Predict how California's Prop 8 does

[Associate Justice PiT]

     If yes received 45%, I doubt you could call that narrow.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     It's worth noting that we're predicting it to fail by a margin of 20-11. Hopefully we're right.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     It's worth noting that we're predicting it to fail by a margin of 20-11. Hopefully we're right.

And I bet of those 20, most when they think of California think SF and Hollywood. Too bad they don't think of the IE and the central valley. The yes people are gonna stack up the margins there.

     Leaving work today, just on the way from City Hall to the bus stop, I saw three groups of people waving No on 8 signs. All of the cars that passed honked vigorously.

     Hopefully it will lose though. Since, the worst state in the Union looks like it will pass a similar amendment, this is our chance to one-up them in the quest to become a truly free nation.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     It's worth noting that we're predicting it to fail by a margin of 20-11. Hopefully we're right.

And I bet of those 20, most when they think of California think SF and Hollywood. Too bad they don't think of the IE and the central valley. The yes people are gonna stack up the margins there.

     Leaving work today, just on the way from City Hall to the bus stop, I saw three groups of people waving No on 8 signs. All of the cars that passed honked vigorously.

     Hopefully it will lose though. Since, the worst state in the Union looks like it will pass a similar amendment, this is our chance to one-up them in the quest to become a truly free nation.

Gay marriage is far from being the canary in the freedom coalmine. There are much more important issues that indicate personal freedom.

     Well sure. I was feeling like waxing poetic there.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Seeing what's still out there:

county	% precincts reporting	vote margin
Kern	90%	Yes+86,000
San Bernardino	29%	Yes+74,000
San Diego	64%	Yes+60,000
Riverside	64%	Yes+56,000
Shasta	99%	Yes+27,000
Los Angeles	97%	Yes+26,000
Ventura	97%	Yes+15,000
Kings	0% (?)	Yes+10,000
Sutter	56%	Yes+7,200
Imperial	28%	Yes+5,800
Mariposa	29%	Yes+1,400
San Benito	69%	Yes+600
Monterey	41%	No+2,000
Yolo	68%	No+8,400
Santa Clara	64%	No+45,000

     Not promising. Espcially San Bernardino.

[Associate Justice PiT]

ACLU and affiliated groups are suing. FFs.

     What exactly are they suing over?

[Associate Justice PiT]

ACLU and affiliated groups are suing. FFs.

I thought we lived in a democracy...?

If the ACLU wants to overturn a proposition that people voted on, and it passed, let them go to hell.

     Some things should not be subject to public referendum. I mean, if the people were voting to legalize slavery, I strongly suspect that would be agreeing with Lief here.

     My point is, we have republican forms of government to protect the rights of the minority. To allow the people to vote on what rights the minority has is to undermine the delicate system that the founding fathers set forth in order to help secure those rights.

[Associate Justice PiT]

ACLU and affiliated groups are suing. FFs.

I thought we lived in a democracy...?

If the ACLU wants to overturn a proposition that people voted on, and it passed, let them go to hell.

     Some things should not be subject to public referendum. I mean, if the people were voting to legalize slavery, I strongly suspect that would be agreeing with Lief here.

     My point is, we have republican forms of government to protect the rights of the minority. To allow the people to vote on what rights the minority has is to undermine the delicate system that the founding fathers set forth in order to help secure those rights.

Why were they not making law suits before the voting?  Why right after the voting occurs, do they threaten with one?

     If it failed, then there would be no reason for them to waste their resources & tie up the system with a frivolous case. On the other hand, it would look better publically if they sued earlier, since this way they look like they're just bitter over losing.

     Point is that they wouldn't want to sue earlier since the case would potentially be unnecessary, since the proposition might have ended up failing.

[Associate Justice PiT]

ACLU and affiliated groups are suing. FFs.

I thought we lived in a democracy...?

If the ACLU wants to overturn a proposition that people voted on, and it passed, let them go to hell.

     Some things should not be subject to public referendum. I mean, if the people were voting to legalize slavery, I strongly suspect that would be agreeing with Lief here.

     My point is, we have republican forms of government to protect the rights of the minority. To allow the people to vote on what rights the minority has is to undermine the delicate system that the founding fathers set forth in order to help secure those rights.

Why were they not making law suits before the voting?  Why right after the voting occurs, do they threaten with one?

     If it failed, then there would be no reason for them to waste their resources & tie up the system with a frivolous case. On the other hand, it would look better publically if they sued earlier, since this way they look like they're just bitter over losing.

     Point is that they wouldn't want to sue earlier since the case would potentially be unnecessary, since the proposition might have ended up failing.

Yes, they are bitter over losing.

Then again, no one gives a sh**t about what the ACLU says except the extreme libertarians and liberals.  I think we are quibbling over nothing.

     I agree actually. There's no reason that the state Constitution can't be changed back just as easily 10-15 years down the line. It's not as if all gay people in California are going to die as a result of prop 8 passing or something.

[Associate Justice PiT]

ACLU and affiliated groups are suing. FFs.

I thought we lived in a democracy...?

If the ACLU wants to overturn a proposition that people voted on, and it passed, let them go to hell.

     Some things should not be subject to public referendum. I mean, if the people were voting to legalize slavery, I strongly suspect that would be agreeing with Lief here.

     My point is, we have republican forms of government to protect the rights of the minority. To allow the people to vote on what rights the minority has is to undermine the delicate system that the founding fathers set forth in order to help secure those rights.

There is a difference between civil rights and natural rights. Ideally, the former kind wouldn't exist,but given that the state is unfortunately not going away anytime soon, the "right" to obtain a state-sponsered marital license should be decided by referendum. Yes passed, so I guess gays will have to just live together with a deomstic partnership without having an irrelevent third-party tell them that they're married (). To compare a legal definition to slavery is absurd.

     I wasn't actually comparing legalizing gay marriage to the abolishment of slavery. My point was that our country was instituted as a republican democracy precisely because the founding fathers did not want civil rights to just be voted on by referenda.

     Whether or not those civil rights ought to exist is another issue entirely.

     As a side note, I would like to see a system adopted by the state for amendments like that used by the country at large. The amendment in question would have to be voted on by a two-thirds majority of both houses of the state Legislature. If passed by both, each county's board of Supervisors would vote on it. If it's passed by three-fourths of the counties (or 44 out of 58 in California), then it would be added to the state Constitution. It would be a rather interesting experiment.