Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Freepers need to support efforts on Prop 8 in California "One man, one woman marriage"
Protect Marriage.com ^ | October 23, 2008 | the eagle has landed

Posted on 10/23/2008 10:00:19 PM PDT by TheEaglehasLanded

The entire text of Proposition 8 is as follows:

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California." Proposition 8: The California Marriage Protection Amendment

Proposition 8 places into the California Constitution the same language that voters already passed by 61% of the vote in 2000. This is necessary to overturn an outrageous California Supreme Court decision that overturned Proposition 22.

About Proposition 8

Proposition 8 is simple and straightforward. It contains the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000 by over 61% of California voters: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

Because four activist judges in San Francisco wrongly overturned the people’s vote, we need to pass this measure as a constitutional amendment to restore the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.

Voting YES on Proposition 8 does 3 simple things:

It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and what Californians agree should be supported, not undermined.

It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people.

It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage, and prevents other consequences to Californians who will be forced to not just be tolerant of gay lifestyles, but face mandatory compliance regardless of their personal beliefs.


TOPICS: Announcements; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: california; marriage; prop8; yes
Obama and Biden say they are against same sex marriage, but wants to defeat prop 8 in California along with Biden, for repealing Defense of Marriage Act and Don't ask don't tell.

Sounds like he's on both sides of the issue.

1 posted on 10/23/2008 10:00:19 PM PDT by TheEaglehasLanded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TheEaglehasLanded

I’m doing what I can. I just finished making canvassing calls for Prop 8 and will do more tomorrow and Saturday. My husband and I contributed a substantial sum to the ProtectMarriage Campaign and I had a column on Proposition 8 published in the local paper in our 85k community. I am heartened that it appears the proposition will pass, although I know it will be immediately challenged in court. It may seem like we’re only plugging a finger in a failing dike (no, I don’t mean dyke) but it is time for moral people to stand up and be counted.


2 posted on 10/23/2008 10:06:17 PM PDT by caseinpoint (Don't get thickly involved in thin things)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheEaglehasLanded

I put up my lawn sign & telling every one to vote for it! We will clobber them!
Many of us were lining up the street holding Yes on 8 signs, people honking us.


3 posted on 10/23/2008 10:08:34 PM PDT by savvyguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheEaglehasLanded
They have to cater to the Gay Lobby, a powerful Democratic constituency group. At the same time, they're trying not to offend voters who are opposed to same sex marriage. But when the chips are down, Democrats leaders will oppose efforts to codify traditional marriage into state constitutions. They're usually on the losing side of the issue.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

4 posted on 10/23/2008 10:15:54 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: caseinpoint
If its a decisive margin, it will be less likely to be challenged. The bigger, the better.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

5 posted on 10/23/2008 10:17:27 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: goldstategop

The challenge won’t be fraud or any such thing. It is likely to be that the matter cannot be properly decided by majority vote and should never have been allowed to voting. The gays tried to keep this from ever making it to the ballot this tme by arguing that marriage was a basic constitutional right not susceptible to democratic processes. The court refused to buy that argument to halt the proposition process but that doesn’t mean a court won’t see it their way in the future. We should expect lots of challenges regardless of how far the margin of approval is in November. Unfortunately.


7 posted on 10/23/2008 10:23:30 PM PDT by caseinpoint (Don't get thickly involved in thin things)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: caseinpoint

I think it’ll pass as well. I am so proud of the churches in California...they took alot of crap this year because of this. But you do what is right...


8 posted on 10/23/2008 10:26:58 PM PDT by Hildy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

I’m glad to see all the various faiths cooperating on this. I wouldn’t even be surprised if Muslim groups were also cooperating in a low-profile way. This court ruling threatens all groups who believe marriage is sacred and important to maintain.


9 posted on 10/23/2008 10:30:49 PM PDT by caseinpoint (Don't get thickly involved in thin things)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TheEaglehasLanded

Get er’ done, Cal Freepers!


10 posted on 10/23/2008 11:05:27 PM PDT by 444Flyer (HELP SAVE MARRIAGE!!! Vote YES on Prop 8, amend the Calif. State Constitution this November.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: savvyguy

Amazing that the opposition if fighting so dirty. My neighbor’s sign down the street (they live where alot of traffic goes by) went missing after one day. And my friend’s 78-year-old mother had her sign slashed on her front lawn. She said, “Now who would do a thing like that?” in a very sweet way. It is beyond her that anyone wouldn’t completely support traditional marriage. I know these are typical leftist tactics, but it angers me to no end that someone would vandalize an elderly lady’s sign. It just tells you what we are up against.


11 posted on 10/23/2008 11:17:08 PM PDT by 444Flyer (HELP SAVE MARRIAGE!!! Vote YES on Prop 8, amend the Calif. State Constitution this November.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: caseinpoint

That has to be the most convoluted argument I’ve ever heard. Is there even anything in California case law that supports that argument?

On the federal level, it seems clear to me that even something as fundamental as the freedom of speech could be removed if done through the amendment process.


12 posted on 10/24/2008 12:19:21 AM PDT by NinoFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: caseinpoint

To make my point perfectly clear, it’s always been my understanding that the entire point of a process that changes a constitution is to, well, make changes to a constitution. Through the federal Amendment process, it’d be perfectly OK to get rid of the judicial branch, declare that all people shall wear pink on Fridays, etc.

The ONLY way that I could see the California Supreme Court reasonably overturning this state constitutional change would be to declare it in violation of the federal Constitution. Of course, that would immediately result in an appeal to the SCOTUS, but it’s the only argument that even makes sense to me. (Of course, I don’t agree with it, but at least it’s something that doesn’t come from the Twilight Zone like the argument you say they are going to push.)


13 posted on 10/24/2008 12:27:55 AM PDT by NinoFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TheEaglehasLanded

I would almost guarantee that every FREEPER on here supports this measure. Although it is nice to make the press.


14 posted on 10/24/2008 2:30:07 AM PDT by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan

I understand your frustration but my argument isn’t really from the Twilight Zone. I would expect the challenge to take the position that marriage is a basic constitutional right grounded in the U.S. Constitution perhaps in the “privacy penumbra” discovered there in Roe v. Wade. The argument will be that the California Constitution cannot take away a federally-recognized constitutional right. While we might be able to tinker with the federal constitution, state constitutions cannot deny to its citizens federal rights. I think this is part of why we fought the Civil War. So if the gays can get a federal court to rule that marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed by the federal constitution, then it can get the California Constitution overruled.

The Constitutional Ammendment process was for two reasons: one was to keep state courts from interpreting the California Constitution to include a right which would now be specifically prohibited. The other was to keep the Assembly from doing its own mischief against any law which had less-than-constitutional status.

I don’t think the federal court is that sympathetic to the argument of the gays at this point but I do think the gays would certainly do everything they could to challenge the law, first through state courts and eventually to the federal level. The opponents of Prop 8 would then argue that a stay on enforcing the new provision could and probably would be put in place by a state court first and then a federal court. This leaves the ruling of the state court granting marriage rights in place, perhaps for years.

Don’t underestimate the creativity of people who want to overrule the will of the people, especially if a certain presidential candidate sympathetic to their cause gets elected. The Supreme Court has been amenable to a lot of Twilight Zone type of arguments over the centuries.

Passing Prop 8 is not an end but a middle point in this struggle. From here on out, the battle will be continuous. When the domestic partnership provisions were pushed on the people, the gays argued it was needed to allow them to visit their dying loved ones in the hospital. It was a sympathetic vote for many. From the time it was passed to this very year, gays have had legislation passed in every session of the Assembly to expand this right to where it is now equal in the state to marriage in all but name. They want the name. They want the argument to push full faith and credit on every state in the union. They want everything marriage has to offer except the true rewards of marriage which is becoming one with your spouse and procreation. They won’t stop until they get everything they want or destroy it for everyone if they can’t get what they want.


15 posted on 10/24/2008 7:51:35 AM PDT by caseinpoint (Don't get thickly involved in thin things)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: caseinpoint
The problem is the California Supreme Court decided according to the California Constitution so no federal appeal is possible. Now the privacy clause in the California Constitution has been found by state courts to provide a right to abortion and now to provide a right to same sex marriage. That's surely not what voters meant when they passed it back in 1972. What Prop. 8 does is to clarify the privacy clause by telling state courts the California Constitution emphatically does NOT confer any judicially created right to same sex marriage. It does not exist. So the people can tell the California Supreme Court that it read the state constitution wrong and overrule them. Its to be noted there's no explicit privacy clause in the federal Constitution but the U.S Supreme Court still found on by judicial activism to legalize abortion and sodomy. So a federal marriage amendment may well be needed down the road. Today, we have do two things: get Prop. 8 passed and stop Barack Obama from getting elected to appoint the kind of Justices to the SCOTUS who are the only people who could overrule Prop. 8 contrary to the will of the people. Those are the stakes in this election.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

16 posted on 10/24/2008 11:49:38 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: caseinpoint

Thank you for your service. I wonder if we spoke the other night by phone? lol... someone called the house the other night to encourage us to defend marriage.

Keep fighting the good fight.

btw, I wanted to say how effective the Gavin Nuisance commercials are. He’s irritating eough without looking like he’s drunk on enthusiasm and ‘there’s nothing you can do about it’.. it’s almost like a challenge that HAS to be answered.

Again... thumbs up to you!


17 posted on 10/24/2008 12:02:44 PM PDT by InsensitiveConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: InsensitiveConservative
The deep pockets and haughty arrogance of the NO side is our greatest asset. People who believe in traditional marriage are like David fighting against Goliath. With the entire establishment - business, cultural and political arrayed against us, a victory would literally be in their face! Throughout history, love and truth have ultimately prevailed over power and lies. That is what will make the difference next month.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

18 posted on 10/24/2008 12:08:59 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: InsensitiveConservative

Might have been me who called but there are a lot of people calling all over and unless you live in the central valley, it wasn’t me. You would know me by the stumbling, inarticulate way I speak. That’s the reason I hide behind my pen or keyboard: I write a much better than I speak, and that isn’t saying much. ;o)


19 posted on 10/24/2008 12:18:33 PM PDT by caseinpoint (Don't get thickly involved in thin things)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: caseinpoint

“I understand your frustration but my argument isn’t really from the Twilight Zone. I would expect the challenge to take the position that marriage is a basic constitutional right grounded in the U.S. Constitution perhaps in the “privacy penumbra” discovered there in Roe v. Wade. The argument will be that the California Constitution cannot take away a federally-recognized constitutional right. While we might be able to tinker with the federal constitution, state constitutions cannot deny to its citizens federal rights.”

I agree with this.

I think we had a misunderstanding. Please read my comment again. I thought you were saying that they would try to get it overturned by the California Supremes on state constitutional grounds, not federal constitutional grounds. State courts often do hold that their state constitutions are more protective of rights than the federal constitution, but I thought it would be odd for gay activists to make the claim that the California constitution, on its own, still prohibited banning gay marriage if Prop 8 were to pass. I realize (and did point out) that a separate argument could be made based on federal constitutional rights that apply to the states due to the 14th Amendment. That argument is the one I meant was somewhat reasonable. It’s the other argument about the state constitution on its own still being able to be construed in a way that requires gay marriage that seemed to me to be from The Twilight Zone. I think the court would be extremely activist if it struck down Proposition 8 without referring to the federal constitution. It’d certainly be unprecedented in many states. That’s why I asked about CA case law.

But all of that is just explanation, because as I said, i think we had a bit of a misunderstanding. We agree that the gay activists’ attack to Prop 8 (assuming it passes) will be based on the federal marriage “right”


20 posted on 10/27/2008 1:00:58 AM PDT by NinoFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: caseinpoint

Oh, and by reasonable, I don’t mean I agree with it. I just recognize that it’s an attack that may actually work at the federal level. It will all depend on what side of the day Kennedy gets up on that day, I suppose.


21 posted on 10/27/2008 1:07:21 AM PDT by NinoFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan

You are right and perhaps I either miscommunicated or I misunderstood your arguments. I think we are definitely on the same side. I don’t put any argument past those who want to ensure gay marriage rights, Twilight Zone or not. Gays as an interest group are one of the wealthiest in the country and have lots of money and help to challenge it every way it can. I wouldn’t be surprised to see them try to wear down the amendment with a stream of challenges—all the while arguing that until the matter is legally resolved, the amendment should be stayed since it takes away something they argue is already in the constitution. Environmentalists use the same method: they file a complaint, let it wind its way through the court process and when it appears the matter will be lost, another group files another complaint, sometimes actually using the same complaint as the earlier one with new plaintiffs. The courts note this also but keep on permitting these judicial tranvesties in the name of power to the people, or the “common good”. So we will have a very aggressive challenge and probably, at least in California, a very sympathetic judiciary. One of the major victories of the gay groups, besides the original court ruling, was the refusal of the court to stay issuance of licenses until after the election. Granting licenses is now the status quo and court will lean towards preserving the status quo during any pendency of the challenges. We will all need to gird up our loins and be prepared for the long fight to preserve marriage.

(Excuse the typos or grammatical mistakes: I just washed my hands and can’t do a thing with them.)


22 posted on 10/27/2008 7:38:37 AM PDT by caseinpoint (Don't get thickly involved in thin things)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson