California votes to put discrimination in the constitution :(

Discussion in 'Politics' started by B_liltomnotsolil, Nov 5, 2008.

  1. B_liltomnotsolil

    B_liltomnotsolil New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. Deno

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Messages:
    4,771
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    27
    what actually was the vote count, couldn't find it quickly.
     
  3. novice_btm

    Staff Member Moderator Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    18,199
    Albums:
    4
    Likes Received:
    861
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Los Angeles (CA, US)
  4. novice_btm

    Staff Member Moderator Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    18,199
    Albums:
    4
    Likes Received:
    861
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Los Angeles (CA, US)
  5. enviroboy23

    enviroboy23 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    Messages:
    18
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1
    apparently they still have a few million absentee and provisional ballots to go through, so technically this one isn't called yet, at least according to the networks.
     
  6. novice_btm

    Staff Member Moderator Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    18,199
    Albums:
    4
    Likes Received:
    861
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Los Angeles (CA, US)
    Well, according to the Sec. of State site as of 9:51 (8 mins ago), of those votes still outstanding, the "No" votes would have to lead by 427,822, to overturn the current "Yes" lead, and even then, it would literally be by ONE vote.
     
  7. kalipygian

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,982
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    alaska
    It might be a step backward in the short run, but in the long run we are going to achieve legal equality.

    And having 52% of the people is an improvement, it would have been 2/3rds not so many years ago.

    Nevertheless, STUPID VOTERS, they have no right to presume to vote away our rights.
     
    #7 kalipygian, Nov 5, 2008
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2008
  8. D_Chaumbrelayne_Copprehead

    D_Chaumbrelayne_Copprehead Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    8,978
    Likes Received:
    11
    Watch this end up going before the US Supreme Court. And if there are vacancies on the court, we know who's gonna get to appoint new justices.

    It's tough to say that gay couples are getting equal protection under the law when marriage carries benefits that don't accrue to those who aren't married. This might be like a Brown v. Board of Ed or Roe v. Wade decision when it comes.
     
  9. kalipygian

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,982
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    alaska
    State constitutional questions are decided by the state supreme court, unless something in the state constitution is in conflict with the Federal one, which I don't think is the case. I think it very likely it will be ruled unconstitutional by the state supreme court, as they have their own recent precedent, don't see how they could rule otherwise.
     
  10. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    it's not over..............
     
  11. OCDreamer69

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2005
    Messages:
    427
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    Verified:
    Photo
    The fat lady hasn't sung yet........ :)
     
Draft saved Draft deleted