4 ms·

Look at the timeline. Eich donated after Prop 22 was overturned (Prop 22 restricted marriage to same-sex couples). He wasn't trying to keep the status quo, he w

by paulv 10y ago

Look at the timeline. Eich donated after Prop 22 was overturned (Prop 22 restricted marriage to same-sex couples). He wasn't trying to keep the status quo, he was trying to change the California constitution to outlaw something that the court had previously deemed legal. The end result of that difference is subtle, yes, but I find the spirit of the difference significant. Which is to say...much worse.

sjellis 10y ago
Thank you - I think that is the thing that pro-Eich people consistently ignore. The Prop 8 campaign to retroactively strip people of human rights once those rights were re-affirmed by the state Supreme Court was an act of pure malice and spite. I don't know what Eich's personal reasons for donating were, but it speaks very poorly of his character that he did.
- BrendanEich 10y ago
  > to retroactively strip Prop 8 would not and did not "nullify" any marriages licensed by the state in the middle of 2008. See http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Prop-8-not-retroactive-Jerry-Brown-says-3274457.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Prop-8-not-retroactive... Retroactive or ex-post-facto law is unconstitutional. I am a big fan of this principle. It protects all of us. > it speaks very poorly Speaking ill of me based on false information does not reflect well on you. Let's back off and perhaps we'll meet on better terms another day. (FYI, I do not support Trump.)
BrendanEich 10y ago
I wrote something too long about your confused post (for example, you must have meant "opposite-sex", not "same-sex"), then set it aside. I'll just note that of course I supported Prop 8 after the California Supreme Court overturned Prop 22 in its May, 2008 "In re Marriage Cases" ruling. Prop 8 was not even on the ballot until June, 2008! Your argument that my support was pernicious is based on bogus chronology. As for "status quo", that was exactly the issue, or one of two big issues. Judges do not make law, they are not our dictators, not even in extremis. It's up to the people and the legislature to correct course, based on judicial review and judicial nullification at the limit, but with new law coming from the legislature and the ballot initiative process (in California, anyway). A lot of us in California supported Mark Leno's work over more than a decade prior to 2008 to enact CA Domestic Partner law, precisely to address injustices, even as Leno, et al. did not attempt to redefine marriage. That we saw judicial overreach and moved against it does not make us opponents of the status quo. (Speaking of status quo, Prop 22's definition of marriage is still in the California constitution: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1 SEC. 7.5.) If you think courts should rule us, just wait long enough. The "next Trump" may give you the judges you deserve. I sincerely commend rule of law and judicial restraint to your attention, even if you don't agree with me on anything else.

by paulv 10y ago

sjellis 10y ago

Thank you - I think that is the thing that pro-Eich people consistently ignore. The Prop 8 campaign to retroactively strip people of human rights once those rights were re-affirmed by the state Supreme Court was an act of pure malice and spite. I don't know what Eich's personal reasons for donating were, but it speaks very poorly of his character that he did.

BrendanEich 10y ago
> to retroactively strip Prop 8 would not and did not "nullify" any marriages licensed by the state in the middle of 2008. See http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Prop-8-not-retroactive-Jerry-Brown-says-3274457.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Prop-8-not-retroactive... Retroactive or ex-post-facto law is unconstitutional. I am a big fan of this principle. It protects all of us. > it speaks very poorly Speaking ill of me based on false information does not reflect well on you. Let's back off and perhaps we'll meet on better terms another day. (FYI, I do not support Trump.)

BrendanEich 10y ago

I wrote something too long about your confused post (for example, you must have meant "opposite-sex", not "same-sex"), then set it aside. I'll just note that of course I supported Prop 8 after the California Supreme Court overturned Prop 22 in its May, 2008 "In re Marriage Cases" ruling. Prop 8 was not even on the ballot until June, 2008! Your argument that my support was pernicious is based on bogus chronology. As for "status quo", that was exactly the issue, or one of two big issues. Judges do not make law, they are not our dictators, not even in extremis. It's up to the people and the legislature to correct course, based on judicial review and judicial nullification at the limit, but with new law coming from the legislature and the ballot initiative process (in California, anyway). A lot of us in California supported Mark Leno's work over more than a decade prior to 2008 to enact CA Domestic Partner law, precisely to address injustices, even as Leno, et al. did not attempt to redefine marriage. That we saw judicial overreach and moved against it does not make us opponents of the status quo. (Speaking of status quo, Prop 22's definition of marriage is still in the California constitution: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1 SEC. 7.5.) If you think courts should rule us, just wait long enough. The "next Trump" may give you the judges you deserve. I sincerely commend rule of law and judicial restraint to your attention, even if you don't agree with me on anything else.