Activists Call for Immediate National Response to Prop 8 Ruling

Activists have begun organizing an immediate nationwide response to the California Supreme Court's ruling on Proposition 8, whenever it might come. The Court is required to rule within 90 days of the hearing but a decision could come at any time.

Robin Tyler, one of the original plaintiffs (with her wife Diane Olson) in the case that won same-sex marriage for Californians, is spearheading the action with co-organizer Andy Thayer and others have joined: "National groups including, Join the Impact, Centerlink, (the
National Association of LGBT Community centers), Metropolitan Community
Churches & others have signed on to help organize across the
nation. 'We've seen a tremendous outpouring from LGBT and allied individuals
and organizations who wanted to join together in unity the night of the
decision regardless of the outcome,' said Tyler."

Activists are planning for a unified effort, whether it be a protest or celebration. Those wanting information or are interested in organizing the movement in their city can go to the Day of Decision website.


  1. cj says

    I understand the dilemma with regards to individual rights versus the right for the general people to vote on a decision. However, taking away the rights of another individual or group based on the citizens legal right to decide laws seems illogical. The founding principal of this nation is freedom and equality, in this instance I would hopefully deduce that protecting the rights of others would be paramount. Case precedent has demonstrated that the general populace does not always vote for the best interests of others, such as past historical segregation and sexism. Separation of church and state was usurped by the religious sect influencing case law. The courts are not primarily set to define social law, only in stances in protecting the rights of others. No ones rights were taken away with the passing of same sex marriage, however the rights of others were taken away under religious propaganda. The courts should stay true to precedence by reinstating the rights that they originally established by legalizing same sex marriage, and separating church and state by reinstating the laws set by the court before a slight majority of the general public took away the rights of others.

  2. Sean says

    I completely concur with CJ’s remarks. And that makes my dilemma doubly difficult. I know that gay marriage isn’t about gay marriage, it’s about civil rights. But I have such a difficult time supporting the very people who fucked this thing up to begin with. The complacency with which Prop 8 was approached by those who were charged with defeating it begs the question, in my mind, Why would I want these self-same “leaders” to feel I support them regardless of the outcome of this case?

    I do not support them, I want them replaced and I want an effective pro-active leadership in our fight for civil rights. Not a bunch of folks who would let a golden opportunity pass them by and then argue about whose fault it was. Let’s either seek or create leadership who will drag us, if necessary, down the right and proper path to our civil rights. It’s a longer road now that our current leadership has remarkably failed us.

  3. peterparker says

    @SEAN: In answer to your (completely valid) question about why you should continue to support these same leaders who screwed up the Prop 8 battle, I would say: because they are the only ones who appear to be leading at this point.

  4. Alex says

    CJ has clearly never gone to law school or read extensive case law. I think the idea that the courts do not define social law beyond protecting the rights of others is incredibly misguided.

    Also, the founding principle of this nation has never really been “freedom” or “equality” which are incredibly vague and nebulous words. There were from the beginning and will always be restrictions to “freedom” and “equality” in the law. Some good, some bad. But nowhere in case law is it reflected that the court only rules on “social” law when protecting rights are involved. Whatever that even means.

  5. shane says

    SEAN is completely correct. Talk to anyone with insider knowledge of how the Prop 8 campaign was run, and they will tell you that the leadership was fragmented, poorly organized, self-aggrandizing, and ultimately self-destructive. There is no doubt that new guards were willing to step up, but the old guard wouldn’t budge because God forbid the limelight be taken from them.