11 responses

  1. Daniel Gonzales
    May 28, 2008

    Also expected to be on the ballot in CA this November is a 20 billion dollar high speed rail system. Nothing gets us young liberal urban elitist folk excited (and to the polls hopefully) like the dream of high speed rail transit. That same group also tends to come down overwhelmingly in favor of marriage equality. Hopefully we’ll see some synergy come November.

  2. werdna
    May 28, 2008

    Good news! If Arizona could defeat a gay marriage ban, I hope California can too.

    But… bad spelling! I caught “votors” and “marraige” (twice). Hopefully all of the numbers were correct.

  3. Timothy Kincaid
    May 28, 2008

    This may be an odd way to look at this poll, but I’m excited about the polling results of those who are in the opposing groups.

    According to this poll:

    24% of born again Christians
    11% of strongly conservative people
    25% of Republicans
    38% of residents of the Central Valley
    45% of Catholics

    all support marriage equality.

    “Common knowledge” says that ALL of these folks should oppose gay marriage. That sizeable minorities within these categories support gay marriage tells us a great deal about the future of gay issues as a wedge in politics.

    It’s exciting to see this poll. But considering the LA Times poll it’s hard to know what it means. I’ll cautiously celebrate but we must still work very hard to defeat this amendment.

  4. Jason D
    May 28, 2008

    Yeah, Californian’s don’t let this be like Bush vs Gore, don’t rest on your laurels and assume it’s a done deal.

    I don’t know if anyone can address this, but I’ve heard rumors that even if a ban passed, it would be nullified because :

    A) The Supreme Court ruling in some way nullfies or prohibits amending the CA constitution.

    –and or–

    B) The CA constitution cannot contradict itself. If it says “equality before the law” in one place, it can’t say “no marriage for gays” in another. Something similar to not being allowed to amend the US constitution to invalidate the Bill of Rights.

  5. cowboy
    May 28, 2008

    Affirmation (gay Mormons) has issued a press release asking the LDS Church stay out of California politics.

    Not likely to happen but I wonder if Californians will take kindly to Vatican West meddling with politics in another State. Oh…that’s right, Orange County is nearly all Mormon and all the Salt Lake connections to Disneyland can’t be ignored.

    At least Affirmation got a reaction in the news. The comments on ksl.com is blisteringly high and likely to melt their server.

  6. werdna
    May 28, 2008

    Amendements to the US Constitution can override existing amendments. That’s why we can drink alcohol legally again (cheers!). Is there any reason we couldn’t pass an amendment that would supercede one of the first 10? The “Bill of Rights” isn’t legally untouchable is it? It’s just politically and culturally hard to imagine changing those amendments because they are considered central to the American project.

    In the case of the California constitution, an amendment would certainly supercede a judicial ruling. The recent ruling said that the state can’t offer equivalent opposite-sex marriage and same-sex domestic partnerships, so it seems possible that the result of the amendment would be that nobody at all could get married in California, or that the state couldn’t offer same-sex domestic partnerships. I’ve actually been looking for some analysis of what the legal implications of the proposed amendment might be. It’s one of those things that seems simple (just adding one line to the constitution) but the implications could be far wider (and wilder).

  7. howller
    May 28, 2008

    Werdna: “I’ve actually been looking for some analysis of what the legal implications of the proposed amendment might be.”

    A good place to start would be Leonard Link

  8. Mark
    May 28, 2008


    Actually, drinking alcohol has never been illegal for adults in this country. Prohibition just outlawed the commercial manufacture, sale and distribution of alcohol. A few counties in some states still maintain prohibition.

  9. werdna
    May 29, 2008

    howller, thants for the link, very good stuff.

    Mark, yes fine, you’ve out niggled me. ;-)

    My point was just (in response to Jason D’s questions) that an amendment to a constitution (US or state) will supercede any existing part of the constitution with which it conflicts. Another example would be the 14th Amendment which (among other things) rescinded the “3/5 compromise” found in the main body of the US Constitution.

  10. Duncan
    May 29, 2008

    Parts of the constitution may grant rights that are opposed to each other (such as the right to information vs the right to privacy). The principle used by the Supreme Court in the USA (and followed in most other democracies) is that a law may restrict a constitutional right only by invoking another.
    But “marriage between gay and lesbian couples” surely means a gay couple marrying a lesbian couple. Shouldn’t it be “marriage between gay or lesbian partners” or “marriage for gay and lesbian couples”?

Leave a Reply




Back to top
mobile desktop