Is this politics, or is this civil rights?

[figmo]

In California one of the things we'll be voting on is Proposition 8. If passed, it would add the following wording to the California State Constitution:

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

An identical proposition passed in 2000 but was ruled "unconstitutional" by the CA State Supreme Court because it discriminates against a segment of the population.

If it passes again, the court is likely to make the same ruling, just as the US Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled anti-flag-burning legislation as "unconstitutional."

I don't know what percentage of the California population is gay, but nonetheless, such a law would only legalize active discrimination, just as the "separate but equal" laws did years ago. What I don't understand is why the supporters of this proposition are so adamant to try to legislate discrimination which, if passed, will be overturned yet again.

Comments

[terriwells.livejournal.com]

Here in Florida we feel your pain. On the ballot as a constitutional amendment to Article 1 is a new section: "This amendment protect marriage as the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and provides that no other legal union that is treated a marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized." Here it's prop 2.

Needless to say, you see plenty of "No on 2" signs in Wilton Manors, basically the center of the gay and lesbian community. Apparently, the way the ballots are made up, Prop 2 is near the bottom...which has led to the amusing tactic of showing a buff bare male chest on a sign with the words "Go down...go all the way down" and at waist level an explanation of where to find prop 2 so you can vote no. If the antis had hoped that it wouldn't be noticed at the bottom, the approach backfired. lol!