This seems like a good? way
http://www.mormonsstoleourrights.com/
Yeah, that Presidential election was really distracting. With all my excitement I think I forgot to vote on the Propositions!
Now, I fully support another referendum, but "impossible that [it] couldn't win"? Everyone who's fired up already voted... and we lost by 5% (500,000+ votes).
A vote in 2009 would require a special election as California normally only votes statewide in even years.
2: Well, I have to think that the pro-forces care more about gay marriage than the antis. In a lower turnout year, I think it wins.
3: Thanks, that's the sort of thing I was wondering about.
Linked from the site in 1 is a site for Mormons to resign from the church. I didn't know (though I'm not too surprised to find out) that quitting the Mormon church was such an ordeal:
I know that having my name removed from the records of the church cancels the effects of baptism and confirmation, withdraws the priesthood held by a male member, and revokes temple blessings. I also understand that I will be readmitted to the Church by baptism only after a thorough interview (and a sub-zero day in hell).
I insist that the Church-prescribed "30-day waiting period" be waived and that this request be processed immediately. . . . I am not going to change my mind, so "An Invitation to Come Back" will not be necessary. Furthermore, I will not participate in a church court or 'disciplinary council,' and, because I have voluntarily left the LDS Church, I expect that the term 'excommunication' will not be used in any correspondence concerning this matter.
This decision is not open for discussion with you or any other representative from the LDS Church. I will not accept visits or phone calls from Church leaders or members. Any correspondence with the Church will be accepted in writing only. I expect my request to be handled promptly and with full confidentiality. Failure to fully comply in a timely manner will be considered tortious interference with my right to be free from harassment, as well as an invasion of my privacy.
JM & Bave, is this an accurate depiction of the Church's response to resignation?
California's ballot proposition process tires and depresses me.
Alex, two years of voter education, plus a better-organized pro-SSM campaign, plus lower African-American turnout in 2010, plus less confusing yes-means-yes wording of the measure, could easily flip the vote. (We should also try to get the proposed Proposition 18C passed at the same time.)
That said, next step is legal challenges to prop 8 -- if the CA supreme court rules that it's a "revision" rather than an "amendment", it goes down immediately, for instance.
5: Here's Teresa Nielsen Hayden on leaving the Mormon Church back in 1980. The process is bizarre.
Also, there's a precedent for the CA supreme court striking down an amendment proposition on the basis that a subset of the population can't have rights taken away by a simple majority vote -- see this article for the ACLU's current tactical outlook on the issue.
I forgot to vote on the Propositions
It is the norm in the election district in which I work (in New York) that the number of votes on ballot propositions is significantly less than the number of votes for offices. And that is after we make a point of reminding people about them.
The NY layout is particularly awful. The ballot is this thing that's maybe a yard square, with all the races up at the top, and they get propositions down well below eye level in fine print. I've certainly noticed propositions at the last minute, and I'm sure I've missed them as well.
I am still not sure why on earth anyone thought it was a good idea to be able to amend a constitution by popular vote. That just seems like a design flaw.
From now on I will blame Alex F for Prop8 passing.
A relic of the progressive era. Misguided fools!
they get propositions down well below eye level in fine print.
This could explain the problem. The propositions are at the very top on the machine, above the listing of the offices being voted upon.
Worse, I think not even most election inspectors know how to write in someone and it is completely non-obvious how you do it (and the things that can go wrong if you do it wrong).
Maybe this year, but not always. I clearly remember a couple of years ago glancing down and seeing something at about waist level that turned out to be a proposition I was supposed to vote on.
re: 15 and 16
It occurs to me that different counties may format their ballots differently, so disregard.
JM & Bave, is this an accurate depiction of the Church's response to resignation
Yeah, just not going isn't enough. To get your name removed from the rolls you have to demand it in writing.
But the Mormons didn't pass Prop 8 single handedly. Majority of the latino vote, and something like 7 out of 10 blacks voted for it.
Still, I think some retaliatory posthumous baptizing is in order. I hope Joseph Smith likes matzoh.
10: I think that's pretty standard everywhere, in the same way that the number of votes drops as you go down the ballot. This year we pushed a big "Don't stop at the top!" and straight ticket effort to get people to vote in the state and local races.
I am still not sure why on earth anyone thought it was a good idea to be able to amend a constitution by popular vote. That just seems like a design flaw.
Should require a super-majority at the very least.
Yeah, just not going isn't enough. To get your name removed from the rolls you have to demand it in writing.
Do they also send you "please come back" letters and send people to your house as the post suggests? Perhaps that varies by local church.
Not sure about the letter, but someone from the local ward would almost certainly come over to talk about it.
I suppose you all have better things to do on a Saturday night, but you people are failing to entertain me. If you are similarly bored, check out this site, which I find vaguely interesting.
Mormons also believe that "sometimes it skips a generation", so the children of fallen-away Mormons are regarded as members of the church, sort of.
If you leave the Mormon church, do you have to give the secret underwear back?
So, America is rather an idealistic nation, yes? Despite all the bullshit that has gone down, we have an unrealistically rosy vision of ourselves, which occasionally prompts us to act better than we are. 19th century England was like this, too. We are also unconscionable prudes. It is my contention that a cultivated habit of abstraction underlies both phenomena.
27: the "fake it till you make it" theory of American exceptionalism.
28: Very apt, in both contexts.
I don't think that 2010 will be particularly ripe to overturn Prop 8. Keep in mind a couple of things:
1. "No" has a built-in advantage over "Yes" on any initiative or referendum ballot. (If it can be run as a referendum on Prop 8, this turns into a pro-gay advantage--the question becomes "Shall the constitution define marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman?" or some such. I'm not sure if that's allowed, though.)
2. The rate of change towards acceptance on gay issues is remarkably consistent over time -- if that 1.11% is right, the pro-gay rights side should be able to slip over 50% in 2010 -- minus any handicap per #1 above.
3. There's very little consensus on what the No on 8 campaign should have done differently (short of "everything"). Should it have been more explicit, showing loving gay couples asking why they couldn't have a marriage just like yours? Or more focused on equal rights? How should it have rebut the charges that this would teach kids gay marriage in school? Is that even sensible enough to rebut? How can the leading gay organizations forge links with black organizations to dampen the effect of the homophobic religious organizations?
4. Until 3's addressed, can HRC/EQCA/Lambda raise the funds necessary to get a ballot drive and win a campaign? I don't think this is a huge problem -- there's a lot of anger right now -- but it will take a sense that the organizations know how to move forward to move past an initial wave of anger cash*.
5. It would be interesting to see how a pro-marriage-equality initiative plays in a gubernatorial campaign. It would take a hell of a Repub candidate and a hell of a lot of gay for Californians to not elect a Dem in 2010, however. (Recall the circumstances of Arnold's election; he did not have to make it through a CRP primary.) Still, bet on this factoring into movement leaders' thinking on timing.
*Even better than hate sex.
How should it have rebut the charges that this would teach kids gay marriage in school? Is that even sensible enough to rebut?
I don't know how one would counter, but I"d bet the main driving force behind the "Yes on 8" vote is the fear of "recruiting". I don't think people bother with stuff that doesn't apply to them and doesn't seem to threaten them either.
From the adverts, it's the precious little straight kiddies that needed the protection of Prop 8, right? Near as I can tell one can stampeded Americans in any direction desired if you use kids correctly in the propaganda.
I've made the point before that there's another way around this. There's nothing in Prop 8 that says anything about what can or can't be taught in the schools. So let's start teaching gay marriage in the schools. Those kids are going to start voting soon. Not to mention registering together.
recruiting
I'd dearly love to be gay. It would make my life a hell of a lot easier. It didn't work out that way, but I'm willing to listen to alternatives.
33: It would. When I first moved out here I was struck by how friendly the younger guys were. Then I realized they were even friendlier when I wore the black leather jacket, gloves, and jeans outfit to go with the motorcycle. It took me a while, I'm mostly clueless about being hit on from any direction.
I had the same experience with my assless chaps and half shirt.
Should require a super-majority at the very least.
The fact that the Supreme Court of the state can overturn a constitutional amendment (so I've heard) it when the Court's job is to ensure that the laws are in accord with the constitution is tangled conceptual ball of yarn.
It should require a legislature at the very least. That's what the people are paid for.
It should require a legislature at the very least. That's what the people are paid for.
Oh, sure, first it's amending the constitutional, next you're going to say they're responsible for setting tax rates and allocating revenue.
35: the walking around money was well spent, then.
I am very optimistic about chances in the golden state.
I am still not sure why on earth anyone thought it was a good idea to be able to amend a constitution by popular vote. That just seems like a design flaw.
Even worse, the difference between getting a plain old proposition vs. a constitutional amendment on the ballot is a matter of something like only a few hundred thousand signatures.
A relic of the progressive era. Misguided fools!
We have progressive era a reform to thank for the recall, too. But the 2/3 majority to pass a budget is thanks to the depression era, so the progressives escape from that one. They get some of the blame for prop 13 because it's a prop, but at least they didn't draft it themselves. It's ridiculous that it's easier to pass a non-tax-related constitutional amendment than to pass a new tax.
It's ridiculous that it's easier to pass a non-tax-related constitutional amendment than to pass a new tax.
For "ridiculous" one might also substitute "insane" and "kind of disgusting".
Does the getting-on-the-ballot process provide for specifying the wording? I presume it does.
If so, clarify that whatever the ballot text, it should end "OH, AND IF YOU HEARD FROM SOME SLIMY CRANK THAT THIS MEANS GAY MARRIAGE WILL BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS, YEAH, WELL, THAT'S BULLSHIT. THEY WERE MAKING SHIT UP AND PANDERING." In all caps.
(Bonus points: It's a biscuit conditional.)
41: it sort of does, but the Attorney General can change the wording if he thinks it's unclear, which in fact happened with prop. 8.
The fact that the Supreme Court of the state can overturn a constitutional amendment (so I've heard)
I don't think they can (but I don't really know). The issue with overruling prop 8, at least, is that the amendment passed as a ballot initiative. So they wouldn't really overrule the amendment itself if they found against prop 8, they'd rule that it never became an amendment at all. The US Supreme Court can overrule state constitutions, though, and that could be the next step in the litigation route.
Oh, and aside from/along with prop 8, California Democrats generally underperformed, compared to the presidential race. See here.
44: Man, California, not to knock on you guys, but we yokel mid-Atlantic, semi-Appalachians even seem to have canned swearing-in-to-Congress-on-the-Koran-bashing Congressman Virgil Goode (currently pending his request for a recount; he's 700 votes back). You just got cozy?
45: once you get inland, California can yokel with the best of 'em. Given the size of the state, it probably has more total yokel than Virginia and NC combined.
46: I get that. I'm seriously wondering if a better ground operation might have helped. We had people on the ground here that flipped the presidential vote from 2004 to 2008 in, for example, Nelson County, Buckingham County, and Prince Edward County. Those are conservative, rural areas that Obama targeted that no doubt helped boot a Republican asshat (Goode) from Congress.
To answer LB's original question, better door-to-door operations might have missing in California, assuming, well, shit, it's gonna vote Obama, so whatever.
"might have missing" s/b "might have been missing"
I might have just returned from playing a gig Becks-style.
The link in 44 gets into the lack of a local ground game in California.
Silly eb, no one actually reads the links.
It would take a hell of a Repub candidate and a hell of a lot of gay for Californians to not elect a Dem in 2010, however.
It's kind of amazing that the speculation I've seen about 2010 has either Feinstein or Jerry (who seems to be going more by Edmund, these days) Brown as the top Democratic contenders. Aren't there any new Democratic leaders in the state? Maybe people who haven't been holding offices for multiple decades?
Aren't there any new Democratic leaders in the state? Maybe people who haven't been holding offices for multiple decades?
I assume Villaraigosa is on any short list for any office, no?
Silly eb, no one actually reads the links.
True, but I skimmed eb's link and think that, indeed, a better ground game (and we're good at that now!) would have helped.
I assume Villaraigosa is on any short list for any office, no?
He appears to have had enough problems as mayor of LA for that to be in question in the near term. He could still do it in the future.
I suppose part of the issue is that Feinstein and Brown poll very well for 2010 (maybe because, like Schwarzenegger, lots of people already know who they are). There are definitely some newer potential leaders, but the speculation says they can't beat those two in 2010. I'm hoping the speculation is wrong.
It's hard to have a really solid ground game in California because of earthquakes.
Okay, that's retarded. Look, it's saturday night and I'm home alone doing homework, okay? Leave me alone.
Some quick searches reveal that Villaraigosa has not said one way or the other what he'll do in 2010. Also some speculation about Newsom.
And just because I'm already serial commenting on CA politics, I'll note that the election still isn't quite over.
Wow, I hadn't realized redistricting was close to passing. Interesting.
The Obama campaign used volunteers to call other states and to go to Nevada for GOTV.
59: I presume that's probably the case. As long as we blame w-lfs-n for the let down, I'm okay with it. Lazy schmuck.
If Feinstein wants it, it's hers. If she doesn't, it's Jerry Brown's. If he doesn't want it, Villaraigosa, Newsom, and Garamendi all get in the ring, and it's anybody's game.
JM & Bave, is this an accurate depiction of the Church's response to resignation
Basically. The church has a particular bureaucratic procedure for someone to have her "name removed from the records" (although I understand they don't remove your name, they just flag it differently in the database). But sites like Mormon No More (it's like pest control!) point out that under the First Amendment and various legal precedents, a member doesn't have to follow that procedure to break formal ties to the church; a simple declaration to any church representative is enough.
There's a separate track for excommunication, which Teresa Nielsen Hayden talks about in LB's link; excommunication actually goes differently depending on whether the member holds the Melchizedek Priesthood (i.e., is a man over 18) or not.
But yeah, they really do have a central list of all members, and simply not attending church isn't enough to get you off the list.
I resigned formally a few years ago, and it was fairly painless. I sent a letter to Salt Lake City, got a call from my "branch president" in D.C., whom I had never met, asking to meet to be sure I understood the "eternal consequences" of my decision. I put him off for a while and finally met at the church parking lot for two minutes, just because it seemed easier than putting up a fight. He was perfectly civil, even decent. On my way home I happened to walk by Capitol Hill's only gay country-western bar and went in for a celebratory Jack Daniel's.
I'm hoping its Feinstein so she gets the hell out of the Senate.
62: I was half-expecting your story to end with "... where I happened to see the branch president."
On a slightly related issue, my father just visited the family ranch near Jasper, TX (where James Byrd Jr was killed by being dragged behind a pickup truck). He came home insisting that my mother and sister carry guns because, according to the "good old boys," someone is going to kill President Obama and then the country is going to have race riots.
Is this something being passed around like those emails he kept forwarding me about Obama being a radical-Christian-Muslim-fundamentalist-terrorist-socialist, or is this local lunacy?
A football player was kicked off the UT game for a get-your-guns facebook post along those lines. Anecdotally I've heard of a few people who fear anarchy will come with Obama-elect. Of course, I don't much broaden your local-bastion-of-crazy hypothesis.
Should require a super-majority at the very least.
I keep hearing this, and it baffles me. You guys do realize that supermajority is biased towards the status quo, right? And, hey, guess what: the status quo is generally biased towards elites (who, after all, are the ones who by definition have done well under the current rules). If you're a leftist who is all about ending oppression and stuff, you do not want a status quo bias in your political system.
You might think you do, because you're confident that your side can capture the elites--judges and the like. But this is probably false--there are good reasons to think law is essentially conservative (relative to other sorts of political activity). The nature of law, after all, is to guide conduct by reference to rules promulgated in the past, rather than an all-things-considered judgment on the merits.
Look: it sucks that a majority of Californians hate gays. But 10 years ago, a supermajority did. If revisions required a supermajority, the anti-gay forces might well have decided to lock things in with a constitutional amendment back then, and then you'd have to wait another decade or so until you have a 20% rather than 10% swing in popular opinion. (Just like Florida now has to.)
Again: rigid, supermajoritarian constitutions only make sense if (a) you like the current set of rules or (b) you think you can cheat by controlling the process of interpretive change, so only your opponents actually have to muster the supermajorities. Most people on Unfogged probably don't fall into A, and I'd hope that B makes everyone at least a little uncomfortable.
And to those who claim that the whole point of constitutions is to be rigid, to stabilize the rules of the game: you can get stability without supermajoritarianism quite easily (and the same goes for checks and balances, etc.). Just require amendments and the like to be passed in identical forms 5 years apart or whatever.
If people are still looking to strike a blow for gay rights this election, there's a possibility of getting a supporter of civil unions and gay adoption to be the Senator from Georgia.
For more on Jim Martin, you can see this article from the Democratic primary, when he was widely seen as the most pro-gay candidate.
67-68, fair points, but assuming that you start with a constitution that isn't evil, how do you prevent a 50% majority from voting for an amendment reading "all state tax obligations are to be assessed at twice the normal rate for individuals with blue eyes"?
how do you prevent a 50% majority from voting for an amendment reading "all state tax obligations are to be assessed at twice the normal rate for individuals with blue eyes"?
The problem in the hypo isn't the constitution, it's the people. If you've got a population willing to pass such an amendment, even in an optimally deliberative (but still majoritarian) process, I'm not sure how the hell you expect to have "a constitution that isn't evil." If you can't convince your putative fellow citizens that you deserve equal concern and respect, why on earth would you want a democratic system?
We can and ought to design institutions to force people to think clearly and hard about the decisions they're making, but to say "the people should decide, except when they're wrong" or "the people should decide, except when it's important" means a real cost to republican liberty, to being free from domination by another.
And I'd like to reiterate my empirical claim: given that everyone here presumably sees a great deal of injustice being unaddressed by our political system, partly due to structural features of the political system, why on earth would you want a status quo bias?
If you think you can eventually persuade your fellow citizens to support a more just polity, you should want majoritarianism (a suitably sophisticated, separated-powers, rule-of-law sort). And if you don't think you can, it's not clear why you should support the continued existence of the political entity in question, period.
Just jumping in here, but is it a good response to the 'blue eyes' objection to consider that everybody is a member of a minority in some way? If I don't object when they come for the blue-eyed, the Anabaptists, and people with unibrows, who will object when they come for the werewolves?
I guess I could put up a bunch of money to defend my groups while screwing everyone else, but it's probably a better bet to generally agree not to do crap like that.
But the Mormons didn't pass Prop 8 single handedly. Majority of the latino vote, and something like 7 out of 10 blacks voted for it.
True, but they did provide a huge chunk of the financing. And the LDS church has been planning their anti-gay-marriage legal strategy for over a decade, using the Catholics as cover because they have better PR.
As for who actually put it on the ballot, and who's been telling Californians that a yes vote on 8 would force teachers to promote gay marriage in schools? Murky, and probably deliberately so. Given that the LDS church is one of the few identifiable advocates, and given that a lot of people (gay and otherwise) move to places like the Bay Area to get churches out of their lives, it's understandable Mormons would become a target of anger.
Oooh, and: here's a nice counterweight to the post-prop-8 pessimism.
If I don't object when they come for the blue-eyed, the Anabaptists, and people with unibrows, who will object when they come for the werewolves?
Don't be ridiculous. They'll never come for the werewolves, especially if you get those blue-eyed fuckers first.
it's understandable Mormons would become a target of anger.
Hell yes people are justified in being pissed. But for me, it was a nasty surprise that such high percentages of those constituencies voted for it.
I've been trying to convince the local Anabaptists (Amish) that they took a wrong turn with pacifism, and that the violentMuenster commune got it right. They're irrationally resistant.
From 75, Texas now has a provision in its constitution declaring that the state and its subdivisions "may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage." always makes me laugh.
74 is right in spades. And as for 31 (w/regard to 'recruiting')--how's this:
Dear Mormon Women,
You're not that attractive. Really. And I'm not into squeeky blonds anyway.
Yours,
a lesbian
[and yeah, I'm seriously pissed]
If I don't object when they come for the blue-eyed, the Anabaptists, and people with unibrows, who will object when they come for the werewolves?
Hey, none of that trying to tie this to Naziism. All I'm proposing is a tax increase. Blue-eyed people, particularly blue-eyed blondes, have an inherent advantage in this culture, it's easy for them to make make money. I just want them to pay their fair share, and California certainly needs a little extra revenue. It's not like I'm trying to prevent them from getting married, let alone herd them into death camps. I just think those blue-eyed film star types in particular are making tons of money, and oughtta share the wealth. You got a problem with that, werewolf? What do you care anyway? You're aren't some kind of blue-eye, are you?
"the people should decide, except when it's important" means a real cost to republican liberty, to being free from domination by another.
Not to be too snarky, but that's most of the theory behind having a representative democracy and a bill of rights. It's the difference between 'if we wanted to require seat belts in cars, we'd need to muster the legislature' but 'if we want to amend the framework, we'll put a complicated initiative on a ballot for another election.' (I don't think a supermajority helps matters either, personally.)
Neil, liked Ogged, is an Aryan of the Aryans, as everyone should know.
Reasonably big crowd of protesters outside the nearby mormon temple this morning. I clapped at them, they cheered amiably in return.
83: I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, Cala. Nothing in what I've said is arguing that constitutional amendments should be as streamlined or straightforward as ordinary legislation. But, to repeat the point that is far too often ignored in the literature, you can have a slow and deliberative procedure while preserving majoritarianism and avoiding status-quo bias.
x. trapnel seems to be making the reasonable point here. Everything I've read suggests this will come up again for a vote in 2010, no? There's probably some overreaction going on (by, among others, me).
I think x.trapnel is being reasonable, but that doesn't change the fact that the system as currently set up is absurd. Some kind of deliberative process should be required, rather than a simple majority vote on a single referendum.
x. trapnel makes a series of valid points that would call for serious rebuttal.
With regard to Prop. 8, if a majority of the nation feels the need to protect the sanctity of marriage, then the argument is obviously over whether the definition of marriage should be extended. Those of us who don't care a whit about the sanctity of marriage in the first place are kind of left in the wind, giving rise to posts like Stanley's the other day.
Sifu: I don't know if I'd call it *absurd*, exactly: the issue was debated for months, during which time a large number of people apparently changed their minds. You can argue that the Yes-on-8 stuff was misleading, but you can't say they had the airwaves to themselves; the total spending was about even, as I recall. It *was* a deliberative process, just not an ideal one--it's not like it was just a snap one-day poll out of the blue.
And again, the question is: compared to what? Florida's 60% requirement is going to add years to the road to marriage equality in that state.
Anyway, I do think the Balkinization post I liked to earlier has the most sensible take--yes, the outcome sucks, but it's really just a speedbump on the path.
90: it's absurd because the amount of time and attention people give to initiative propositions is frighteningly low relative to the scale of the change they can create. If it took two referenda, three years apart, hey, no complaint from me. That at least gives people to take a breath and look around. I agree it's just a speedbump, and can be changed back just as easily, but geez, isn't representative democracy supposed to filter the whims of the electorate just a tiny bit?
90: x. trapnel, thanks for calling attention again to the balkinization link (which I hadn't clicked on before); some nice bits of reality-check there, and I hadn't known, for example, that "there are now 30 states whose state constitutions ban same-sex marriage."
It's the sanctity of marriage, isn't it, that's being so adamantly defended: its sacredness. And it's the fact that same-sex couples are denied participation in the sacred that's intolerable. To my surprise, this is the first time I -- as a more-or-less atheist -- have understood the nature of people's anger.
I think what's been missing in my understanding is the felt need for such sacred bonds between people to be in turn sanctioned (by a majority? by an authority) in order to be (considered?) sacred. I have sacred* bonds with some people on this planet, after all, though they're not officially sanctioned in any way. But of course, should officialdom obstruct our ability to act on those bonds, the lack of sanction becomes problematic. Hence the utility of such things as domestic partnership.
* I'm not sure whether my having a conception of the sacred belies what I'd otherwise call atheism on my part.
I'm not sure whether my having a conception of the sacred belies what I'd otherwise call atheism on my part.
I am.
93: Hm. Do tell, if you like. Or I can explain: these are people I consider members of my true family. They'll always have sanctuary with me, and I with them, for example. I'm having trouble seeing what's theistic about this.
Next step for California: Constitutional Convention, with me as a delegate!