A Wetpaint Site | TV Fandex 100

Sign in to Wetpaint

Sign in or

Location: Join the Impact Discussion Forum

Discussion: We need 2 ballot measures in CA for 2010!!!

Category: Discussion Forum / General Discussion

Report thread
Watch thread
Share this

drjams	We need 2 ballot measures in CA for 2010!!! Jun 7 2009, 6:40 PM EDT \| Post edited: Jun 7 2009, 6:41 PM EDT I am trying to get the message across to CA marriage equality campaign leaders (from each of the campaigns) that I seriously believe we need 2 ballot measures - not just one - in CA for the 2010 statewide election. The first ballot measure would essentially repeal prop 8, but we must clarify the distinction between religious and civil marriages. This ballot measure is primarily only of the interest of us queers. However, the second ballot measure, which I think will ultimately be more important and easier to get every minority group to rally with us (a major problem that we were unable to accomplish in defeating prop 8 in November). This second ballot measure would protect ALL minority groups from having their fundamental rights taken away from them, especially as an amendment to the constitution, by a simple majority vote. We could word this second ballot measure in such a way that it is retroactive - thus, effectively repealing prop 8 as well as preventing future prop 8s and the like!! What minority group would NOT get behind this? My suggested ballot measures: 1- Define civil marriage as the union of two consenting, unrelated adults who vow to love each other and share each other’s lives and responsibilities, regardless of gender, gender expression, race, ethnicity, nationality, physical or mentally dis/ability, religion or sexual orientation in the California constitution, overriding the previous amendment, Article I; section 7.5. The amendment leaves intact the right of religious organizations to choose to whom they want to grant religious marriages. 2 Mandate that a simple majority vote to change the constitution to revoke the rights of a minority group or “suspect class” cannot be put to the people – in the present, future or past. In order to do this, a constitutional revision must be made such that ¾ of the state’s legislature approves to put a ballot measure to vote and then ¾ of the people must approve the ballot measure. Post reply 5 out of 5 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you? Keyword tags: Butt Pirates
atmasilver	1. RE: We need 2 ballot measures in CA for 2010!!! Jun 7 2009, 11:01 PM EDT "2 Mandate that a simple majority vote to change the constitution to revoke the rights of a minority group or “suspect class” cannot be put to the people – in the present, future or past. In order to do this, a constitutional revision must be made such that ¾ of the state’s legislature approves to put a ballot measure to vote and then ¾ of the people must approve the ballot measure." I think your second proposal would have a better chance of passing if you simply reformed the CA Constitution such that ANY change would require a 3/4 vote, and claim as the reason the possibility that fundamental rights can be so easily taken away. Alternately, specifying specific rights that cannot be taken away except by a supermajority might work. In any case I don't think it's really possible to do that without the 3/4 vote type Constitutional Amendment. Otherwise you can just repeal it again with another 50% vote. Post reply 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?
janewishon	2. RE: We need 2 ballot measures in CA for 2010!!! Jun 9 2009, 11:07 AM EDT I think the first prop is being handled - I like the idea of the second one, but I believe that it does fall under the definition of revision and so needs to start in the legislature -- let's all try talking to our state reps and senators on it! Jane Post reply 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?
drjams	3. RE: We need 2 ballot measures in CA for 2010!!! Jun 9 2009, 1:43 PM EDT \| Post edited: Jun 9 2009, 1:43 PM EDT Jane, Yes, I agree that the second prop may fall under the definition of a revision, HOWEVER, I don't see why we couldn't attempt it? I mean, maybe we could just use very few words and thus, based on the Supreme Court's logic, it wouldn't fall under the definition of a revision! I think working on this second proposition is more important than the first because it protects a larger percentage of people's rights AND it closes the door on the flip-flop process of giving and taking away rights in the constitution by mere ballot measures. We MUST close that door either AT THE SAME time as we repeal prop 8 or even BEFORE we do that! Otherwise, who's to stop the opposition from putting it on the ballot the NEXT election and flip-flop it YET AGAIN! Thanks for all your support and comments...let's keep up the discussion... Post reply 2 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?
atmasilver	4. RE: We need 2 ballot measures in CA for 2010!!! Jun 9 2009, 6:44 PM EDT \| Post edited: Jun 9 2009, 6:44 PM EDT Okay, very basic question: what is a right? What is a fundamental right? Post reply 1 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?
PinkPantherRevolt	5. RE: We need 2 ballot measures in CA for 2010!!! Jun 13 2009, 11:17 AM EDT I'm Sorry to bust your bubble, but as long as we put a minority issue on a majority ballot vote we will not succeed. I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. The world wishes you did not exist; the Church and the right wings all have money and organize it accordingly. Our leaders have left you on a blog to protest your voice, who is listening? Its time we organize and set our people free. It's time we collectively act as one and educate the homophobic populace through commercials, flyers and so forth. We need to have our own LGBT Geneva convention for all Grassroots organizers to better channel our energy. Its time we found leadership, everyone doing their own thing is apparently inefficient. Post reply 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?
janewishon	6. RE: We need 2 ballot measures in CA for 2010!!! Jun 13 2009, 12:12 PM EDT "Jane, Yes, I agree that the second prop may fall under the definition of a revision, HOWEVER, I don't see why we couldn't attempt it? I mean, maybe we could just use very few words and thus, based on the Supreme Court's logic, it wouldn't fall under the definition of a revision! I think working on this second proposition is more important than the first because it protects a larger percentage of people's rights AND it closes the door on the flip-flop process of giving and taking away rights in the constitution by mere ballot measures. We MUST close that door either AT THE SAME time as we repeal prop 8 or even BEFORE we do that! Otherwise, who's to stop the opposition from putting it on the ballot the NEXT election and flip-flop it YET AGAIN! Thanks for all your support and comments...let's keep up the discussion..." I'm not saying we shouldn't do it -- just that we all need to contact our state reps and senators to get them to do it - it has to pass them first before it goes out to vote Jane Post reply 2 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?
drjams	7. RE: We need 2 ballot measures in CA for 2010!!! Jun 13 2009, 12:38 PM EDT I agree with the exception that I don't see why we don't try ALL possible angles - like maybe we can try the ballot measure angle as well as contacting our reps...I'm almost positive States Senators Leno and Ammiato would be into it! However, the wording needs to be very specific for making it solely for when people try to write in discrimination into the constitution - not for whenever people try to amend it since we'd like to amend it one last time at least...unless we say it's retroactive. Post reply 3 out of 3 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?
janewishon	8. RE: We need 2 ballot measures in CA for 2010!!! Jun 13 2009, 2:36 PM EDT "I agree with the exception that I don't see why we don't try ALL possible angles - like maybe we can try the ballot measure angle as well as contacting our reps...I'm almost positive States Senators Leno and Ammiato would be into it! However, the wording needs to be very specific for making it solely for when people try to write in discrimination into the constitution - not for whenever people try to amend it since we'd like to amend it one last time at least...unless we say it's retroactive." Absolutely! J Post reply 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?
Treknott	9. RE: We need 2 ballot measures in CA for 2010!!! Jun 13 2009, 4:47 PM EDT While we're looking at this in CA don't we have a Federal court decision in July re Prop 8 that's coming up? We need another Day of Decision like thang? Post reply 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?
Athelwulf	10. RE: We need 2 ballot measures in CA for 2010!!! Jun 14 2009, 4:28 PM EDT \| Post edited: Jun 14 2009, 4:31 PM EDT "Yes, I agree that the second prop may fall under the definition of a revision, HOWEVER, I don't see why we couldn't attempt it? I mean, maybe we could just use very few words and thus, based on the Supreme Court's logic, it wouldn't fall under the definition of a revision!" Wordiness (or lack thereof) is not the only test of whether an alteration of the California Constitution is a revision. Neither is it even the key test, if I understand it correctly. A revision has a broad, sweeping effect on the fundamental structure of government. Let's say you have a provision (very basic, for argument's sake) in the constitution that says, "People have rights". Then let's say someone alters it to say, "People have no rights". That only adds one word. A single, measly, one-syllable, two-letter word. But the effect of this tiny word is so breathtakingly devastating that no reasonable person can call it a mere amendment. I think the wordiness criterion comes from the perception that very wordy alterations change the government fundamentally. But the inverse obviously isn't true: Simply using very few words doesn't mean you're not fundamentally altering your government. That said, your idea of a second amendment sounds intriguing. I would definitely support such an effort. But I think, just to be safe, we should try the revision route. How would the court treat it if it were passed as an amendment, and it were challenged? Are there limits to the idea of retroactivity? Can past amendments that were perfectly legal when ratified really be overturned simply by a broad retroactivity clause in a subsequent amendment? Since the retroactivity clause would affect many significant parts of the constitution, is the effect of the amendment much too broad? And does it violate the law that propositions can only have one subject? Post reply Do you find this valuable?
rbf230	11. RE: We need 2 ballot measures in CA for 2010!!! Jun 14 2009, 4:32 PM EDT "Wordiness (or lack thereof) is not the only test of whether an alteration of the California Constitution is a revision. Neither is it even the key test, if I understand it correctly. A revision has a broad, sweeping effect on the fundamental structure of government. Let's say you have a provision (very basic, for argument's sake) in the constitution that says, "People have rights". Then let's say someone alters it to say, "People have no rights". That only adds one word. A single, measly, one-syllable, two-letter word. But the effect of this tiny word is so breathtakingly devastating that no reasonable person can call it a mere amendment. I think the wordiness criterion comes from the perception that very wordy alterations change the government fundamentally. But the inverse obviously isn't true: Simply using very few words doesn't mean you're not fundamentally altering your government. That said, your idea of a second amendment sounds intriguing. I would definitely support such an effort. But I think, just to be safe, we should try the revision route. How would the court would treat it if it were passed as an amendment, and it were challenged? Are there limits to the idea of retroactivity? Can past amendments that were perfectly legal when ratified really be overturned simply by a broad retroactivity clause in a subsequent amendment? And since the retroactivity clause would affect many significant parts of the constitution, is the effect of the amendment much too broad? And does it violate the law that propositions can only have one subject?" i think this is a VERY interesting idea. i can definitely imagine a campaign that unites LBGT groups, POC groups, religious groups. etc. -- ads showing the different permutations, such as taking away the freedom of a certain religion to get civil marriages, the right of a particular race to vote, etc. It would take some extensive legal research to figure out the correct wording but EQCA has the resources to do that. If Prop 8 isn't a revision, disallowing a future Prop 8 may not be a revision either. Not sure about the retroactivity -- I mean that would be awesome and really make people think, do I want to vote against this important proposition to protect civil rights just b/c it would legalize gay marriage? Post reply Do you find this valuable?
Admin_GLUAD	12. RE: We need 2 ballot measures in CA for 2010!!! Jun 15 2009, 2:14 AM EDT Excellent job with thinking on this important issue. I think Equality California has a great handle on this issue, although your suggestion #1, is not being communicated to my acknowledgement.. I would love to hear more about your ideas on this issue. Our organization is based out of Arizona, but we do work on a national level. If Equality California doesn't get a start on this, we shall bring this to the attention of the Legislature. I have a good friend with Equality California and I am sure he would be happy to pass your suggestion to the appropriate staff within their organization. I will also request follow up for you, and I both so we can stay on top of this issue. Very enjoyable to hear about your active action(s)! Please email me directly ASAP, so we can continue such communication, and get this rolling. Your friend, Caleb, Executive Director Gays & Lesbians United Against Discrimination Email: caleb@gluad.org Office: office@gluad.org Post reply 3 out of 3 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?
drjams	13. RE: We need 2 ballot measures in CA for 2010!!! Jun 15 2009, 2:08 PM EDT "If Prop 8 isn't a revision, disallowing a future Prop 8 may not be a revision either." Yes, this is what I mean - if Prop 8 isn't a revision, then my suggestion for #2 shouldn't be considered a revision either, right? Well...should shmould...you know how these things go...so yeah, it may necessitate a revision and yeah, it will likely need to be written in some legal way by some lawyers - but remember, the voters need to understand what they're reading so they don't just vote "no" cause they don't understand it. Thus, also writing it in plain English (and Spanish) will be necessary! Post reply 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?
Admin_GLUAD	14. RE: We need 2 ballot measures in CA for 2010!!! Jun 16 2009, 12:40 AM EDT I will say, they are great ideas! Currently, our Assistant Director and I are discussing your wonderful email. We will touch base shortly. Your friend, Caleb, Executive Director Gays & Lesbians United Against Discrimination Email: caleb@gluad.org Office: office@gluad.org Post reply Do you find this valuable?
Athelwulf	15. RE: We need 2 ballot measures in CA for 2010!!! Jun 16 2009, 1:52 AM EDT "Yes, this is what I mean - if Prop 8 isn't a revision, then my suggestion for #2 shouldn't be considered a revision either, right?" I think I understand your reasoning, but you present your idea as being about much more than same-sex marriage alone. It would affect a whole lot more than just marriage. To me, that makes it a sweeping change, and my money is on this being deemed a revision, if the court is ever asked about it. Another thing to consider: This alteration is explicitly intended to overturn the Prop 8 decision. Remember that Prop 8 was challenged on the grounds that the people tried to do exactly this, and thus Prop 8 breached the separation of powers (or something like this). The court disagreed and ruled that only a minor exception was carved out, and In re Marriage Cases was largely left intact. But in contrast, the Prop 8 decision would be entirely overturned if this alteration were added to the constitution. If it passed through the amendment process, I'm sure opponents would challenge it on the same grounds that Prop 8 itself was challenged, and their case would be more credible. For this reason also, I would say this idea is a revision. Here are some final points: What if we make this a little more broad, and say that no rights at all can be repealed by a simple majority vote? Why should only minorities have this constitutional protection? Also, I'd love to see an analysis (preferably a professional one) of exactly what this potential revision's impact would be. Which previous initiative amendments would it dislodge? Does anyone have any immediate guesses of what the retroactivity clause would probably do beyond Prop 8? Finally, because this idea is intended to appeal to more than just gays and lesbians, I think it's best to get more than just LGBT interest groups on board. Otherwise, it may be perceived as just an LGBT issue, and the people won't be provoked into thinking beyond LGBT rights. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
drjams	16. RE: We need 2 ballot measures in CA for 2010!!! Jun 16 2009, 9:27 AM EDT You make some very good points. It's clear that we need some professionals to help! Are you a lawyer or professional political organizer or analyzer? Caleb, above, is helping to connect me with some folks at EQCA which will certainly be helpful! Any and all help is very welcome and appreciated! I'm so glad we're all talking about it...and I'm not set in stone about how it must be done just that something like it must be done! Post reply Do you find this valuable?
mstikl1	17. RE: We need 2 ballot measures in CA for 2010!!! Jun 19 2009, 10:03 PM EDT I like the idea of general wording such as "Every adult citizen in good standing shall have equal access to all civil rights, privileges and duties accorded by the State of California; and that these civil rights, privileges and duties shall not be withheld, abridged nor rescinded without a Constitutional Amendment supported by a 3/4 majority vote from both the populace and the Legislature". ...Or something like that. Voting against something like that would be insane.... Post reply Do you find this valuable?

Related Content

(what's this?)

New York City	Can we have a March?	Alienated by certain asexuals
gay on gay hate	Tax Day Actions	Annonymoty means strength
Obama Declares June Gay Rights Month	Prop 8	Tired of Left, Right Wing? What about a 3rd wing?
Creative FundRaising Ideas for Equality	Miss California Prejean plays the victim card	Sean & Stefan

JavaScript must be enabled in order for you to contribute to this site.
To start contributing, enable JavaScript by changing your browser options, then try again.

Home