PSA~InvalidateProp8

[Uncle Remus]

Thought I'd pass this on:

Send a message to the Mormon Church, whose members raised more than $15 million to fund the deceitful advertising campaign for Proposition 8, the initiative that takes away the right to marry for same sex couples in California!

Make a donation, in the name of the president of the Mormon Church, to support the legal organizations working to invalidate Proposition 8 and to fund grass-roots activities in support of full marriage equality. For every donation of $5 or more, the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center will send the following postcard to President Thomas Monson’s office in Salt Lake City, acknowledging your donation in his name:

Dear President Monson:

A donation has been made in your name by _________________ to “invalidateprop8.org” to overturn California's Proposition 8 and restore fundamental civil rights to all citizens of California. The money will be donated to legal organizations fighting the case and to support grass-roots activities in support of full marriage equality. Although we decry the reprehensible role the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints leadership played in denying all Californians equal rights under the law, we are pleased a donation has been made on your behalf in the effort to overturn the discrimination your church members helped enshrine in the California Constitution. Given that throughout its history the Mormon Church has been subjected to bigotry, we hope you appreciate the donation in your name to fight religious bigotry here in California.

Let’s work to overturn Prop. 8 while sending a message to the Mormon Church that it’s wrong for any organization to exert political influence to deny the civil rights of any group!

invalidateprop8.org

 

[Island_Lauri]

Let’s work to overturn Prop. 8 while sending a message to the Mormon Church that it’s wrong for any organization to exert political influence to deny the civil rights of any group!

 

[Mr Man]

Yes, let's work to overthrow the results of millions of votes.....because we don't like the results........where have I heard this before?




Democracy, she sure do take a bite now and then!

 

["Got Disney"]

They are suing the church/churches for them being involved in politics and taking donations....they are on our local news showing the marches and wanting it over turned.

I hope the Federal court overturns Prop 8.....again....however the voice of the people have been heard and over turning votes is wrong....and I would not like it. who's to say my vote is right and there's is wrong

Obama got by 52% of the vote....should we say we dont like that so the votes dont count....
Where do we draw the line.

 

[smartestnumber5]

Yes, let's work to overthrow the results of millions of votes.....because we don't like the results........where have I heard this before?

So if YOU'RE marriage was likely to be invalidated, I guess you'd be sitting around doing nothing?

 

["Got Disney"]

So if YOU'RE marriage was likely to be invalidated, I guess you'd be sitting around doing nothing?

the ones that were married all ready under the last law still remains as such...they are still married....

 

[smartestnumber5]

[QUOTE="Got Disney";28585263]the ones that were married all ready under the last law still remains as such...they are still married.... [/QUOTE]

For now.

But some legal scholars are predicting those marriages will end up being invalidated (since that will be the next thing on the agenda of the people behind prop 8).

 

[Lib E]

Done! Thanks for the link!

www.invalidateprop8.org

 

[Mr Man]

So if YOU'RE marriage was likely to be invalidated, I guess you'd be sitting around doing nothing?

Not at all.

I simply wouldn't be spending my time suing everyone in sight over it. Either we respect the ballot box or we don't.

We have had a few discussions on gay parent rights in the past I recall. I can say that I personally have never voted in favor of this kind of restrictive legislation, but I think there are better ways......like continuing to work through the system while talking to people who don't completely understand that there are real limitations for committed gay couples because they are not recognized as married in the eyes of the law.

JMO

 

[gate_pourri]

What is the point of an election, if we can sue and overturn the results we don't like? This is just another nail in the Democracy coffin! I fear for our country...

 

[Holly]

What is the point of an election, if we can sue and overturn the results we don't like? This is just another nail in the Democracy coffin! I fear for our country...

You didn't fear for democracy when the rights of American citizens were taken away, but you fear for it once those citizens try and change the decision?


I don't understand.

 

[smartestnumber5]

[QUOTE="Got Disney";28585176]

I hope the Federal court overturns Prop 8.....again....however the voice of the people have been heard and over turning votes is wrong....and I would not like it. who's to say my vote is right and there's is wrong

Obama got by 52% of the vote....should we say we dont like that so the votes dont count....
Where do we draw the line.[/QUOTE]

As far as I understand the lawsuits make a very specific legal argument--they don't just say "let's overturn prop 8 because we don't like it."

Their argument is that prop 8 didn't just add an amendment to the constitution, but revised an amendment that was already there (the equal protection clause which the court already ruled required treating straight and gay couples equally with regard to marriage). *Revising* an amendment (as opposed to passing a new one) is not something which can be done merely by getting 50% of the vote--it requires approval by the legislature first.

Indeed, given that precedent which says that it would violate equal protection to allow straight but not gay couples to marry, the prop seems to directly contradict what the equal protection clause has been understood to mean.

GF and I were trying to figure out what happens when two constitutional amendments clearly conflict. For instance, the constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Well what if congress and the states pass an amendment which says "The official state religion of the U.S. is Christianity. Citizens are forbidden from practicing any other religion." Surely the constitution couldn't be allowed to have two obviously contradictory amendments like that, right? We were trying to figure out what would happen in a case like that.

 

[gate_pourri]

You didn't fear for democracy when the rights of American citizens were taken away, but you fear for it once those citizens try and change the decision?


I don't understand.

If the will of the people can be overturned, then yes.... I fear for our Democracy. The core of Democracy is following the will of the people.

 

[Guy Incognito]

What is the point of an election, if we can sue and overturn the results we don't like? This is just another nail in the Democracy coffin! I fear for our country...

what we should fear more is the whims of the majority being used to deny rights to the minority..... it's a delicate balance that's not always easy to manage.....

On the surface, the principles of majority rule and the protection of individual and minority rights would seem contradictory. In fact, however, these principles are twin pillars holding up the very foundation of what we mean by democratic government

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/principles/majority.htm

 

[Mr Man]

As far as I understand the lawsuits make a very specific legal argument--they don't just say "let's overturn prop 8 because we don't like it."

Their argument is that prop 8 didn't just add an amendment to the constitution, but revised an amendment that was already there (the equal protection clause which the court already ruled required treating straight and gay couples equally with regard to marriage). *Revising* an amendment (as opposed to passing a new one) is not something which can be done merely by getting 50% of the vote--it requires approval by the legislature first.

Indeed, given that precedent which says that it would violate equal protection to allow straight but not gay couples to marry, the prop seems to directly contradict what the equal protection clause has been understood to mean.

GF and I were trying to figure out what happens when two constitutional amendments clearly conflict. For instance, the constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Well what if congress and the states pass an amendment which says "The official state religion of the U.S. is Christianity. Citizens are forbidden from practicing any other religion." Surely the constitution couldn't be allowed to have two obviously contradictory amendments like that, right? We were trying to figure out what would happen in a case like that.

Court of Law is where it belongs, agreed. But, not against organizations you do not agree with. That is my beef with the OP. I perceive it as intimidation.

Just imagine the indignation that would erupt if I advocated overturning the results of the 2008 Presidential Election and circulated a petition to support our lawsuit against ACORN, DNC & (oh something crazy) Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream hehe for their part in putting President-elect Obama over the top......

Now just imagine all that free ice cream.....mmmmm......

 

[corndog]

GF and I were trying to figure out what happens when two constitutional amendments clearly conflict. For instance, the constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Well what if congress and the states pass an amendment which says "The official state religion of the U.S. is Christianity. Citizens are forbidden from practicing any other religion." Surely the constitution couldn't be allowed to have two obviously contradictory amendments like that, right? We were trying to figure out what would happen in a case like that.

There are numerous instances in the US constitution of internal conflict. In each case, it is indeed the most recent amendment that rules the question.

In my opinion, it would be better to spend the money on education and persuasion instead of trying to overturn the will of the people in the courts. Overturning the will of the people will only lead to increased resentment of and antagonism toward the gay community, delaying the desired result. Again, just my opinion.

 

[crazyforgoofy]

You didn't fear for democracy when the rights of American citizens were taken away, but you fear for it once those citizens try and change the decision?


I don't understand.

Wise Woman Holly

 

[corndog]

You didn't fear for democracy when the rights of American citizens were taken away, but you fear for it once those citizens try and change the decision?


I don't understand.

I assume the issue is that the attempt to change it is to circumvent the democratic process, not embrace and employ it.

 

["Got Disney"]

As far as I understand the lawsuits make a very specific legal argument--they don't just say "let's overturn prop 8 because we don't like it."

Their argument is that prop 8 didn't just add an amendment to the constitution, but revised an amendment that was already there (the equal protection clause which the court already ruled required treating straight and gay couples equally with regard to marriage). *Revising* an amendment (as opposed to passing a new one) is not something which can be done merely by getting 50% of the vote--it requires approval by the legislature first.

Indeed, given that precedent which says that it would violate equal protection to allow straight but not gay couples to marry, the prop seems to directly contradict what the equal protection clause has been understood to mean.

GF and I were trying to figure out what happens when two constitutional amendments clearly conflict. For instance, the constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Well what if congress and the states pass an amendment which says "The official state religion of the U.S. is Christianity. Citizens are forbidden from practicing any other religion." Surely the constitution couldn't be allowed to have two obviously contradictory amendments like that, right? We were trying to figure out what would happen in a case like that.

Well that's a good question....by rights you would think they can't but as we have seen it can. This issue has been going back and forth and voted on and turned than voted on again and will be interesting to see if the Federal courts will over turn it again....

I agree ...religion aside....spending moneys helping educate the public on why this is so important is a necessity.....if there rights can be taken away what's stops them from also taking other rights away.....

However it will need to go through a process....it had enough signatures to get on the ballot (first step) than to vote on( second step) know that is passed(third step) the only one that can change it will be the higher court.....(forth step)....but this is not without a cost...

Many including me will feel like Democracy is at it's worse when votes are over turned....the majority of people no matter how much we disagree have spoken. For the second time on this issue.

We need to educate people not tell them there votes don't matter....if it comes down to that ...why bother voting

 

[ChrizJen]

Not at all.

I simply wouldn't be spending my time suing everyone in sight over it. Either we respect the ballot box or we don't.

We have had a few discussions on gay parent rights in the past I recall. I can say that I personally have never voted in favor of this kind of restrictive legislation, but I think there are better ways......like continuing to work through the system while talking to people who don't completely understand that there are real limitations for committed gay couples because they are not recognized as married in the eyes of the law.

JMO

I think that when you're not the one who is being denied civil liberties, it's easy to sit and argue that this was the will of the people, so let it be.

I know that this is democracy in action, and since it was put to a vote, and the people decided it, then so it shall be. But ours is to question whether it should have been put to a vote in the first place. It is a case of a majority making decisions about the rights (or lack therof) of a minority.
That is where our fight needs to begin.

I would just like to ask all of the people who voted to pass these constitutional amendments to consider this...Please know that when you make these decisions, they have an impact on actual people. It might be simple when you're standing at a polling booth to forget that. When the laws you vote on have little or no impact on your own life, please take a moment to consider why you're voting on them, what you have to gain or lose when you vote on them, and how you may be affecting others with your vote.

OP, thank you for posting the link. I will check it out.

I need sleep now.
Good night.