Skip to main content

Today the Stop SB 48 Coalition failed in their attempt to derail the FAIR Act. They were trying to gathering enough signatures for a "peoples' veto" referendum, which would block the law from taking effect until a vote were held in November, 2012.

But they couldn't do it.  For whatever reason, the big guns behind other anti-gay efforts did not cough up the bucks, and the petition work was done, not by professional signature gatherers, but by volunteers.  Needing to gather at least 504,760 valid signatures, they could not pull it off. Noon was the deadline for turning the petitions in to the California Secretary of State. According to the San Francisco Chronicle:

Backers of an effort to repeal a law that requires schools teach about the historical contributions of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, and people with disabilities, failed to collect enough signatures to qualify for the ballot.

The group, Stop SB48, which is named after the law, faced a Wednesday deadline to turn in just under 505,000 signatures. In an e-mail, the group said, "We thank all of you that worked so hard to provide the hundreds of thousands of signatures received. In the end, 90 days was too short a time to accomplish such a large task."


The FAIR Act calls for California students to learn about LGBT Americans, in the same way that they are now taught about the contributions of

... women, black Americans, American Indians, Mexicans, Asians, Pacific Island people, and other ethnic groups to the economic, political, and social development of California and the United States of America...

Scary stuff, right?

It turns out that this is indeed very scary stuff to the fundies. I've been keeping an eye on the Facebook page for Stop SB48 to see if there was any chance they would be able to generate enough signatures, and it's amazing (well, it's really par for the course) what you can learn.

Who knew?

((Homosexuality is)) either a choice, or it might be a generational curse. It is definitely not how God made a person to be. Homosexuality is a sin, that needs to be dealt with, and not accepted as normal.

Christians quiver?

This law violates God's law! And Gods law is above it. The LGBT community is trying to normalize that which is abnormal. And it bothers you that true Christian aren't bowing down and quivering before this law. We NEVER will.

Lady Gaga would disagree...

Homosexuality is a learned thing it doesn't just happen and your NOT born that way you have been brain washed dont mess with children we need a law against this law.

If we'd only known sooner, we would have passed it last year!

Thanks to SB48 I am FINALLY moving out of the state of California after 28 long years. 4 more weeks and I cannot wait! Good riddance CA!

You actually can make this stuff up.

LGBT is, right now, working with the APA to "normalize" pedophilia so they can remove it from the DSM (just as they did in '73), and then work to legalize it as well....for all those gay and lesbian pederasty groups out there (notice that there are NO heterosexual pedophilia groups).

Corrupt politicians? Color me unsurprised.

California is rife with corrupt judges, governors and other politicians. After Having a sexually perverted judge nullify the people's efforts on prop 8, they have probably lost faith in the system. Lgbt members and proponents have no scruples or integrity when it comes to their agenda.

Did he just say... 'poop'?

... even you know the anal cavity has poop in it. Do you wipe your butt after you take a shit? of course you do because shit is poison. So to be P.C. will you lie to your self and say it is good for to men to play in each others poop?

A small victory for equality, but an important one. The fundies were turned back.  Their attempt to get the people to vote for discrimination failed.  It's time to take their favorite tactic -- referenda -- and throw it back in their faces as the people begin to vote for equality.  That day is coming.  First in Maine, then across the country.

-------

3:54 PM PT: Statement from Stop SB48


Unfortunately we did not collect enough signatures to qualify the referendum to overturn SB48. That law will be in place in our schools at the first of next year.

We thank all of you that worked so hard to provide the hundreds of thousands of signatures received.In the end, 90 days was too short a time to accomplish such a large task.

In the coming days you will see the celebration of our opponents. We know this because it has already started in social media and other places.And some of the rhetoric will be harsh. Remember, despite what they say about us, we opposed SB 48 simply because we do not believe that children should be exposed to an intentionally one-sided argument about lifestyles and values we do not hold.

And you will have to face some of those who said from the beginning that our referendum effort was a waste of time. They said we did not have enough money, the commitment of enough groups, or enough days. Ultimately they were right. And in private perhaps they will ask if the effort they withheld would have made the critical difference.

In the end, everybody that dedicated time and effort to qualifying this referendum should hold their heads high. The children in California schools and their parents owe a debt of gratitude to each of you for attempting such a huge task.

We hope that you will be there for the next battle.

While we did not overturn this very bad law, we built a small army of dedicated volunteers that collected an incredible amount of signatures. There will be a next battle. Despite the overuse of the term "tolerance", there is little tolerance for those who do not endorse the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender lifestyles. And there will be more laws passed that advocate for these and attempt to silence any opposition.

The groups that rallied to create the Stop SB 48 effort exist to promote and defend our shared values. Over the last several decades these groups have grown to be a major influence in the Capitol but also at the local school board. They have trained ordinary citizens to lobby their legislators and defended good laws from unfairness in the courts. And each of them puts a special emphasis on training youth to be the leaders of tomorrow. Watch your email so we can keep you informed on these opportunities.

Despite our defeat we hope that you will be encouraged in your boldness. We hope that you have been strengthened in your stand for what is right in your community, your church, and your country. And we hope that you have met some friends and allies that share your values and vision for our State.

We will keep the web site open for some time at www.stopsb48.com.  Please use it to have your friends sign up for future emails, to ask us any questions, or to donate to pay the bills that will still come from this referendum attempt.

Thank you again. We were all honored to fight this battle by your side. Even in defeat we were right to fight. And we will continue to do so.

Several state officials joined the battle and sponsored our efforts to Stop SB 48. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill said, "Courage is rightly esteemed the first of human qualities... because it is the quality, which guarantees all others." These courageous, bold, and strong leaders answered the call to action when the phone rang.

The Stop SB 48 coalition, the hundreds of thousands of California families, groups, organizations, and community leaders would like to thank the following state officials for standing up for California's school children.

State Senator Doug LaMalfa

State Senator Sharon Runner

State Senator Joel Anderson

Assemblywoman Shannon Grove

Assemblyman Jim Nielsen

Assemblyman Dan Logue

Assemblyman Mike Morrell

Assemblyman Curt Hagman

Assemblyman Tim Donnelly

Assemblyman Don Wagner

Former Assemblyman Chuck DeVore

U.S. Congressman Tom McClintock

Thank you for your support!

 



Originally posted to jpmassar on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 02:46 PM PDT.

Also republished by California politics, SFKossacks, Milk Men And Women, and Angry Gays.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Does the chewing gum lose its flavor on the... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jpmassar, satanicpanic, DaleA
    ... even you know the anal cavity has poop in it. Do you wipe your butt after you take a shit?
    But does the Pope know bears in the woods?

    I am off my metas! Präsidentenelf-maßschach; Warning-Some Snark Above"Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03)

    by annieli on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 02:50:27 PM PDT

  •  I'm sorry you had to read that stuff (12+ / 0-)

    Thanks for wading into the "Stop SB 48" Facebook page so we didn't have to. There are some scary people in California; at least one of them claims to be leaving. Thank goodness.

  •  This is all so 1980's. (12+ / 0-)

    Seriously I remember all these arguments in the 1980's-- homosexuality attempting to normalize pedophilia?  Check.  

    Anal sex being about... poop?  Check.

    Homosexuality bad because it's not a choice?  Check.

    sigh.

    "The first rule of pillow fight club is do not talk about pillow fight club." --Keith Olbermann

    by Julie Waters on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 02:59:58 PM PDT

  •  I hope this means the tide is changing and (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jpmassar, skrekk, jgilhousen

    we will see marriage equality in California.

    "A lot of people are waiting for Martin Luther King or Mahatma Gandhi to come back - but they are gone. We are it. It is up to us. It is up to you."--Marian Wright Edelman

    by TheSolipsisticMe on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 03:00:41 PM PDT

    •  Not if EQCA has anything to say about. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FogCityJohn, jgilhousen, Oh Mary Oh

      And they do, and they did.  No marriage equality in CA for at least two years.

      •  If EQCA did get Prop 8 repealed (6+ / 0-)

        it would make moot the Perry v Brown case.   I'm not sure that's a good thing from a strategic standpoint even if it would directly benefit couples who want to marry in the near term.

        •  You'd rather gamble everything on a Supreme Court (5+ / 0-)

          that just refused to consider a ruling that allows Louisiana not to grant a new birth certificate to a kid who got adopted by a same-sex couple?

          On a Supreme Court that decided Citzens' United?

          What if they rule definitively that gays and lesbians are not entitled to heightened scrutiny under the 14th amendment?

          What odds do you think are appropriate for SCOTUS to issue a favorable ruling vs. an unfavorable one?

          Wouldn't it be wise to at least hedge bets?

          •  I trust the courts far more than the majority (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jpmassar, EdSF

            to respect the civil rights of a minority.

            •  In this case you are almost certainly wrong (0+ / 0-)

              at this point in history.

              Unlike with civil rights or interracial marriage, the courts and the politicians have lagged far behind the majority.  Likely in no small part due to the age demographic of those same politicians and judges.

               

              •  On what do you base that? (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                AUBoy2007, skrekk, EdSF

                Courts occasional find for us.

                Our wins with voters are few and far between.

                "A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."--Margaret Mead 

                by Scott Wooledge on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 05:39:04 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Polling for DADT and ENDA-type questions. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  AUBoy2007, Oh Mary Oh

                  Is what I was referring to mostly, and now for marriage equality on a nationwide scale.

                  Compared to attitudes towards interracial marriage and segregation when Loving and Brown were decided.

                  Note that I also said "at this point in history".  Not seven years ago in 2004 when a slew of referenda were passed, or even 2008.

                  I don't think the courts would have ultimately overturned DADT, yet the people supported its demise 2:1.

                  I don't trust NC courts any more than I do NC voters.
                  Similarly for most states with constitutional amendments.

                   I don't trust MN courts as much as I trust MN voters.  I don't trust RI courts at all, and I would bet heavily on a referendum there.  Similarly with ME.  We know WA courts ruled against marriage equality and would so rule again, but there's a decent shot WA voters would approve.

                  I don't have as much confidence in SCOTUS as I would have in a vote on marriage equality of all adults; I might have as much confidence right now as for a vote of registered voters.  But maybe not two years hence.

              •  My reading of SCOTUS is 5-4 in favor of marriage (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Oh Mary Oh, EdSF

                equality, should Prop 8 be reviewed by the current court.    Same with DOMA if Windsor v US reaches the court anytime soon.

                I agree with you that the  record of success in court is mixed, and that age demographics will continue to make gains in public opinion polls (as opposed to the vote, which is usually much more conservative).    

                But note - a loss in court in no way hinders the people from voting to correct an inequity, while in the case of Prop 8 a repeal at the polls will remove that particular case from court review for the entire 9th circuit.   However a win in court could impact all the western states.

      •  Well... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jpmassar, jgilhousen, DaleA, Oh Mary Oh

        Love, Honor & Cherish has announced their petition drive to bring it to the ballot on 2012.

        It should be noted the same group tried and failed to bring petition it onto the 2010 ballot.

        Their press release regarding the EQCA resignation was rather... circular firing squad, if you ask me.

        "A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."--Margaret Mead 

        by Scott Wooledge on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 03:25:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  A million signatures. Via volunteers. Oh my. (6+ / 0-)

          Here's the proposed text:

          This amendment would amend an existing section of the California Constitution.  Existing language proposed to be deleted is printed in strikeout type.  Language proposed to be added is printed in underlined type.

          Section 1.  To protect religious freedom, no court shall interpret this measure to require any priest, minister, pastor, rabbi, or other person authorized to perform marriages by any religious denomination, church, or other non-profit religious institution to perform any marriage in violation of his or her religious beliefs. The refusal to perform a marriage under this provision shall not be the basis for lawsuit or liability, and shall not affect the tax-exempt status of any religious denomination, church or other religious institution.

          Section 2.  To provide for fairness in the government’s issuance of marriage licenses, Section 7.5 of Article I of the California Constitution is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 7.5.  Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Marriage is between only two persons and shall not be restricted on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or religion.

          •  Plus, $5-6M for the petition (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jpmassar, jgilhousen, Oh Mary Oh

            and $40M+ for the campaign.

            "A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."--Margaret Mead 

            by Scott Wooledge on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 03:33:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Huh? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jgilhousen, Oh Mary Oh

              If it's all volunteer, and via social media, it could be done really cheaply.  Getting the signatures, that is.

              No question about megabucks for the campaign itself.  But if the petition did make it to the ballot as a fait accompli, the money is likely to appear.

              And even if doesn't show up, it's not clear to me that it will make all the much of a difference.  We got 48% with an ineffectual campaign in what will be four years ago.  It is not implausible that we can get 50% with an ineffectual campaign in 2012.

              •  I just don't know (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jpmassar, jgilhousen, DaleA, Oh Mary Oh
                the money is likely to appear
                I have spoken to a few of the people who are professional fundraisers, who actually worked (professionally) on national fundraising for Prop 8, Question 2, New York's ME fight, and others.

                And they say the cupboards are looking bare in 2012.

                I do value the opinions of people whose job it is to go out and find that $40M+.

                "A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."--Margaret Mead 

                by Scott Wooledge on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 03:49:46 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  WAIT A MINUTE!!! (0+ / 0-)

          The link you provided says nothing about 2012.  It seems to be an old link for 2010.

          http://lovehonorcherishfoundation.org/...

          Where are you getting this information?

  •  This is a phyrric victory (8+ / 0-)

    Because they're planning another campaign in 2012 backed by big money and organized by socially conservative interests from outside of California.

    I'd caution anyone against resting on their laurels - the odds of them pulling this off in 90 days were incredibly high. The odds of them pulling it off with greater lead time and more money are better than even. Prepare.

    "The two pioneering forces of modern sensibility are Jewish moral seriousness and homosexual aestheticism and irony." Susan Sontag

    by Shane Hensinger on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 03:06:19 PM PDT

    •  They may say they are planning another campaign (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shane Hensinger, KenBee, DaleA, Oh Mary Oh

      but no one's actually planning it yet, AFAIK.

      And it would have to be different.  It can't be a people's veto anymore, it would have to be a new law voted in by initiative.  So SB 48 will have already taken effect in January, 2012.

      Not that they can't do it.  But if the moneybags weren't willing to support this effort, they might not want to support  that effort either.

      We'll just have to wait and see what they do.

      •  Oh they'll be back (7+ / 0-)

        Whether the law is in effect or not is immaterial to voters. Our opponents will just have more time to gin up the scare tactics - which they will no doubt do.

        Despite conservatives constantly mocking CA they know if they get a victory here on any issue it tends to echo nationwide. It's why they put so much time, money and energy into Prop 8 and it's why their new campaign will do the same. It'll also have the penumbral impact of drawing more of their voters to the polls at a time when they'll desperately need it due to redistricting.

        Nothing you said here was wrong. And of course I am pleased as well the effort failed. But I know well enough, having gone through campaigns like this all the way from Oregon's Measure 9 in 1992 to now, that these people are tenacious fuckers.

        "The two pioneering forces of modern sensibility are Jewish moral seriousness and homosexual aestheticism and irony." Susan Sontag

        by Shane Hensinger on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 03:23:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And our opponents don't care (5+ / 0-)

          how much more complicated it will be. They thrive on complicating the system, so long as it jams up gay equality for even an hour.

          "A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."--Margaret Mead 

          by Scott Wooledge on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 03:31:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I kind of disagree about Prop 8. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Shane Hensinger, DaleA

          I don't think that victory echoed nation-wide, at least not in any way groups like NOM would have liked.

          It was a bit like shutting the barn door after the horses have escaped.  They've delayed same-sex marriage in California to be sure, but they have not stemmed the tide.  The Prop 8 vote was more the phyrric victory.

          One should no more deplore homosexuality than left-handedness. ~Towards a Quaker View of Sex, 1964 (Proud left-handed queer here!) SSP: wmlawman

          by AUBoy2007 on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 03:37:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh wow, I violently disagree. (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Shane Hensinger, sfbob, DaleA, Oh Mary Oh, EdSF

            From my perspective, it was the shot heard round the world.

            It's true they haven't stemmed the tide.  Nothing short of demographic genocide could do that.  But you'd be looking now at marriage equality now in CA, ME, WA, MD, RI, NJ and maybe elsewhere had California defeated Prop 8.  And probably no attempt at a constitutional amendment in MN or NC. Plus a much more concerted effort to overturn DOMA.

            •  You're both right, and wrong. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jpmassar, enhydra lutris, Oh Mary Oh

              Marriage equality in other states is all well and good - except for Californians because gay marriage is still outlawed here - which is the biggest state in the union. Prop 8 left the GLBT community in CA reeling from the impact and in some ways I still don't think we've recovered our equilibrium - which is why every election season we're treated to the distressing and energy-wasting rehash of whether Prop 8 should be challenged at the ballot box or not.

              Essentially as soon as the history legislation passed the GLBT and disabled community should have been meeting, paying pollsters and planning a campaign which was ready to spring into action the moment an initiative was filed. We've failed to do that and we were lucky this time. But our opponents are just like terrorists because they only have to be lucky once. We have to be lucky every time.

              And the institutional instability of Equality CA certainly isn't helping matters at all.

              "The two pioneering forces of modern sensibility are Jewish moral seriousness and homosexual aestheticism and irony." Susan Sontag

              by Shane Hensinger on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 03:52:55 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well, I happen to know the orgs (0+ / 0-)

                Including EQCA totally anticipated the petition and had a "Don't sign the petition" campaign ready. And they really swung hard at Tony Perkins, et al, using words like "liar."

                Did they have the actual VOLUNTEERS to do this outreach? I can easily imagine they did not. I wasn't impressed with LGBT New Yorkers commitment to grassroots volunteering in the run-up to our vote.

                I once canvassed with 10 people. I was the only gay. Half of them were paid HRC staffers.

                "A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."--Margaret Mead 

                by Scott Wooledge on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 05:05:47 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The wounds from Prop8 have not been healed (4+ / 0-)

                  here in SoCal. The absolute ineptness of the anti 8 campaign still pisses people off. The reason that there was a shortage of volunteers was that the leadership only had you work once. Then forgot about you. I know many people who were willing to help out. We called the number and heard back with a message of we are working here on this date. People showed up, worked and offered to work again. Not a word from the leadership. Had to call in as a new volunteer in order to know what was happening. Rather than building a team of volunteers, they preferred speed dating. Absolutely disgusting.

                  Don't get me started on the refusal to have literature in Spanish.

            •  I disagree it fired them up anymore (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jpmassar, AUBoy2007

              than they would have been anyway. These folks are on record wanting to jail us.  They have been beating us up since they could burn us at the stake.

              It did obviously create an effective campaign they have recycled. But it isn't like that was anything new. They have been slogging the "Gays are going to molest your children!" since before Anita Bryant.

              I think it woke the LGBT community out of the slumber of the Bush years. Cleve Jones says Prop 8 passing was the best thing for the fight for equality. And I am inclined to think he's right.

              "A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."--Margaret Mead 

              by Scott Wooledge on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 05:00:25 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Isn't it the opposite? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DaleA

      A phyrric victory is a victory that leads to a fall...

      This is a fall that leads to... god I hope this isn't the reverse...

      "A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."--Margaret Mead 

      by Scott Wooledge on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 03:26:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A pyrrhic victory is one (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LuvSet, sfbob, DaleA, Oh Mary Oh

        which leaves the victor so drained that he would have been better off not to have fought the battle, even though the enemy retreated.  C.f. Napoleon and the Battle of Borodino outside of Moscow.

        The forces of equality have not been drained.  I don't know if they have been much energized, but this particular skirmish hasn't harmed equality forces.  So it is hard to see how the term 'pyrrhic victory' would apply.

        I think a more reasonable term would be a 'short-lived' victory.

        •  The problems in Equality CA say differently (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jpmassar, DaleA

          I think we've been drained for some time, for 3 years since Prop 8 passed to be exact. I still don't think we're back on our feet. Opposition to this referendum was extremely fragmented and the fact it failed had little or nothing to do with GLBT strategizing. It failed because our opponents had next to no time and very little money. They won't make that mistake again.

          Essentially we're arguing two sides of the same coin here and since we're allies we're going to have to agree to disagree I guess :-)

          "The two pioneering forces of modern sensibility are Jewish moral seriousness and homosexual aestheticism and irony." Susan Sontag

          by Shane Hensinger on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 03:56:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You points are all true. (0+ / 0-)

            But have nothing to do with whether 'Stop SB48' failing was a pyrrhic victory for equality forces.

            That Prop 8 was a stinging, horrible defeat for marriage equality forces in California is, I would say, universally recognized.

          •  We can beat them when they do not (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jpmassar

            bring their A game, as was the case here and also the case in the NY ME battle.

            If/When their sleeping giant awakes we will need help.

            "A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."--Margaret Mead 

            by Scott Wooledge on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 05:08:57 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Now wait just a second... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jpmassar, cooper888, DaleA
    ... even you know the anal cavity has poop in it. Do you wipe your butt after you take a shit? of course you do because shit is poison. So to be P.C. will you lie to your self and say it is good for to men to play in each others poop?

    If there's still "poop" in your anal cavity when you're done going/wiping then you have some real issues. And if that's the case they make enemas just for that reason.

    Sarcasm: It beats killing people...

    by Dreggas on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 03:06:54 PM PDT

  •  Sorry, hate never fails, (5+ / 0-)

    it only retreats to regroup.

    "A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."--Margaret Mead 

    by Scott Wooledge on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 03:13:34 PM PDT

  •  Like Ahnold... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jpmassar, UncleCharlie, sfbob, EdSF

    ...they'll be back. And we'll be waiting. Relentless.we.are.

    Tips for 'poop'. Reminds me that the dogs are in trouble for dropping one outside the shower door this morning. They know I can't see without my glasses. Maybe I'll start my own petition...

  •  YAY!!! YAY!!! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jpmassar

    Dancing around, hopping up & down!!

  •  While I don't doubt they'll try again they need (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jpmassar, DaleA, Oh Mary Oh

    to be very, very, very careful.

    First of all, the fact that the law will have already been implemented (though updated textbooks aren't scheduled to be published before 2015) is not something to be underestimated.

    There is a bigger consideration at work however. AB 48 did not address the teaching of the accomplishments of gays and lesbians exclusively; it included the disabled (and may possibly have included other groups as well). As I understand it, the next attempt will consist of singling out the accomplishments of gays and lesbians for exclusion, while retaining other portions of the law. I don't see how any such an attempt can succeed in the long run. The precedent established by Romer vs Evans is rather clear on this point.

    •  Yes. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clarknt67, Oh Mary Oh

      Singling out gays specially for 'non-teaching about' seems at least plausibly in violation of Romer.

      And in violation of the California Constitution, which, via the California Supreme Court, has established heightened scrutiny for gays (carving out the special Prop 8 exception).

      On the other hand, how does anything establish standing that they are being hurt by this new, theoretical, piece of legislation?

      •  I don't recall how things have played out before (0+ / 0-)

        It's possible that, were another amendment crafted narrowly, it could be preempted at any stage in the process. It seems to me that if a ballot measure is unconstitutional on its face, the state could refuse to allow it on the ballot. If that isn't possible, then unfortunately I suspect we might have to suffer through the same aggravating process that is characterizing Prop 8 or that battle that took place in the 1960's regarding Prop 14 which attempted to legalize racial discrimination and had to be fought all the way to the Supreme Court. On the other hand, if the state was of the opinion that the ballot measure was unconstitutional, which I believe was the case with Prop 14, it would be the the Attorney General rather than a non-profit, that would be fighting to have it overturned.

        Here's a synopsis (from Wikipedia, if that's okay) of the history of Prop 14. I've removed a sentence where the ellipsis appears:

        With the support of Governor Edmund G. Brown, the constitutionality of the measure was challenged soon afterward. In 1966, the California Supreme Court held that the proposition was unconstitutional because it violated the equal protection and due process provisions of the California Constitution....

        However, the case continued. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the California Supreme Court's decision in the case of Reitman v. Mulkey (1967), holding that the wording of Proposition 14 violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and was therefore invalid.

        The Reitman decision established a significant precedent. It established that the Fourteenth Amendment, because it is an element of the federal constitution, trumps any language in a state constitution that allows racial discrimination, including state constitutional provisions enacted by popular initiative. As of 2010, this precedent remains valid case law.

        •  I'm pretty sure that's not true (0+ / 0-)
          It seems to me that if a ballot measure is unconstitutional on its face, the state could refuse to allow it on the ballot.

          The constitutionality issue has to be decided after the fact, IIRC.

          But one could envision an immediate stay of the new law/amendment from going into effect issued by a federal court on the basis of Romer.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site