Cyclists: Let the Backlash Begin (or Not)
Muni Ticket Agent Arrested After Assaulting Juvenile
So Much For That Plastic Bag Ban
Verizon Droid: Big Deal? Or Just Another Late Arrival Rival?
Feinstein : Will She Or Won't She?
So where were you last night? We were going to go to a bar, but everywhere was so packed that we ended up at home with burritos when it was called. We didn't know what to say, but then others said it for us - windows on our street opened and people started screaming. So we joined them.
Two things stood out - the young couple jogging down the sidewalk after their toddler, who was chirping "Obama, Obama!" And a teenage poll worker, coming off a 16 hour day at John Muir Elementary, gripping his Polling Place ->100 Feet signs and skipping.
We headed to a party, then to the Castro, listening to horns honk, high-fiving strangers, and generally feeling giddy. We danced and cheered, booed the bigots, threw toilet paper and hugged, watched fireworks, yelled, and cried a little.
Where were you last night?
Photo credit: Flickr user davitydave from the SFist photostream, used under a Creative Commons license
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Well, pretty much the same night as you, but the real treat came this morning, when I treated myself to a celebratory dish of scrambled eggs wrapped around cheese: An Obamlette.
I can't celebrate. Prop 8 seems to have won. This is a really depressing day. I hoped Californians would have been more enlightened than this.
The Pride Flag is at half-mast today.
It's not the POTUS was in doubt, however the celebration was in bad taste as discrimination had been written into the California constitution. It's always heartening to see one prejudice overcome by ganging up on another one.
Meh. I didn't expect Prop 8 to win. Sure California eventually sees the light -- but don't forget that California has at times led the nation in excluding blacks, asians and latinos from housing, marriage, and jobs. And so it goes again, eventually there will another change of heart and all will be right again.
As for where I was? At 14th and U St in Washington, DC, eating at the world famous Ben's Chili Bowl when the entire neighborhood (and city) just erupted with joy. The significance of that location was not lost on us. It's where the 1968 DC riots began after King's assassination. Riots that destroyed much of the central cores and the African American business districts for the next 4 decades.
And here were hugging strangers, screaming and laughing in honor of the first Black president right at that very spot where Stokely Carmichael encouraged the crowd into a riotous frenzy.
Enlightened? Forget it. CA is still full of haters and bigots. No other way to put it.
Still, the Obama victory is reason to celebrate. Hopefully the Supreme Court will put an end to this nonsense once and for all, a la Loving v. Virginia, once Obama has time to, um, update the court's makeup.
We should have faith that it will be challenged to the highest court. At this point it will and should be voted as unconstitutional. Especially if the amendment is retroactive, which it doesn't seem to be that but could be if someone was in line to get married. But someone will ask for equal protections under the law unfair treatment statues to apply to this instance. So it will be contested and will win with really constitutional nutcases that we have on the supreme court even though they are politically on the other side of the aisle. The argument must state little about marriage because they will not accept the case because marriage usually is a state defined right and will not vote on a state issue only a constitutional/federal one. I am at least happy we get to replace the only 2 liberal justices this coming term.
I know prop 8 is tragic, and it's hard to have faith in the state sometimes. Nothing's going to make that feel better.
Let's not let that get in the way, though, of recognizing that Obama's election is a big, big, momentous fucking deal. It's less the politician even than the power and new enfranchisement of tens of millions of people, in CA and the country. There should be dancing in the streets, there should be massive hugs and smiles and mayhem generally. I was at a party last night and everyone was in tears at his announcement, including a good friend and her new wife. I went home on BART and no one on the train could stop smiling. Please don't let anything overshadow this, it's amazing.
We now will just have to work harder, but there is hope.
We went to the Broken Record in the Excelsior to celebrate and there was a lot of happy tears and a lot of people screaming and hugging.
I can't believe you can amend the constitution by ballot initiative in this state. That is insane. But that leads me to ask that if the CA Supreme Court decided that denying the marriage right to gays is unconstitutional, can't they smack this down as an unconstitutional amendment?
My brain hurts.
Let's also mourn the failure of Proposition 5, the largest prison reform act ever proposed. It would have diverted thousands of Californians from prison to treatment for drug use, offered drug treatment to youth before the go to crime school (prison) and would have helped our prison overcrowding crisis immensely. The prison guards union wields their mighty stick once again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRPxN7DGy5c
Well, I think we've learned in the past and now again that it is too easy to amend the California constitution by ballot initiative. The only difference for putting a new law as opposed to a constitutional amendment on the ballot is the number of petition signatures. Both still only need a majority vote to pass. It would make more sense to me if they changed the vote required for a constitutional amendment to a 60 percent popular super-majority.
And while we are changing the California constitution's more procedural layout, we should ban out-of-state money on propostitions. Those are purely state only campaigns that have no outcome on the rest of the country. It stands to reason that your freedom of speech to give money in a political campaign ends where you have no real voting interest.
I don't believe California is full of Haters. If you look at the Bay Area returns, there was a sounding defeat of prop 8 here. Still, I think a lot of people who were unsure voted yes, because they don't have a fundamental understanding of what marriage as a legal institution actually is. At least the mormons I spoke to seemed to think that the religious ceremony of marriage and the legal institution were one and the same. Perhaps we should eliminate marriage and only have civil unions. It would be the same, but it would make the point better that marriage as a legal institution is merely a set of contractual rights recognized by the state. It has NOTHING to do with religion or family or anything else except for two people conferring legal rights on each other with the blessing of the state.
A constitutional amendment is by definition constitutional. If people think it doesn't belong in the constitution then they should vote against it because they get the last say in the matter.
But it should also take way more than 50%+1 on a ballot proposition to amend a constitution.
As of now the only way to dump prop 8 is by a constitutional amendment ballot initiative, so until it is dumped 50%+1 is the way to go.
Yeah, changing the amendment process should also require confirming somehow that any existing stuff added using the old criteria would meet the new criteria. I bet not many passed with a 2/3 majority, but I wonder how much of the existing constitution would get re-passed if it was put back on the ballot?
In conclusion, direct democracy is a terrible idea.
Direct Democracy is not a bad idea. It is bad when the process becomes perverted through out of state interests and a constitutional amendment rule that allows passage with a mere majority. Direct Democracy has many positive aspects that should not be overlooked. But we have to make sure the process is used for and by the people of California and not for and by the people of other states.
Good job, Central Valley and SoCal, you passed Prop h8te, hope you're happy.
So extending BART requires a 2/3 vote, but taking away rights requires a simple majority? That's nuts.
It think it was that ad about the kid learning about gay marriage in school that made the difference.
What are the next steps? Can this be appealed to the US Supreme Court? Or can the California Supreme Court debate it again as Gibson78 asks?
The "many positive aspects" of Direct Democracy are rarely in evidence, which is why the initiative process should be eliminated. Cut the poison out and engage in "direct democracy" by getting more involved than phone banks and petitions in front of Starbucks. A truly ironic use of "direct."
But we have to make sure the process is used for and by the people of California and not for and by the people of other states.
Good luck with that.
Well, the first thing to do is to make sure the marriages that already took place remain marriages. That legal battle will be difficult but the argument is sound. There is nothing in Prop 8 that would make it apply retroactively.
The US Supreme Court is not likely going to hear this case. The US Constitution has less protected groups in it than the California Constitution. That is why the Supreme Court of California was able to rule the way it did. In order to prevail under a US Constitutional argument, the argument would have to succeed that this is in fact Sex Discrimination. I don't think the current justices of the Supreme Court will be inclined to believe that argument.
I think the best way to defeat this is by putting up a new proposition that prevents discrimination in California on the basis of sexual orientation. That would have the effect of overriding proposition 8 as being later in time.
I was in the YBCA with a thousand other people, screaming and cheering and jumping up and down and being inspired. It was pretty amazing. We walked to BART and people were honking as they drove past and cheering and smiling. BART was the same way.
Look, the way Prop 8 has gone is a disappointment, but we'll be back next time with a proposed repeal. And the time after that, if that one fails, and the time after that if THAT one fails, if it takes that long to reach out and educate enough voters.
And I do think it's just a matter of time. Obama's cautious, conflicted opposition to same-sex marriage is infuriating. But notice that in his victory speech last night, he used the word 'gay' -- I think it was the first time a President-Elect has ever used the word in his first address to the nation -- and he used it /inclusively/. Think about that. Change is coming, indeed.
All the positive aspects of direct democracy assume that the electorate is willing and able to educate themselves and objectively consider the issues before voting. Elected representative have a little bit of motivation to at least pretend to do that.
3 words: OBAMA SUPREME COURT.
Positive aspect of direct democracy = medical marijuana in 1996
Screaming, crying and wasted at 500 Club. It was packed. I got there wicked early so I actually had a seat at the bar. I figure they were my go-to for all four debates, so it was only appropriate that I rung in the victory with them.
I watched at Dovre Club, where party blowout were being passed out. We decided to leave no long after Obama's speech (partially so we could have some time to celebrate before 8's returns killed the buzz). We walked up Valencia listening to honking cars and general happiness (hey, Giants, it's a lot of fun, what say we get to do the same for you some day). There was a spontaneous street party at 19th, with people flooding the intersection and dancing, including a cab driver on his hood. 16th has more of the same.
Unfortunately, the two justices most likely to step down during Obama's tenure are Ginsburg and Stevens. So he's basically going to replace two liberals with two more (hopefully) liberals, no real net gain.
Of course, there's always a chance Scalia will go duck hunting with Cheney again, which may considerably increase the odds of Obama getting to nominate a third person.
@bluecanary - So he's basically going to replace two liberals with two more (hopefully) liberals, no real net gain.
He will replace two liberals with two *younger* liberals. A net gain of many years in predicted lifespan.
Good point.