Finally weighing in...

[bovil]

Obama? Yay.

Democratic Senate gains? Yay.

Democratic house gains? Yay.

I'm going to send a letter, though, to my representative, my senators and the democratic leadership. Don't squander this chance. Don't make this into the first two years of the Carter administration. Don't make this into the first two years of the Clinton administration. Don't make this into the first two years of the second W administration (he had it his way in 2004-2006, or he should have). Come together. Work on reform. Work with the moderate Republicans; some of them have good ideas and might agree with you on some things. Drive legislation.

Prop 8? Not so yay. There's an estimated 3,000,000 uncounted mail-in and provisional ballots, though. There's still a slim chance that the proposition could be defeated if those ballots skew the right direction.

If you voted "yes" on Prop 8, you voted to end my marriage. I will not forgive that.

If you are crying in your beer about Prop 8's likely passage, and were eligible to vote in California but didn't vote against it, Prop 8's victory is your fault. I will not forgive that.

Comments

[madoc62.livejournal.com]

Andy & all,

Well, my "No On 8" is amongst those three million absentee ballots.

Also, there's this to consider:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_11_02-2008_11_08.shtml#1225923130

Basically, he advances the argument that the "Yes On 8" proposition is invalid on its face as it is actually and _AMENDMENT_ to the state's constitution and not a revision. Thus it is illegal per the state's constitution.

Drop on over there and check out his arguments in support of this view.

It might take a while to hammer through the courts but at least it's something to pursue.

Madoc

[bovil.livejournal.com]

Already knew about that.

There are several arguments that were brought before the courts when 8 qualified. The courts, doing what courts do, were loath to address the issue while Prop 8 wasn't settled, and at the time dismissed the suits, noting that they could be brought again should the measure pass.

I don't have a lot of faith that mail-in ballots are going to skew too differently from yesterday's returns. Still, the margin is tight and the uncounted ballots are many.

[rinolj.livejournal.com]

Yes, there's now an ACLU writ-petition (http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/37706prs20081105.html) before the CA Supreme Court to that effect. The press release is worth reading, primarily for paragraphs 2-4, which state in plain English why revising (as opposed to amending) the state constitution cannot and should not be done merely by passing an initiative on a bare majority vote.

It's an important point to get laymen, non-lawyers, to understand and see as being reasonable, else this will be portrayed as attempting to thwart democratic process.

(And sure, of course I voted "no".)

Also, time to get all those existing "traditional" marriages (including mine) tested to see if they're verifiably between "one man and one woman" according to some judge's criteria for what those words mean, nei? (Yeah, I know, ex post facto. However, I think we should insist on Prop. 8's criteria be applied to all new "traditional" marriages, good and hard.)

[rinolj.livejournal.com]

Just a brief correction: "ex post facto" is a valid objection to retroactive law on criminal matters, but not civil. So, unfortunately, existing CA gay marriages could be ruled nullified or converted to civil union, etc. (about which, see the Volokh discussion).

Anyway, as mentioned, for tactical reasons, I think it's vital that straight marriages be also tested against Prop. 8's criterion. Somehow, I suspect 10,000 or so "traditional" marriages getting nullified would have a salubrious political effect.