Parents Petition Caltrain to Reduce Train Speed In Palo Alto
Gavin Newsom's Mariah Carey-like Interview Demand
How to Keep Your Car Windows Safe In the Tenderloin
Urgent: SF Food Bank Needs Your Help
Gavin Cans Film Commission Head Stephanie Coyote
Please see the video above for a live video feed of the California State Supreme court's Prop. 8 hearing, which will go down as a historic civil rights movement when ruled on. The feed will not become active until March 5 at 9 a.m., and is scheduled to last until noon.
For more information, go to yesonequality.com.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Also scheduled to be live on cable channel 78 SFGTV from 9 to Noon.
Good luck, California. We're counting on you.
My civic duty for the day: I walked through the traditional marriage encampment and got up behind the guy with the loudspeaker, and yelled "TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY" in his ear.
You officially rawk!
I'm just glad you didn't get an elbow to the chin.
This doesn't sound like it is going very well.
"We the people"... would like to deny that smaller group of people of their rights.
Side note, why isn't AG Brown present?
I think those people should stop being sore losers the people have spoken and it does not stop them from getting married it is simply partner A and partner B. This country is a democracy for the people so if the people voted then we should go by the vote get over it no civil rights have been violated its just a bunch of people who cant accept the lost. It was a fair election and it wasnt evan close Stop being sore sports
"majority rule" can be overturned when it violates the constitution. Majority rule isn't the be-all and end-all of citizens' rights.
So if majority rule votes that it's okay to skullfuck cliche-afflicted bigots with razor-studded baseball bats, you'd be all for it? Good to know.
whatever turns you on this is america you could whatever you want no matter how kinky
Majority rules in a democracy. The United States is not a democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic.
Look into it.
Yes it is professor but in Cali we run a democracy thats why if we dont like something in this state we could vote on it 2/3 majority. Thats why the vote happened and the prop passed, Rock the Vote Obama time for a change ;)
Except for the fact that Constitutional Revision process isn't subject to a simple 2/3 majority, I completely agree with you.
Wow. I'm not gay, but I do NOT live in a country where rights are denied. And I will Not stand by as people are denied rights.
What do you mean by "getting married is simply partner A and partner B"? You obviously did not read prop 8 before you voted on it.
Furthermore, this not a matter of being a sore loser. Let's not reduce this very important conversation to childish levels.
it actually not childish i read the ballot and there is no discirmination in it. it is simply about getting married and that is not a right it is a privelge just like a license to drive. it got revolked and i proud to call myself a American and a California Their is no hate on Prop 8 just prop 8 haters
"revolked and i proud to call myself a American and a California Their"
"i read the ballot"
Somehow, I don't believe you.
Holy fuck. How about a ballot measure to withdraw voting rights for people with such poor written communication skills? Jesus.
der noting wrung with mi speeling oar cum unication im gifted
mesfu, obviously we aren't going to see eye-to-eye.
You are spouting cliches. So this discussion is going nowhere quickly.
I say we get the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence on a charter to Utah and have them work on getting prostitution legalized up there. We can run commercials on Utah television and get a grass roots campaign to get legalization of prostitution on the ballot.
It seems only fair.
I totally agree with you no joke it would also generate more money for their economy
Justice Kennard depressed the shit out of me but I have to say THERESE STEWART rocks!!!
mesfu420 Let me begin by saying that if you had any ounce of credibility to being with, not that you did, you immediately lost it by failing to at least spell check your comment before posting it.
Just because the passage of Prop 8 was based on popular opinion, doesn't make it the right opinion. For example, Plessy vs. Ferguson. That Supreme Court decision allowed discrimination to continue because that was the opinion of the majority. In retrospect, we can all agree that was outright wrong and shameful. It was later overturned in the Supreme Court Decision of Brown vs. Board of Education. Even then, the popular opinion was that segregation was ok. But it is the Supreme Courts responsibility to interpret the law and guarantee due process of law for all of us. They knew it was unfair and wrong! I hope the same can be said for Prop 8.
First i dont care about spell check i am busy and i type fast so i dont care,
Second What you are bringing up is back in a time were there was no openmindedness, It was as simple as black and white. Now its not a talk about race it is about marriage not racial dicriminatiion. We now live in a time were people are more open minded and know what is going on. And the majority of the people spoke. No gay person got disciminated they didn't get beat up or hung from a tree like the people who were truly discrimanted back in the day for their civil rights thats a big difference and their are many other topics i could bring up about this prop but i dont feel like writing a book about it.
Except that gay people ARE being discriminated against. Getting married qualifies you for certain tax breaks, health benefits for spouses, joint adoption, next-of-kin status, inheritance, etc, that gay people cannot get simply because they are gay. They are being treated as second class citizens simply because of their sexual preference. It's simply not right.
Except that gay people ARE being discriminated against. Getting married qualifies you for certain tax breaks, health benefits for spouses, joint adoption, next-of-kin status, inheritance, etc, that gay people cannot get simply because they are gay. They are being treated as second class citizens simply because of their sexual preference. It's simply not right.
It's useless to argue there's discrimination if this ahole mesfu420 refuses to believe such a thing exists.
It would probably sink in if we started taking away there rights. Since we can amend the constitution with a simply majority let's start fucking with other people's rights.
First: Churches need to start paying taxes. We'd never be able to get something like that passed if we made it a blanket change, but with Prop 8 for precedent we start going after them one by one. We can start with the Mormons, vote away their tax except status or lets just make them pay double.
I thought it was incredibly disrespectful the way Prop 8 supporters yelled to drown out the speakers on the steps of the Supreme Court yesterday, so lets take away their freedom of speech as well.
It will also be much easier to get our rights back if we start voting away the oppositions voting rights as well. And since it would just end up the courts again, we could skip all that, as Ken Starr pointed out, by just voting away the entire judiciary branch.
So few people understand how our system of government works, would thy even miss the judicial branch of government? Aren't checks and balances are just a waste time when we could put everything up for a popular vote? If we just ended "judicial tyranny" by judges who "legislate from the bench" then we could amend our constitution any time we wanted!
What else can we put up for popular vote?
Yo calm down their lad if you cant get your way no need for name calling and crying about it, oh wait you lost keep crying all you want. And to their other commet you said first of all churches are non profit so the money they make goes right back in to their church second if that bill were to pass churches would lose their tax exempt status for their beliefs. And that goes angaisnt the consitution to practice your religion without being denied anything. And if you were to take that right away we might as well be communist. That what separtes us from everyone else. sometimes things dont go your way in life so deal with and get over and quit whinning and crying about it like a kid whos parents wont buy him a PS3 Obama time for a change
While it may otherwise be a waste of time to explain it to you Mesfu, as you seem not able to apprehend the gravity of the legal issues at hard, perhaps there's hope for others.
Let us try this on for size:
If a group of US citizens, otherwise legally enfranchised, are denied the free excise of a particular set of rights, privileges and responsibilities granted the majority freely without challenge and without precondition to their exercising of said rights – than that my ignorant friend constitutes the definition of a violation of equal protection under the law and of due process. These are some important defining legal principles that the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of California take rather seriously.
Our morality (which is often, over time, a changeable social construct and social compact - thank goodness) is not in and of itself sufficient to deny the free exercise of rights previously granted to the minority - when tangible and material benefits flow from the exercise of said rights and the majority is not likewise encumbered.
Are we clear now Mesfu?
While it may otherwise be a waste of time to explain it to you Mesfu, as you seem not able to apprehend the gravity of the legal issues at hand, perhaps there's hope for others.
Let us try this on for size:
If a group of US citizens, otherwise legally enfranchised, are denied the free excise of a particular set of rights, privileges and responsibilities granted the majority freely without challenge and without precondition to their exercising of said rights – than that my ignorant friend constitutes the definition of a violation of equal protection under the law and of due process. These are some important defining legal principles that the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of California take rather seriously.
Our morality (which is often, over time, a changeable social construct and social compact - thank goodness) is not in and of itself sufficient to deny the free exercise of rights previously granted to the minority - when tangible and material benefits flow from the exercise of said rights and the majority is not likewise encumbered.
Are we clear now Mesfu?
California: the state where it's easier to change the constitution than to pass a budget.
Totally! It's amazing how a simple majority can change the constitution in the blink of an eye.
I'm not crying, I'm looking towards revenge.
We might have lost this time, but you may loose next time and now the stakes are higher because, if upheld, it's then legal to take away rights from anyone for any reason without due process.
The smart thing to do since this could go on endlessly is to rig the system so next time, the other side can't fight back. Making churches pay taxes like anyone else would help prevent them from being able to exploit the superstition fears they've been able to instill over the years in their victims, such as yourself, in order to collect money to further their own objectives.
Churches which are currently protected by the separation of church and state, but gay marriage was protected under equal protection until November so there's nothing to keep us from changing that just like equal marriage rights were taken away from us. There's no reason we can't just take the separation of church and state out.
And by the way, how does paying taxes prevent you from being able to exercise your freedom of religion? Is there something that prevents you from being able to read a bible (kor'an, torah, gospel of the flying spaghetti monster, etc.) if the religion is paying it's fare share to the government like everyone else?
Hang on a sec, if you buy a bible it's subject to sales tax, isn't it? Doesn't sound like there's a conflict between church and state there does it?
And I am not a communist. I'm somewhere between capitalism and socialist. You're the one who supports taking away civil rights in order to force everyone to live according to your own personal religious doctrine. There's a term for that, it's called a "theocracy" and it's one of the reasons we have a separation of church and state. At least until we amend the constitution.
I'm not crying, I'm looking towards revenge.
We might have lost this time, but you may loose next time and now the stakes are higher because, if upheld, it's then legal to take away rights from anyone for any reason without due process.
The smart thing to do since this could go on endlessly is to rig the system so next time, the other side can't fight back. Making churches pay taxes like anyone else would help prevent them from being able to exploit the superstition fears they've been able to instill over the years in their victims, such as yourself, in order to collect money to further their own objectives.
Churches which are currently protected by the separation of church and state, but gay marriage was protected under equal protection until November so there's nothing to keep us from changing that just like equal marriage rights were taken away from us. There's no reason we can't just take the separation of church and state out.
And by the way, how does paying taxes prevent you from being able to exercise your freedom of religion? Is there something that prevents you from being able to read a bible (kor'an, torah, gospel of the flying spaghetti monster, etc.) if the religion is paying it's fare share to the government like everyone else?
Hang on a sec, if you buy a bible it's subject to sales tax, isn't it? Doesn't sound like there's a conflict between church and state there does it?
And I am not a communist. I'm somewhere between capitalism and socialist. You're the one who supports taking away civil rights in order to force everyone to live according to your own personal religious doctrine. There's a term for that, it's called a "theocracy" and it's one of the reasons we have a separation of church and state. At least until we amend the constitution.
In the truth im not religious i dont believe in religion and i dont go to church but i do think it is wrong to make churches pay taxes they provide a free service they only accept donations, if you were to do that churches would shut down because they would not be able to keep up with the taxes and other services that they offer for free. And no i have no superstition or anything like i am not a homophobe I think everyone should live their life any way he/she wants to live it. I could really care less but no civil rights have been taken from anyone just the PRIVILIGE. Who wants to get married anyways its a horrible thing anyways. I am seeing both ways but im still backing up my stand some come at me with another point rather than just religion. OBAMA 420 legalize it
So you're not homophobic, but you would only allow heterosexuals the "privilege" of marriage. Just replacing the word "right" with "privilege" doesn't change what you're trying to do.
Here's how it works: our government gives a set special incentives and tax breaks to couples who enter into a marriage. You can call it a right, a privilege, green, whatever, but that's what it is. When you deny them to one set of people based upon something like religion, age, gender or in this case: sexual orientation it's called "discrimination" and until Prop 8 it was illegal.
You want to deny gay couples the right to marry based upon nothing but their sexual orientation that makes you: a homophobe.