Up to 65% Off Road Bike Frames from Ridley, Pinarello, BMC & More at Competitive Cyclist + Free Shipping

Fingers crossed

The drive to defeat Prop 8 isn’t completely dead yet … seems the proponents of Prop 8 didn’t get legislative approval for a Constitutional revision before placing the prop on the ballot; so it’s possible that Prop 8 constitutes an unlawful amendment.

Keeping my fingers crossed.

Same-sex marriage ban wins; opponents sue to block measure – SF Gate

After a heated, divisive campaign fueled by a record $73 million of spending, California voters have approved Proposition 8, which would change the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Opponents promptly filed suit to try to block the measure from taking effect.

With 96 percent of the vote counted, Prop. 8 was winning by a decisive 400,000-vote margin, 52.2 percent to 47.8 percent. It piled up huge margins in the Central Valley and carried some Democratic strongholds such as Los Angeles County. The measure lost in every Bay Area county but Solano.

As the vote counting continued this morning, opponents of Prop. 8 filed a lawsuit directly with the state Supreme Court – whose May 15 ruling legalized same-sex marriage – asking the justices to overturn the measure.

The suit argued that Prop. 8 would change the California Constitution in such fundamental ways – taking important rights away from a minority group – that it amounted to a constitutional revision, which requires approval by the Legislature before being submitted to the voters. The case was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Lamda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

The same groups asked the court before the election to remove Prop. 8 from the ballot on those grounds. The justices refused, but left the door open for a post-election challenge.

“A major purpose of the Constitution is to protect minorities from majorities,” said Elizabeth Gill, an ACLU lawyer. “Because changing that principle is a fundamental change to the organizing principles of the Constitution itself, only the Legislature can initiate such revisions.”

Marriage should be for everyone … nobody has been able to give me a coherent argument based on legal (not religious) grounds as to why discrimination should be written into a state’s Constitution.

I’m tempted to say that I refuse to get married again unless/until all people have the right to get married to the person of their choice, regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation. I refuse to say sexual preference, because I knew several gay people in the Bay Area who would have preferred to be heterosexual rather than gay.

Well, as many of my friends used to say, “Never straight, always gaily forward!” and “It’s not over until the bulldyke sings.”