The Survey USA poll of 500 Californians conducted November 19, 2008:

The Question: What should happen to gay couples who were legally married in California before the law changed? Should their marriage remain legal? Should their marriage be immediately annulled? Or, do you not know enough to say?

• 59% Remain Legal
• 34% Immediately Annulled
• 6% Do Not Know Enough
• 1% Not Sure

However, look at the cross-tabs of the poll and particularly the sample (which is small) of minority voters (majority of African-American and Latino voters opposed Proposition 8 whereas in the California election approved the measure) – Question 3 and page 2 of the Pdf.

This poll with an error margin of +/- 4.5% may be an outlier.

An earlier poll, however, conducted in San Diego on November 14, 2008 leads to similar results:

• 56%     Remain Legal
• 37%     Immediately Annulled
• 6%     Do Not Know Enough
• 1%     Not Sure

Regardless, the California Supreme Court will likely decide the issue sometime early next year since the disposition of these marriages should Proposition 8 be found constituional is at issue: “If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?”

What are the options before the court?

UCLA Law School Professor Eugene Volokh outlines:

1. One option is that they may remain valid, whether because the initiative is construed as not applying to existing marriages, or because the courts conclude such an interpretation is constitutionally mandated by the Contracts Clause (“No state shall … pass any … Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts ….”).
2. Another is that pre-initiative same-sex marriages will become domestic partnerships, which under California statutes give most of the rights of marriage.
3. A third option is that same-sex marriages will be eliminated altogether, and that married couples will remain domestic partners only if they had entered both into a marriage and into a domestic partnership.
4. Finally, it’s possible that the legislature will step in, specifically providing that any invalidated same-sex marriage will become a domestic partnership.

Flap bets 3 or 4 of the above should Propositon 8 be ruled consitutional – which I think it will. The new California Legislature is set to meet the first week of December and watch to see if such legisation is introduced.

Of course, the anti-proposition 8 folks could circulate an initiative, but it would leave the same sex married couples hanging until June 2010. Flap’s guess is that they would wait a ruling by the California Supreme Court due sometime late Spring or early summer next year before any such action.

Stay tuned…..

Technorati Tags: California Proposition 8, Gay Marriage

Flap receives e-mail from the Yes on California Proposition 8 Committee:

Dear Friends,

The five official Proponents of Proposition 8, along with the ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8 campaign, today filed legal papers with the California Supreme Court asking the Court to accept original jurisdiction of three lawsuits challenging the measure’s validity, seeking to intervene in the lawsuits as Real Parties In Interest, and urging the Supreme Court to reject a stay of the initiative.

We are confident that we will prevail on the merits and that Proposition 8 will be upheld.  

In calling for the Supreme Court to take original jurisdiction of three challenges to Proposition 8, we said in our legal papers, “The people of California are entitled to a prompt resolution of whether Proposition 8 properly amended their Constitution.  Proposition 8 was the subject of a vigorous and expensive campaign that generated an intense debate and very strong feelings on both sides.  The people have a right to know as quickly as possible the status and definition of marriage under the California Constitution.”

Three lawsuits have been filed with the California Supreme Court claiming that Proposition 8 is a “constitutional revision” and thus allegedly could not have been enacted by voters. While urging the Supreme Court to accept original jurisdiction of the challenges, the authors of the measure and our campaign committee, which spent approximately $38 million campaigning in favor of the proposition, expressed confidence that the Court would uphold Proposition 8. “When using the initiative process to amend the Constitution, the people exercise their sovereign power of self-government.  The three branches of government must accord profound respect and great deference to that authority, which is the very basis of the government’s democratic legitimacy,” we wrote in papers filed with the court.  

Our legal filing pointed out to the California Supreme Court that the courts in neighboring states have uniformly rejected nearly identical challenges to measures banning same-sex marriage. “Other courts addressing similar revision/amendment arguments under closely analogous constitutional provisions have rejected them,” we said. “Proposition 8 is simple, narrow, and targeted to a single issue.  It restores the definition of marriage to what it was and always had been prior to May 15, 2008—nothing more…Whatever one’s view of the wisdom of Proposition 8, the people of California have spoken and their will should be respected.”

We also urged the Supreme Court to deny the request of those challenging Proposition 8 to stay implementation of the initiative. We told the Court that a stay would create a class of “interim same-sex marriages whose validity would be highly questionable” when Proposition 8 is upheld.  Additionally, we told the Court that a stay of Proposition 8 would undermine the preeminence of the Constitution as the ultimate expression of the people’s will. “Enjoining or staying the enforcement of Proposition 8 – as if it were a mere statute or municipal ordinance to be set aside by the judiciary pending further proceedings, rather than a presumptively valid expression of the people’s sovereign will – would be widely perceived as the judiciary ignoring or countermanding the supremacy of the Constitution and silencing the voice of the people on a vitally important matter of public policy.  That would be deeply harmful to the democratic process.”

Seeking to intervene as Real Parties in Interest in the three lawsuits on behalf of the official proponents of the measure, we argued in court papers that their fundamental rights as initiative proponents are at stake. As official proponents, the five authors of Proposition 8 have a unique legal position that requires legal representation separate from that provided voters by Attorney General Jerry Brown. Our Motion to Intervene noted that Brown has vigorously opposed Proposition 8 and cannot be counted on to vigorously defend the measure. Additionally, we noted in our filing that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger similarly cannot be counted on to defend the People’s vote since he has already publicly urged the Supreme Court to invalidate Proposition 8.  

The whole point of the initiative process is for the people to be able to pass laws despite opposition from government leaders.  It just makes no sense that we should have to rely solely on hostile government leaders to defend the will of the people when they opposed the measure in the first place.

Our legal team will continue to mount a vigorous defense of Proposition 8 and will update you on developments.

Thank you for your continuing support of Proposition 8.

P.S. — The cases seeking to invalidate Proposition 8 are Strauss v. Horton, S168047; City and County of San Francisco v. Horton, S168078; and Tyler v. State of California, S168066.

Indeed, California voters have spoken but will the California Supreme Court roll the dice with their probable recall over gay marriage?

Remember Rose Bird and the death penalty?

Stay tuned……

Update:

In the meantime, California Attorney General Jerry Brown, an anti-Proposition 8 supporter, today asked the California Supreme Court to also reject a stay in the implementation of Proposition 8.

Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown today urged the California Supreme Court to review lawsuits that seek to overturn Proposition 8, but to permit the measure to take effect during that review.

Brown, whose office is supposed to defend the initiative, said the lawsuits raised issues of statewide importance that should be addressed by the state’s highest court.

“But, due to the potential uncertainty that may be caused in important legal relationships by a temporary stay, the public interest would be better served by allowing Proposition 8 to remain in effect while expediting briefing,” Brown’s office said.

There would be mass confusion if the California Supreme Court issued a stay and there would be a flood of same sex marriages that would likely be invalidated once the court issued its ruling on Proposition 8 revision vs amendment issue.

The California supreme Court should NOT issue a stay in the matter, should hear timely arguments and dismiss the challenges to the vote of the California people.

Update #2:

Liberty Counsel filed its preliminary opposition summarizing its position regarding why the California Supreme Court should not consider petitions seeking to overturn the California Marriage Protection Act (Proposition 8). The Court has asked each party to provide these today. Liberty Counsel previously filed a motion to intervene on behalf of Campaign for California Families, and Liberty Counsel is submitting its preliminary opposition proposed byinterveners.

Read Liberty Counsel’s filing here. (PDF File)

Technorati Tags: Gay Marriage, California Proposition 8

Not a very good turn out for the gay marriage folks on a warm summer-like day in Los Angeles to protest the passage of California’s Proposition 8 which restored the traditional definition of marriage.

In Los Angeles, protesters clustered shoulder to shoulder near City Hall before setting off on a downtown march, chanting and carrying rainbow flags and signs bearing messages such as “No More Mr. Nice Gay” and “No on Hate.”

The Los Angeles Police Department estimated that 10,000 to 12,000 people attended the event, well below the 40,000 the department had expected.

There were wild-fires in Los Angeles and Orange Counties which did tie up some of the freeways (but not towards downtown) but the heat was not oppressive (despite what the Los Angeles Times or laist said). The No on 8 did NOT turn out a crowd. And, this is why despite a biased ballot proposition language by left wing radical, California Attorney General Jerry Brown and endorsement by every major newspaper in California Yes on 8 passed – banning gay marriage.

Of course, there was the obligatory Christian and Mormon bigotry at the Los Angeles demonstration:

Among other colorful or provocative anti-Proposition 8 signs on display around the state, some making reference to support for the initiative by Mormons:

“If heaven discriminates, I don’t want to go.”

“The same Bible was used to justify slavery.”

“Hmm. . . . What’s so traditional about polygamy?”

“Are you better off now that I can’t marry?”

“Where’s My Gay Tax Break?”

“Joseph Smith had 33 wives. Gays only want one.”

“I was born gay. You were taught religion.”

“My brother is getting married . . . again. Why can’t I get married once?”

“WWJD with $76 m? Not Prop. 8.”

Flap can only imagine the film footage being accumulated for the next ballot proposition regarding gay marriage in California.

But, if the homosexual community wishes to win the next election they will have to turn out more folks and win some hearts and minds of California voters.

Today’s demonstration failed miserably in both categories.

Technorati Tags: Gay Marriage, California Proposition 8

Real class from the pro gay marriage crowd in attacking a 69 year old woman with a cross.

A woman says she wants to press charges against protesters at a gay marriage rally last week in Palm Springs, California. 69-year-old Phyliss Burgess is a supporter of Proposition 8. She showed up at a same sex marriage rally, with a cross. That didn’t go over well and the scuffle happened during a live report.

“It really peeled back a very thin vainer of a crowd that was calling me a Nazi.”

Burgess remembers the names protesters called her Friday night as she marched with cross in hand in support of Proposition 8. One protester knocked the cross out of her hand. Others shouted at her while she left the scene. But, through it all, she never wanted to retaliate.

Palm Springs Police, absent at the time of the alleged attack, convinced her to press charges. She has also received several calls from residents who saw the attack and support her position.

Exit Question: Can these pro gay/homosexual marriage THUGS be charged with a “hate crime” or elder abuse?

The intolerance staggers the mind……

Update:

Here is more video:

Technorati Tags: Gay Marriage, California Proposition 8

Flap has wondered why the proponents of gay marriage in California have been staging protests in the streets and at churches even after they lost Proposition 8. Obviously, the homosexual lobby knows their California Supreme Court legal challenge to Proposition 8 is bogus and will fail.

But, why harass churchgoers and certain church denominations. like the Mormons and Catholics who financially supported traditional marriage?

Now, it is clear.

Intimidation.

Gay marriage proponents intend to place the issue back on the ballot in June 2010.

Gay rights groups in California plan to ask voters to overturn the ban on same-sex marriage they approved last week if legal challenges to Proposition 8 are unsuccessful.

In an e-mail to supporters, Equality California executive director Geoffrey Kors said Wednesday that he and other gay marriage advocates are aiming for a ballot initiative to reverse the ban in two years.

Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment that overruled the California Supreme Court that legalized same-sex marriage, passed 52 percent to 48 percent.

What better way to intimidate supporters of Proposition 8 to NOT support the NEXT gay marriage proposition then to attempt to shame them publicly at their churches or places of business?

Flap does not think this will work. In fact, there may very well be a backlash against those businesses like Apple Computer, AT&T, Google, Dreamworks, Lucas films, Levi Strauss and others (search here) that gave $ hundreds of thousands to redefine marriage.

Gay marriage proponents have lost every election where the issue has been on the ballot. The people of California have spoken with their vote in favor of Proposition 8.

If there is another election in California, traditional marriage will win again.

Technorati Tags: Gay Marriage, California Proposition 8

This pledge card was signed by a kindergartener at Faith Ringgold School of Arts and Science in Hayward, CA last week. Teaching children to be accepting of others should be commended, but forcing children to sign pledges that include references to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community when these children can barely write their own names and when parents are not allowed to opt out of these class activities, is deplorable.

The latest polls show slippage for gay marriage in California and now there are reports that the No on California Proposition 8 campaign is growing desperate.

“Clearly, this is nothing more than a floundering campaign grasping at straws to save its effort,” said Chip White, Protectmarriage.com – Yes on 8 campaign spokesman. “It’s quite sad because those who are hurt most are voters. We invited the No on Prop 8 campaign to debate Proposition 8 this weekend in a live, televised format, but it declined our invitation. If the No campaign is so confident in its arguments, why refuse the debate?”

Claims reporting Proposition 8 has nothing to do with schools, to Proposition 8 will cause a high-tech brain drain, are being passed off as fact. These claims are nothing but noisy rhetoric and last minute campaign stunts aimed at confusing voters instead of educating them.

Claim: Proposition 8 has nothing to do with schools

A few weeks ago children in a 1st grade class attended their teacher’s gay wedding in San Francisco on a school-organized field trip. The principal called it a “teachable moment.” That sure sounds like same-sex marriage instruction in schools.

This week kindergartners at Faith Ringgold School of Arts and Science in Hayward, CA, were asked to sign pledge cards saying they would not use anti-LGBT language. Parents who felt their children were far too young for such a discussion, most at an average age of 5 who are just learning the basics of reading and writing, were not permitted to opt-out, but instead had to keep their children home from school.

As we have clearly demonstrated, California Education Code Section 51933 states schools “shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships.” According to the California Department of Education website, 96% of schools teach this curriculum. And under the Supreme Court’s ruling, current California law means marriage instruction includes instruction on gay marriage. Thus, gay marriage is already part of the curriculum. Perhaps because of these simple facts, Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell refuses to debate.

Claim: Proposition 8 would have no effect on a church’s tax-exempt status.

The No on 8 campaign used a classic lawyer trick, rolling out a group of lawyers yesterday to falsely state our concern about the impact of same sex marriage on religious freedoms, and then saying our concerns are false. For the record, the Yes on 8 campaign has never said that churches, acting as churches, would be forced to perform gay marriages. However, it is clear that where churches interact with the public square, in providing social services or even conducting business, their tax exempt status is at risk.

In one well publicized case, Catholic Charities in Boston ran adoption facilities that managed 700 cases since 1987, most involving children with special needs. Catholic Charities placed such children into parents in traditional marriages, according to their faith. After gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts, the state told Catholic Charities it had to place children with gay marriage couples as well. Faced with such a decision, Catholic Charities reluctantly decided to stop providing adoption services.

Another religious non-profit, Ocean Grove Campground in New Jersey, lost a portion of its tax-exempt status on a rental pavilion because it refused to rent the facility to a lesbian couple for a civil commitment ceremony.

Claim: Proposition 8 discriminates against gays and lesbians

Under California’s current domestic partnership law, (Family Code Section 297), gay couples are awarded the same legal rights and privileges as married couples. California has the strongest civil union/domestic partnership law in the nation, and Proposition 8 does not take away any of those rights.

Claim: If Proposition 8 passes there will be a brain drain to gay-friendly Massachusetts.

Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for five years and California still remains the epicenter of technology, biomed and other science-based industries. If a “gay brain-drain” was going to happen, shouldn’t it have started 5 years ago?

Flap learned at the blogger conference call yesterday that indeed the No on Proposition 8 campaign has replaced many of their staff and the campaign may be at the last minute replacing all of their television ads. There was even talk that the No campaign was going to put You Tube ads on broadcast television.

Good luck with that.

But, at least today, Flap has had an opportunity to sunshine some of the false claims being made – new campaign staff or not.

Update:

Why is the No on 8 sending out disingenuous e-mails to decline the debate challenge?

Letter below:

Technorati Tags: California Proposition 8, Gay Marriage

Think it won’t happen in California, if California Proposition 8 fails?

Just a matter of time.

Vote Yes on California Proposition 8 and protect traditional marriage.

Technorati Tags: California Proposition 8, Gay Marriage