal recognition for same-sex marriages which would, in effect, nullify DOMA. Just because Congress is given a favorable ruling by the US Supreme Court that allows it to enact laws, it does not logically follow that all laws drafted by Congress would be automatically constitutional.

Even known homophobe Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia lamented the potential of Lawrence -v- Texas as setting a precedence in the direction toward a constitution right of same-sex couples to marry — even though “Lawrence” was more narrowly defined, in the majority decision, using the “Liberty Clause” which, in turn, found the right to privacy implied in the Fourteenth Amendment.

Yes, Anthony Kennedy warned that Lawrence -v- Texas should not be considered a legal opening for same-sex marriage claims because of the narrow scope of the ruling — but the writing in on the wall. Justice O’Connor, in her written opinion striking down Sodomy laws nationwide, thought the Fourteenth Amendment should have literally applied, without qualifiers, in the Lawrence case. But Kennedy foresaw that individual states still could have retained Sodomy statues as long as the law applied equally to both heterosexuals and to homosexuals.

In other words, nothing would have changed much since the Sodomy laws would have, no doubt, been primarily enforced against homosexuals. Same-sex marriage could have never been a judicially mandated in every state because some state would still have been allowed to codified sodomy as a criminal act and homosexuals as a criminal class. Contrary wise, if heterosexuals refrained from such activity they would be allowed an intimate relationship and the right to a legal marriage.

Given the broader picture, Kennedy was wiser in his ruling, but his ruling primarily depended upon a limited implied right of privacy in the Fourteenth Amendment and it does not open the door any further to same-sex marriage. A strict interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment (such as in Loving -v- Virginia), by a future court, can only accomplish the purpose of striking down all impediments to marriage equality in this country for same-sex couples.

I don’t see that happening for a decade or two. But I believe that it will come to pass. Even if DOMA is upheld by the courts, a future marriage equality ruling, based on the Fourteenth Amendment, will nullify DOMA. It seems like a contradiction, but believe me it is not. Remember the court once upheld the sodomy laws in Bower -v- Hardwick only to reverse itself seventeen years later in Lawrence -v- Texas because the latter case singled out gay people specifically for discrimination.

The time will come when our right to marry the one we love will be honored too. Just like in Loving -v- Virginia, we will have our day in court. Wiser minds will prevail, and they will come to the inescapable conclusion that the disease of inequality must be eradicated wherever it festers in order to insure the communal health of a civilized nation.

~ Bud Evans

My church has gay and straight couples, young families, people of all ages and all races and all are welcomed and treated with respect. You comment is totally lacking in respect for those church like ours that feed the hungry, knits scarves for the homeless clients we feed. We make piles of sandwiches often for the nearby county homeless mens’ shelter. We take piles of toys and cookware to the county shelter for homeless women raising kids that houses the women and teaches them cooking, job and child rearing skills.

We are a diverse, caring and welcoming church with a gay organist, gay vestry memner, gay visiting Episcopal priest, we teach caring and compassion for those less fortunate and we take very seriously to contribute to several antinunger organizations and donate piles of food to the needy and we serve hot meals to the hungry and homeless at a church and county funded shelter that offers skills training and counseling.

Yes, I am a gay, liberal, Democrat in a very nice gay friendly Wpiscopal church in very diveres Montgomery County, MD suburh of DC.

To equate all churches with the Mormons is untrue and unfair. I will not allow Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses to rope me in. I don’t believe in their way of doing things.

CA may defeat this proposition, but the struggle doesn’t surprise me.

————-

You are kidding right? Gays are lining up in droves to support Obama, even though it’s been made perfectly clear that Obama willingly attended a church for twenty years that preached a hate filled ideology that accused White people of being evil and “creating AIDS” as a weapon to murder the African American Race! Obama willingly attended a church that used the fear of AIDS to justify thier own warped hatred against White people. And Obama also has a long history of befriending and SUPPORTING anti-gay, and “Ex-gay” bigots.

But, that doesn’t stop gullible gays from screaming their undying loyalty to Obama.

It’s pathetic, but all too true.

————

Sadly, the is only one reason we don’t have the support of the “best grassroots organization out there with hundreds of field offices and thousands of volunteers canvassing neighborhoods and spreading the message”, and that reason is OBAMA. OBAMA refuses to support our fight against Prop 8! Even worse, Obama has anti-gay marriage, Pro Prop 8 surrogates actually working for him on his “Faith Tours”. But Obama still expects everyone of us gays to forget about our struggle for equality, and just vote for him. NO THANK YOU. I DON’T SUPPORT ANTI-GAY BIGOTS!!!