I'll pass this on to a friend, if you check out her blog and idea.  Being that you live in CA, your perspective might help.  Bluejeanqueen and/or Comingout 

Thank you...I wrote to her too...

She's probably getting bombarded with letters and emails right now!  Tons of support of course!

Well, please let her know some other folks are sending support!!!

She'll be glad to know that!

The newest information:  43 Democratic Legislators are urging the court to toss Prop 8...again I keep telling folks I am not good with legal matters, but if you want more information, you can search for an article in the L.A. Times by Dan Morain about my first sentence..."The chief strategist for Prop 8 said the best way to overturn the measure would be to place an initiative on the ballot that would repeal it."  

don't forget that because of the specific wording of 8, this issue can now go before the US Supreme Court..
may take 5 or 6 years

I actually hope it DOES take long enough for Obama to place some decent folks in the Supreme Court.  I don't want it to drag out for us here in California - but I'm afraid of it going to the U.S. Supreme Court right now.

that's why the Mormons go behind it..
see, if 8 had not passed the the ground would have been set for national recognition..
i.e. every state would have to honor the marriage on the basis of "interstate trade"(which is protected by the Constitution).

Aha...I didn't know that.  On the other hand, they put so much damned energy into California that Connecticut now passed!  I really think it is just a matter of time.  

it's gonna test my patience 

I've got something interesting to post today.  I get lots of things from friends who know I blog...I'll post it soon.  

Just an FYI, but I published the LDS's official statement supporting the work they put in on Prop 8.

It's on my blog if you have not yet seen it.

I saw it...thank you for visiting here.  I don't agree with the Mormon Church.  

Neither do I, but the statement they thru out as a reason for why they'd do such a thing is an interesting read.

A whole lot of love to cover the fear and the hate.

Yes of course (whole lot of love...)  Thanks for sharing it.  I read it through.  I believe the Catholic church threw bunches of money into Prop 8 too.    

Yes. But if the baptists are to be believed, Catholics are all going to hell anyway. So really, the Mormon response seemed more important at the time. They are after all, getting their own planets.

"...getting their own planets"...hahaha
And from what I understand, they are getting into more hot water for that Baptism of the Dead thing they do...they are trying to baptize those who died in the Holocaust...horrible.

horrible INDEED

They are so...I have no words!!!!

let it go..don't waste the energy

OK...but I won't promise that I will no longer do postings when things come up ;~)

I would never..

haha...hope you are joking with me now!

but of course..

good...can't always tell with the written word ;~) (I'm one of those folks who looks for non-verbal facial expressions, etc.)

petition is closed now..
thanks, you guys are the best

Why is it closed????

don't know..
went to the page and it said; "petition closed at authors request"

Wow...I'll see what I can find out.  Gotta do some work around here though now...

I'm curious as to why, if it is felt that the ballot initiative itself had Constitutional problems, why wasn't it challenged in court BEFORE the election and petitioned to be stayed off the ballot instead of waiting until an losing result. As with many hot-button issues, it's hard to swallow a result we personally don't desire, but we have to respect the result of a referendum. As I understand it, the ACLU is challenging the legitimacy of the ballot question itself on the theory that it is not possible to have a referendum on denying a right guaranteed by the constitution. As I gather, they feel that unless the state constitution were amended to ban gay marriage, the referendum is null and void? Is this the case? If so, why did the challenge take so long? Is there a time frame for when the matter will go to the courts in California?

You actually know as much or more than I do!!!!  Yes, I read about this in the morning paper (the ACLU)...

I can't tell you what happened, as I wasn't personally involved in this.  It really really looked for quite a while that it wasn't going to pass so I was all involved in the national election, putting all my energy there.  And then this snuck up on us.  It happened quickly, to me, that the yays overrode the nays.  I think we were all caught a little off guard on this.  That's my take anyway.    Also, the yays put tons of money into this (from out of state too, as well as from churches in California), feeling that if it was No on 8, then the rest of the country would go that way.  As I said, I didn't put any effort into this at all, though my son did.  All I can say is that I am very sorry this got away from me...

Very little press about this was forward in our papers back east. I did manage to find out that there was an attempt to keep it off the ballot but failed. I am interested in the legal issues as to how a referendum-any referendum-proceeds forward. I have no dog in the fight either way with this particular issue. My interest is in how the courts interpret the legality of a proposal, what legal theories are involved and what standards are used to test a particular entry. I hate the idea of stuff like that getting politicized by jurists. I am also loath to go against a referendum result, even if I strongly disagree with it, such as is the case here in Maryland with the approval of Slots gambling and how that was done.

I'll keep my eyes open and if I see anything legally out here in the papers, let you know.  Darkseid knows way more than I do about the legal battle.  I just didn't pay enough attention, as I said.

I found out that what passed actually was a constitutional amendment and not just a law, so if it becomes expressly part of the Constitution, it will effectively end the discussion regarding the practice in California for a long time to come. Maryland did the same thing in 1994 regarding abortion and the fights in the legislature have died out because the people had spoken clearly on the issue and rendered it moot.

Yes, that's essentially what Darkseid said.  I know there are still folks fighting this though...

I wish I had a higher opinion of the ACLU than I do. I'm afraid they got co-opted by folks who use it as a political arm of the left party. I contribute to the Institute for Justice instead, which, in my opinion, is what the ACLU might like to think itself to still be.

You know much more than I do, legally.  However, I just read in the SF Chronicle that there are three separate lawsuits filed on Wednesday, seeking orders immediately blocking enforcement of Prop 8 and ultimately striking it down as a violation of fundamental rights in the California Constitution.  The advocacy group is Equality California.  

I guess I have a problem with folks who refuse to accept the results of what they profess to love-democracy. By all means, let's have the voice of the people(both sides, I'm sure secured advocacy funding from outside of California) but, oh my, let's nullify that voice once an ox gets gored and it turns out to be theirs. I find it odd that groups would seek orders from constitutionally endowed entities to issue orders striking down what was fairly made a part of that constitution. All of the force flows from the document to the branches and not the other way around. I'd find it a curious conundrum if I were a judge. How do I issue an order to block enforcement of a provision that is expressly part of the document that governs supremely? I knew I shoulda gone to law school. Ok, I'm done now. My head hurts.

My head doesn't even begin to work the way a lawyer's does - which is why I can't conceivably even follow this stuff.  I just know what I think is just or unjust (in my own little brain)...

Learning and studying law in it's theories can help develop a terrific analytical skill. I loved those concentrations when I took both the required and elective legal courses in college in Contracts, Torts and Legal Research. It can almost be a romance with the theories of legal thought, like you might see in The Paper Chase or a Scott Turow novel. But, the thought of doing the dull, gray work of a legal practicioner as I have seen them do over the years when I've dealt with them would destroy that romance very quickly.

Not my cup of tea at all.  When I go into that side of my brain (is it right?), I like to learn the technical parts of photography or pottery, thanks.  My husband, on the other hand, has done legal-type work for over 30 years.  For the past 10, he was director of academic personnel at the local state university.  He had to know contract law, etc.  It takes a very different kind of brain than the one I was somewhat endowed with.  And yes, it is not romantic at all...lots of details.

Turow had the best line about it I have ever read. He said legal writing and work is like "stirring concrete with your eyelashes."

And very interestingly, I really like Turow, but my husband doesn't.  He just likes to do the work...