The Manhattan Project
Morning Roundup: Second Helpings Edition
Fire at 17th and L NW Forces Evacuations
Compromise Uncertain on Same-Sex Marriage Law
Sculpture Garden Ice-Skating Rink Remains Closed
When news spread that the court would hand down its ruling today, D.C. gay rights activists made immediate plans for a gathering tonight, the flavor to be determined by how the justices ruled. Well, the court has decided to uphold the proposition, which bans gay marriage in the state. So tonight's gathering, starting at 8:30, will definitely be a protest. One positive note, though obviously bittersweet: the justices ruled that about 18,000 same-sex marriages sealed before the ban went into effect will remain legal. More info on the protest can be found on Facebook.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebookTips
Contribute
Latest Tip:
Does anyone know about the armed robbery on 13th NW last night in Columbia Heights? The helicopters
[more]
The guy who was the only one to vote against prop 8 was mentioned as a possible SC nominee. Sure would have been awkward if it had been him and then this decision came down two hours later.
Well, there's also the whole thing about the President not actually supporting gay marriage...
Yeah, which is why it was always a longshot that he would name one of the lesbian candidates (Sullivan, Karlan). Or even Kagan, who banned military recruiters. He was not opening that can of worms.
I have read the brief published by the Calif. Supreme Court and while I understand why they upheld Prop 8; I am still extremely disappointed by this decision.
If the state's constitution is that easy to change, and there are no rules on what changes the people can make... than I'd say the state is in a bad state of affairs!
Some more realistic same-sex marriage supportes make the case that the court's decision still allows the *possibility* for a substantially simillar same-sex union to be established. While this may be true, I find it difficult to believe that any voter initiative would pass that defies the previous one; and even if it does, most likely the LDS church will just come back in with their money guns blazing to further amend the state discrimination bill...er, I mean, constitution.
What a sad day for California--the proported leader of civil rights issues--hah!
The success of Prop 8 (and its cousins in other states) is a cautionary tale about "direct democracy" and the abuse of the referendum and initiative process. And now there are some calling for a DC referendum on same-sex marriage. Beware.
Please. Democracy is nothing if not governance by the people. The California "proposition" system is up for debate in terms of effectiveness, but how on earth is a direct vote from the people contrary to the democratic principles the country was founded on? The legal system should weigh in to ensure decisions are within the legal framework of the country, but beyond that I'm not sure why a popular vote on a contentious issue is a bad thing, other than the fact that you clearly don't agree with the result.
Well, you can do the popular thing, or you can do the right thing. They're not always the same thing. In many cases, they're never the same thing. People owning people was pretty popular back in the day. Anti-miscegenation laws as well. But you're right. It's time to take this back to the courts. And maybe one bright day all the nation's antiquated anti-sodomy laws will be wiped off the books and my wife can finally (and legally) f**k me in the a$$ with my chrome-plated commemorative Steely Dan® Brand Strap-on Mule.
..my chrome-plated commemorative Steely Dan® Brand Strap-on Mule..
Are you reelin' in the years?
Stowin' away the time?
Are you gatherin' up the tears?
Have you had enough of mine?!!!
You wouldn't even know a diamond if you held it in your hand. The things you think are precious I can't understand.
I read parts of the majority and dissenting opinions.
I wonder now, is it ok in California to pass a constitutional amendment which prohibits inter-racial or inter-religion marriage, as long as a civil union provides the same rights/protections as a marriage?
I think the burden will now be to some how prove that the civil union is not equal to a marriage.
The government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all. How is that for an idea?
No, because those would fall afoul of the US Constitution. There's no federal question regarding gay marriage, so the states (and voters therein) are free to do whatever they please there, including outlawing it.
How about we solve this problem simply... From here on out, if you want the government to recognize your union... You get a civil union... gay and straight both... if you want God to recognize your union, you go to a church... PROBLEM SOLVED!!!!
And when you want both the government and God to recognize? Then what?
Take your seat.
Simple, for the govt recognition... it's paperwork in an office at a govt building... then you go have your pretty little ceremony with whatever religious observations you want. The two "ceremonies" should have NOTHING to do with eachother, this isn't difficult to understand.
Oh, and I am quite comfy in my big chair in my living room... me likey
Anyone who feels entitled to tell others what g/God does or doesn't recognize should be rounded up and sent to fight the Taliban.
Meh. You're oversimplifying as if you were a teenager. You're calling for a generational change where kids will actually be raised to know the difference between marriage and a civil union. Not to mention, also raised to understand that a kid with two mommies or two daddies is something perfectly normal. Kind of a tall order. Then again, now everyone can drink from the water fountain.
How are these mutually exclusive? Church and state are theoretically separate anyway, so why shouldn't the act of "marriage" be split into its religious/emotional side and its legal/governmentally-recognized side? That way government can stay neutral on a toxic issue, and individual belief systems can continue to recognize marriage as they see fit. Everyone wins.
I'm pretty torn on this one. It went up for referendum and the people voted. Other people thought this process (voting) was done improperly/were sore about the result/etc. so it went to the CA SC, which upheld.
I'm not leaning one way or another, but what leg does this anti-Prop 8 movement have left to stand on? I'm curious enough to be at this rally/protest tonight to see what plan of action can be offered, if any.
Staging a Prop 8 demonstration BEFORE the actual decision probably would have made more sense, but I suppose if the rally can raise awareness even a little bit on D.C.'s own civil rights issues then it will have served a purpose. I just hope they don't shut down my street.
Why not throw all our gripes together in one big protest...
The I WANNA MARRY MY BEST FRIEND, SMOKE POT, CARRY A GUN, AND EAT JUMBO SLICE PIZZA PROTEST!
Is it just me, or are civil unions separate and therefore inherently unequal?
i'm eagerly anticipating the next step - overturning brown vs board of education based on a popular vote...
This is just a temporary setback. I have confidence that to the younger generation (age 30 and under), gay marriage just doesn't matter - meaning, that it's not the hot-button issue that it is with religious fundamentalists, and that folks should be free to wed regardless.
Patience, grasshopper. Time for Proposition 9.