http://leannewaldal.com/2009/05/28/the-18k-silver-lining-in-the-prop-8-decision/ Wed, 07 Dec 2011 21:43:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ http://leannewaldal.com/2009/05/28/the-18k-silver-lining-in-the-prop-8-decision/#comment-149 Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:03:18 +0000 http://leannewaldal.com/?p=208#comment-149 i love the lilly allen video. who is she?!?

]]> http://leannewaldal.com/2009/05/28/the-18k-silver-lining-in-the-prop-8-decision/#comment-142 Fri, 29 May 2009 02:47:37 +0000 http://leannewaldal.com/?p=208#comment-142 VERY well said leanne. i’m so thrilled that we can pick up and find some momentum through and after the tears.
as Phyllis Lyon said, these are bumps in the road (though they hurt) but there has been so much gain in such a short time.
love,
-m

]]> http://leannewaldal.com/2009/05/28/the-18k-silver-lining-in-the-prop-8-decision/#comment-140 Thu, 28 May 2009 21:00:53 +0000 http://leannewaldal.com/?p=208#comment-140 Thanks for bringing all this together Leanne. I think the “legal writer” for the Daily Dish is a little mixed up. If an attempt “to try to restrict equal union rights for gays by constitutional change” were treated as an amendment, then it only requires a majority vote of the electorate. Only if it is considered a revision would it be “procedurally much more difficult to accomplish.” I’m not aware of language in the Court’s Decision indicating such an effort would be considered a “revision.” Nevertheless, I think this further comment from the same Daily Dish commentator is probably right: “opponents of gay civil union rights would have to word any future proposed amendments in such a way as to expressly ban gay civil union rights, and as a result, their ability to secure a sufficient number of petition signatures to get the amendment on the ballot, and then a majority of votes at the polls, will be all the more difficult.”

]]>