![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
It's so beautiful. I'm holding my breath--I'm so afraid that something is going to happen to rob them of this long-awaited right. Finally my friends and family are being recognized for the first-class citizens they are. Heart-breaking that I spend 20% of the energy in fretting that it won't last, but I've teared up more than once over accounts about total strangers' weddings in the sight of the state of California.......because I can't help but apply it to the people that I love.
Please, please, please, don't let us let this slip through our fingers.
Please, please, please, don't let us let this slip through our fingers.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-06-18 04:39 am (UTC)From:it's simple
Date: 2008-06-18 04:53 am (UTC)From:Re: it's simple
Date: 2008-06-18 04:56 am (UTC)From:Re: it's simple
Date: 2008-06-18 04:58 am (UTC)From:still there's must be some people not in the choir.
no subject
Date: 2008-06-18 09:23 pm (UTC)From:addy!
Date: 2008-06-18 04:53 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2008-06-18 10:56 am (UTC)From:- CA could pass a state constitutional amendment.
That's going to require signatures, lots of them (I dunno the exact details for CA), and every one of them will have to be verified by state officials (who for the most part, from what I've read, are not sympathetic to banning gay marriage), and then a referendum would have to happen.
- The USA could pass a federal constitutional amendment.
For all that the GOP's been talking about this for a few years, possibly even less likely. Amending the Constitution is a slow and arduous process on any subject that's even remotely divisive. It would take so much effort that even as anti-gay forces work to gain the needed 3/4 of the states, the forces of progress would be working to prevent it and probably succeeding. A whole lot of moderate Americans would suddenly be mobilized by the simple idea of "Don't put discrimination in the Constitution."
These possibilities are sadly not out of the question, but they're difficult enough that if they happen, myself, I'd begin to consider violent revolution ...
no subject
Date: 2008-06-18 01:31 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2008-06-18 02:09 pm (UTC)From:It's really note clear that the amendment would even work as intended, if it were to pass. The Marriage Cases decision included a finding that sexual orientation is a 'suspect classification' much like race or gender, and neither the legislature nor the people can easily redefine that. So the initiative may end up being ruled unconstitutional even if it does pass.
The part that pisses me off about the whole controversy is the assertion by the GOP and others that we must do what the majority of people want, regardless of the consequences.
no subject
Date: 2008-06-18 02:42 pm (UTC)From:However, it is going to be on the ballot, and if you care about it, consider going more than just voting. Help organize. Volunteer and canvass if there's an organization starting that up.
In Massachusetts, we beat off our two amendments (yes, there were two in a row) by electing legislators who would vote against them, because a ballot question in MA needs to be approved by the legislature first. If it has enough signatures, it only needs 25% in the legislature, so it was a tough bar, but we did it. It definitely took a lot of work.
I'm excited too.
Date: 2008-06-18 06:21 pm (UTC)From:Re: I'm excited too.
Date: 2008-06-18 06:23 pm (UTC)From: