California | Gay Marriage | News | Proposition 8

Nation Awaits California Supreme Court Prop 8 Decision

The California Supreme Court has just over a month (June 3) to deliver its decision on Proposition 8. Much has happened since the arguments. NCLR's Kate Kendell thinks it's toast, citing the recent advances in Iowa and New England. Let's hope so:

Lu "I have always believed the California Supreme Court should strike down Prop 8 because the law is so overwhelmingly on our side. But I feared that other factors might result in an adverse decision. That fear has now been replaced by hope as courts and legislatures — as well as public opinion — have moved sharply in our direction. The Court can cement its legacy by overturning Prop 8 and upholding our Constitution’s promise of equal protection. Or it can cause untold pain and hardship to our community and forever undermine the independence of the judiciary and the historic role of the courts in protecting minority rights. I believe the Court will do the right thing."

(via rex wockner, who agrees)

REMINDER: Day of Decision.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. man, i hope so.....*fingers crossed*

    Posted by: Liz templin | May 1, 2009 6:39:25 PM


  2. We got a preview of their decision during the oral arguements, the California Supremes will uphold Prop 8 but validate existing gay marriages. The events in Iowa and New England were based on their state constitutions and laws, California is different. The California Supremes don't want a fight with the fundie right wingers now or face defeat for re-election. Some bloggers are just creating false hopes. Get real, the gay leadership blew it in 2008

    Posted by: highdesert | May 1, 2009 6:49:04 PM


  3. Even if a miracle happens and she's right, Kendall is still a hack who was one of the architects of the indefensible defeat by the H8TE forces.

    Ignore her. Hope she goes away.

    Posted by: Leland Frances | May 1, 2009 6:58:59 PM


  4. Yes, I am inclined to agree that the CASC appeared to signal they will uphold Prop 8, and then review the legality of those gay CA couples married like me and my husband. They specifically stated that the constitution itself had changed since they last ruled, so who knows what will happen. Regardless of what they decide to do - both sides will continue to pursue this in CA. If the SC overturn 8, the Yes side will get it on the 2010 ballot again and pursue a recall of the judges. It's already being looked at by the YES side. If they fail to overturn 8, the NO side will try to add a new amendment to the 2010 ballot.
    What's really broken in CA is the gay leadership AND the ballot initiative process. I wish the very best of luck to Iowans and New Englanders! CA simply is not equality minded at this time.

    Posted by: RitchieLA | May 1, 2009 7:13:27 PM


  5. California is kinda fucked up. Prop this Prop that- give me a fucking break!! The State is Hurting cause of voter stupidity- VOTE NO NO NO

    Posted by: frank | May 1, 2009 7:30:48 PM


  6. Yeah, wishful thinking from Kate I'm afraid, though I understand what she's trying to say. While the fact that 4 more states may have legalized SSM between the time the justices heard arguments and their 90 days are up to rule is remarkable, I think they'll only underscore their achievement in ruling in favor of SSM last year. This will leave them willing to let the people decide next year on the ballot, and taking the path of least resistance in general.

    Posted by: Bruno | May 1, 2009 7:31:52 PM


  7. An overturn of Prop 8 would be a blow to rule of law. Regardless of where you stand on the issue of gay marriage, the process pretty well followed. There's no reason to overturn. Hoping to overturn an otherwise legal enterprise because it suits ones policy objectives is shameful. Believe in the process, protect the process … the process works (most of the time).

    Posted by: Silus Grok | May 1, 2009 7:34:48 PM


  8. @ritchiela: i'm wondering about your quote: If the SC overturn 8, the Yes side will get it on the 2010 ballot again and pursue a recall of the judges. It's already being looked at by the YES side. If they fail to overturn 8, the NO side will try to add a new amendment to the 2010 ballot."

    I am curious why your last sentence doesn't instead read "the NO side will try the very same thing." Why wouldn't CA gays also try to vote out the judges, same tactic as the YES folks, if they're not upholding their rights of equality?

    Posted by: Daniel | May 1, 2009 7:35:02 PM


  9. @Silus Grok: This is a very overly simplistic reading of what's in front of the justices here. This isn't an easy case, where one side is legally correct and the other side is in outer space. There are compelling reasons to think that that vote by the people was effected illegally, and that's what we have judges for.

    Posted by: Bruno | May 1, 2009 7:44:42 PM


  10. @Bruno: that's a fair comment. But the issues in front of the justices hinge on whether the process was properly followed. Reading Kate's statement, however, only leaves me thinking that she's boosting for a coup from the judiciary. My comment was intended in that regard. But still, fair comment.

    Posted by: Silus Grok | May 1, 2009 8:09:12 PM


  11. "Hoping to overturn an otherwise legal enterprise because it suits ones policy objectives is shameful."

    Actually, what's shameful is that a simple, ignorant majority (backed by those Mormon $) is able to take away the civil rights of a minority. And, by the way, we're not fighting for "gay marriage," we're fighting for civil marriage equality. There's a difference. The "process" did not work with Prop 8. Only someone who is against equal rights for gay people would make that claim.

    Posted by: Ernie | May 1, 2009 8:11:46 PM


  12. And "Silus" is such a someone.

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | May 1, 2009 8:54:30 PM


  13. Silus (whether "someone" or not, whatever that means) is actually right. We as gays refuse to accept the fact that our apathy caused this, not mormoms, AA's or whoever we want to blame to make ourselves feel better. Justices are suppose to uphold the law and constitution as it's written, not to promote anyone's agenda. Perhaps this will finally get lazy gays to do something, but as it stands, the decision, based on California law should be in favor of Prop 8. As bad as that sounds.

    Posted by: ron | May 1, 2009 9:25:51 PM


  14. @Ernie … first-off, get your facts straight. Majority rights are an important part of our system. Pull your head outta your ass. Second, the NO on 8 folks raised more $$ than the YES folks. Moreover, the YES folks were a patchwork of people that crossed religious, ethnic, economic, and party lines. Remember: a lot of these YES folks also voted FOR Obama. Third "civil rights of a minority" is a huge leap. Reasonable people can and do disagree on this point. Vilifying the opposition this part of the schtick, but it's shameful behavior. Fourth, nice ad hominem: I disagree with you, so I must be the dark character in your hallucination.

    As for the process working: a suit brought by aggrieved parties worked itself up through the court system to the California Supreme Court … who weighed in on the subject and rendered an opinion which made gay marriages legal in the state of California. Enough people thought that the ruling was flawed, that they got a proposition on the ballot. The ensuing advertorial orgy attracted both in-state and other interests. A lot of stupid things were said by both sides. One or two meaningful comments worked their way through the sludge. The people voted. Folks all quarters had their say, and by a narrow margin, the YES on 8 folks one. The decision of the Court was nullified by a change to the constitution. Now, there were some questions to how the proposition put on the ballot … which is a fair question. So the State Supreme Court is hearing arguments on those issues, among others. Seems like the process is working just fine.

    Posted by: Silus Grok | May 1, 2009 9:32:22 PM


  15. ( Wow. Sorry about all the typos. )

    Posted by: Silus Grok | May 1, 2009 9:34:39 PM


  16. The narcissist attacked you just because you are there, period. Don't you have a right to be there?

    Let's get real. Narcissists think they have a right to punish you just for being the way you are. Think, don't you have the right to be the way you are? Do you have to be some character in the narcissist's fiction that conforms to his or her specifications?

    Does that make any sense? That's as hateful as the crime against humanity of attacking people just for being a certain KIND or nationality. The narcissist attacks because he or she is a predator, period. Predators attack any vulnerable prey that crosses their sights, period. Therefore, the prey is NEVER the one bit to blame.

    Posted by: Valerie for Vendetta | May 1, 2009 10:04:56 PM


  17. It would make as much sense to blame a sheep for getting attacked by a wolf. So what if the wolf says, "I attacked her because she is an obnoxious sheep!" What idiot falls for that line? Yet narcissist sympathizers are doing precisely this and are therefore being irrational. The narcissist attacked just to do it, and he or she attacks any prey they have some unfair advantage over. They never pick a fair fight. They are of charcoal souls. They do it to vaunt themselves on others. It gives them a high. Like as in a high from a hit on drug.


    I don't care how "threatened" any of that makes the poor, twisted narcissist feel. His perverted feelings are HIS problem, not yours. Like Osama bin Wanton, he will never run out of twisted excuses to irrationalize his attacks on you, so get off the guilt trip. His perversity is not YOUR vice. Doubtless, you will discover that there are certain things you should stop doing. Good. Now you wise up and stop being manipulated in ways that play right into the narcissist's hands. Now you cannot be victimized.


    In our case with California, the narcissist has stolen something of value from you, like your job or reputation or marriage & family - something you have every right to get back from the damned thief. You stop being a victim when you win justice and get it back, period.

    If you are a good person you will meet many evil people in your life, you need to knowledgably recognize them and their reflections in mentality of will, conduct.

    More importantly you need to informatively recognize which evil, poisonous mentalities you have been scammed into trusting as reasonable, benign and to effectively weed out those behaviors, mentality –

    both in yourself and in others - as unacceptable.

    Posted by: Valerie for Vendetta | May 1, 2009 10:06:12 PM


  18. I work for many involved in the escapades of the Christian right. Keep you friends close and your enemies closer.

    For months and months I was hearing how California would lead the country down the road to gay marriage. Ironically, it seems to be Iowa that took the lead.

    In my opinion, this is very telling. The values of a Midwestern farm state have always garnered much more respect than that of California or certain states in the Northeast. If the civil rights leaders of this country can get behind the ball that has started rolling and give it a great big push, it will be much like pushing the first domino just a little harder to begin the chain reaction.

    We would do better to get behind the victories and than lament the loss in one state. Change is sometimes slow but with nurturing it goes on.

    Posted by: Paul | May 1, 2009 10:27:39 PM


  19. Valerie, what are you on?

    and where can I get some?

    Posted by: LOL | May 1, 2009 10:33:57 PM


  20. Silus is absolutely right. The CA Supreme Court has to decide the case before it (which by all counts was poorly argued by the No on 8 campaign and its "allies" [Jerry Brown---thanks for nothing], which by all counts was a weak campaign). Decisions in other states have nothing to do with whether the votes on Prop 8 were valid.

    Yes that sucks, but name calling doesn't change reality. The fault is with the CA proposition process. Kate Kendall's "hope" and faith in "public opinion" mean nothing.

    Hopefully in 2010 the people of CA will vote differently. But the justices already all but admitted that they'd be hard-pressed to find a reason to negate the will of the voters as it stands under CA's prop process.

    Posted by: Paul R | May 1, 2009 10:41:21 PM


  21. I've read the relevant parts of the California State Constitution and I just don't see how the justices could overturn this. What part of California's Constitution are people referencing to try and overturn Prop 8? I've watched the legal arguments as well and I just don't see Prop 8 being overturned by the courts. It's going to have to be repealed through the ballot process or else we will have to wait for the US Supreme Court to rule in favor of marriage equality at some future point.

    If the California Supreme Court is radical enough they could rule that since Prop 8 creates an inequality in the State Constitution that all further marriages are invalid and will be considered as civil unions in order to ensure equality before the law.

    Posted by: Jason Young | May 1, 2009 10:48:14 PM


  22. "In our case with California, the narcissist has stolen something of value from you, like your job or reputation or marriage & family - something you have every right to get back from the damned thief. You stop being a victim when you win justice and get it back, period."

    If you expect to find those "people" to reciprocate and understand you, you will grow murderous with disappointment. The best you'll ever do is to understnad yourself, know what it is that benefits you, rewards you, stabilized you and want and seek it ou, and not let the cattle stand in your way. Moo.

    Posted by: Valerie for Vendetta | May 1, 2009 10:53:41 PM


  23. All the back and forth aside, the basic question, as others have noted, was signaled by the questioning of the panel in oral argument. They were clearly not buying the "revision" vs. "amendment" argument and there is no other argument at a state level. Federal civil rights claims will not be heard there, and I don't think there is a Federal Court of Appeals in the US today, let alone the US Supreme Court, who would find that Prop 8 violates Equal Protection under the US Constitution....Too many Bush 1 and 2 appointees on those courts.

    Posted by: notshychirev | May 2, 2009 12:00:09 AM


  24. Screw California (no not all you Californians, but..) Let them follow along sometime in the future, after more Midwestern states and the New England states have paved the way.

    Posted by: JT | May 2, 2009 12:10:46 AM


  25. @Jason Young: The part of the constitution that deals with procedure for amending the constitution. Even if the justices don't buy into the argument that prop 8 was an illegally-enacted constitutional revision, it is not a meritless argument by any means. Otherwise, they wouldn't have heard the case to begin with.

    Posted by: Bruno | May 2, 2009 2:14:23 AM


  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Pokergesicht« «