CA Supreme Court to rule on Gay Marriage today (5/15) at 10:00am

[Morrigoon]

Random thought: is it too late to get another proposition on the ballot? Why aren't we trying to put a competing prop on the ballot that would amend the state constitution to specifically INCLUDE gay marriage by defining marriage as a union between two persons to create a single household?

Oh, and I already brought this up in the Sooo... thread, but I've decided that when talking to people who are against gay marriage (ick factor, religion, semantics over the word "marriage", etc.) - instead of antagonizing them by trying to convince them to like gay marriage, I'm going to try to provide them with enough reasons that mean something to them (protect freedom, keep the government out of your personal life, don't take away rights that others currently have, whatever it takes) to convince them to not vote on the issue at all.

Yep, I'm going to try to make them just uncomfortable enough with a yes vote to convince them to abstain. And I'm going to make it clear that I can respect an abstention. One less yes vote to overcome

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

Random thought: is it too late to get another proposition on the ballot?

Yes. It takes a little over a year to successfully get an initiative onto the ballot (submitting intent with the AG, collecting signatures, etc.).

Go to this link and look for "Suggested Initiative Deadlines"

[Gemini Cricket]

Leaders of the gay and lesbian community, along with their union allies, plan to boycott the Manchester Grand Hyatt because its owner, Doug Manchester, has contributed $125,000 to an initiative to ban same-sex marriage.

Source

Interesting.

In addition, he said, he was motivated by his strong Catholic faith to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.
But, he said that he welcomes gays and lesbians to his hotels and restaurants.

Source

Manchester: Gays shouldn't marry but I'll take their money...

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Breaking News
The Massachusetts Senate has voted to repeal a 1913 law used to bar out-of-state gay couples from marrying in the state.

Obviously, it needs to be approved by the MA House & Governor, but Gov. Patrick looks to be in favor of the bill.

Take THAT Mitt Romney!

[innerSpaceman]

I'm relieved, but confess to being a tad miffed California's economy won't have the lock on out-of-state gay weddings.


Frankly, that was going to be an argument in favor of putting the kibosh on Prop. 8.


Money talks.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

I'm relieved, but confess to being a tad miffed California's economy won't have the lock on out-of-state gay weddings.


Frankly, that was going to be an argument in favor of putting the kibosh on Prop. 8.


Money talks.

I doubt that would have any significant impact on this issue. I don't see a lot of the religious right suddenly setting aside their beliefs because it might have a little positive impact on the state economy. If anything, it could work against the "No on 8" movement as the proponents of the amendment would just use as a "look at how weak the "No" argument is - they have to rely on this silly detail."

[Gemini Cricket]

Patrick said he would repeal it. I remember hearing that when he was campaigning while I was in Boston.
Let's hope he keeps his word. Then again, he is a politician...

[Gemini Cricket]

This is awesome!

The House today voted 118 to 35 to repeal a 1913 state law that prevents gay and lesbian couples from most other states from marrying in Massachusetts.
The measure, which the Senate passed earlier this month, will head to the desk of Governor Deval Patrick, who is expected to sign it into law. The move will clear the way for out-of-state couples to marry in Massachusetts, making it the second state to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry regardless of their place of residence.
"I'm glad we finally did it," said Representative Byron Rushing, a Boston Democrat, who described the repeal on the House floor as a "question of fairness and … a question of equality."

Source

[JWBear]

I hate the initiative process, and I always have. There’s a reason the founding fathers decided against a direct democracy.

[Kevy Baby]

Lest it be interpreted otherwise, my comments were in no way meant as a slight on the "No on 8" movement. Unless I find something drastically wrong which changes my mind, I shall be voting no on 8. I was just making some observations on the process.