Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
On Friday Apple inc. pledged 100k to help defeat proposition 8.
CUPERTINO, Calif. (AP) ― Apple Inc. has joined the short list of publicly traded companies to oppose a ballot measure that would take away the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.
The Cupertino-based computer and iPod maker posted a notice on its Web site Friday pledging $100,000 to defeat Proposition 8.
The statement says Apple views Prop. 8 as a civil rights issue, rather than just a political issue.
Jeans maker Levi-Strauss last month gave $25,000 to fight the initiative.
An Apple spokesman declined to elaborate on the company's position.
http://kdka.com/national/Apple.Inc.comes.2.848474.html
What are your predictions on this?
Cali seems to be a relatively liberal state.
I need to pick up an Apple product.
What are your predictions on this?
Cali seems to be a relatively liberal state.
You'd be surprised. The whole "California is so liberal it's like Sodom and Gomorrah!" mantra is a load of bunk. Ever since the hippie pilgrimage to Haight-Ashbury, San Francisco has been viewed as some sort of moral toilet by conservative society. Truth be told, California is liberal only in small, concentrated areas such as Los Angeles and the Bay Area. Northern California, however, has been branded as one of the most conservative regions of the United States.
The fact that same-sex marriage was voted against the first time around doesn't bode well for couples who have already legally married there or have planned to get married there. I hope that Prop 8 fails, in spite of my cynical, sinking prediction that it won't.
I need to pick up an Apple product.
I'm curious what you are basing that on? At least part of the reasoning here is the simple language of Prop. 8. If it passes, you have have the text, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.", inserted into the California Constitution -- which clearly says that there can be no legal recognition of gay marriages in California.
Now, I'm certain that ultimately the fate of those 11,000 couples will be decided in the courts. NPR asked this question to a University of California law professor, his answer is that it is not clear what the fate of those couples will be.
Their marriages would be grandfathered in.
But if it passes it will go to the supreme court and most likely be tossed out as it is not constitutional.
One quick thought for those who relish this sort of thing: Californians now have the right to enter into same-sex marriages, the State Supreme Court having found it a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the State Constitution to permit opposite-sex and not same-sex marriages. It is the Yes-on-8 advocates who want to change the definition of marriage, in this case.
Which was what I was basing my assumption that the marriages would be voided upon. That and the earnest and somewhat forceful declarations of some of my housemates, a couple of whom are gay and very much outraged by this whole affair, even though they're not even from the US.
Hopefully it won't come to the point where it has to be decided. However I can't find any polling on the issue later than 10/07, so if anyone has any links I'd be most appreciative.
We've agreed on so much that I hate to do this, but, my dear, you're out to lunch here. Proposition 8 amends the State Constitution to require that the state recognize only one man-one woman marriages. While previously legally married gay couples have the option of claiming to others "we're married" in the same way as gay couples in Arkansas do, the state will be precluded by its own constitution from granting any recognition to them. Ditto domestic partnerships, if I'm not mistaken. And the Supreme Court of California may not declare it unconstitutional, for the tautological reason that a part of the constitution cannot be unconstitutional (within a single jurisdiction, of course; former Confederate states' constitutions protecting slavery fell to the 13th Amendment ot the U.S. Constitution.)
Ex post facto doesn't apply, either. All that ex post facto prohibitions mean is that no law may make an act legal at the time it was committed retroactively illegal. If you shoot a duck on Monday, and the legislature makes duck hunting illegal on Tuesday, you can't be prosecuted for what you did Monday. This does not, however, mean that some civil privilege may not be removed -- e.g., if you used to be able to drive 70 on the freeway and they dropped the speed limit to 60, too bad. If you used to be able to swim on beach X and they made it no swimming, too bad. Ex post facto doesn't apply.
One quick thought for those who relish this sort of thing: Californians now have the right to enter into same-sex marriages, the State Supreme Court having found it a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the State Constitution to permit opposite-sex and not same-sex marriages. It is the Yes-on-8 advocates who want to change the definition of marriage, in this case.
The WSJ reported that an Oct. 17 poll by SurveyUSA showed Prop. 8 leading 48 to 45. It has also been reported that an Oct. 22 poll by the Public Policy Institute of California shows Prop. 8 losing 52 to 44. It is also worth noting that pro-Prop. 8 has spent about 6 times as much as the anti people, and as has been shown here, much of that advertising by the pro forces is misleading if not outright lies.
I highly doubt that the state Supreme Court will pass it, there was an article I am trying to find that said they were likely to throw it out and the reasons why but I need to find it.We've agreed on so much that I hate to do this, but, my dear, you're out to lunch here. Proposition 8 amends the State Constitution to require that the state recognize only one man-one woman marriages. While previously legally married gay couples have the option of claiming to others "we're married" in the same way as gay couples in Arkansas do, the state will be precluded by its own constitution from granting any recognition to them. Ditto domestic partnerships, if I'm not mistaken. And the Supreme Court of California may not declare it unconstitutional, for the tautological reason that a part of the constitution cannot be unconstitutional (within a single jurisdiction, of course; former Confederate states' constitutions protecting slavery fell to the 13th Amendment ot the U.S. Constitution.)
Ex post facto doesn't apply, either. All that ex post facto prohibitions mean is that no law may make an act legal at the time it was committed retroactively illegal. If you shoot a duck on Monday, and the legislature makes duck hunting illegal on Tuesday, you can't be prosecuted for what you did Monday. This does not, however, mean that some civil privilege may not be removed -- e.g., if you used to be able to drive 70 on the freeway and they dropped the speed limit to 60, too bad. If you used to be able to swim on beach X and they made it no swimming, too bad. Ex post facto doesn't apply.
One quick thought for those who relish this sort of thing: Californians now have the right to enter into same-sex marriages, the State Supreme Court having found it a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the State Constitution to permit opposite-sex and not same-sex marriages. It is the Yes-on-8 advocates who want to change the definition of marriage, in this case.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?