Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, May 20, 2009
Homo Prop 8 Ruling Tomorrow
Posted by Dan Savage on Wed, May 20, 2009 at 8:28 AM
Those are the rumors, anyway.
Word is that the police departments in San Francisco and San Diego were given a heads up yesterday about a ruling coming down on Thursday—which may explain why these police barricades were dropped off in SF's Castro neighborhood last night, which, depending on how the court rules, is sure to be the site of either protests or celebrations. The CA Supremes are ruling on whether Prop 8, which amended the state's constitution to ban same-sex marriage, was constitutional or not. The court couldn't make that ruling before the amendment was approved and the court has, in the past, tossed other voter-approved amendments to the state constitution.
Fingers crossed.
2
Hope springs eternal, but based upon the questions from oral arguments earlier this year, it seems fairly clear the provision will not be thrown out. Here's hoping between then and now some minds were changed.
5
Well, the only sure thing is that invalidating the marriages would also put a giant wrench in the cogs and damage all marriage in the state by calling all of them into question and potentially halting all licensing until this is resolved. They don't want that precedent, although the irony of the "protect marriage" crowd destroying civil marriage in CA is hilarious.
The actual ruling is an interesting guess, since the main thing not considered by analysts is whether or not this will be punted to another court but upheld in the meantime because, although it seems to be procedurally sound, it's difficult to determine if, at all, it's legally prudent to allow for a vote on minority rights, recognized or not. It's no secret that it was several minority classes identified as primary supporters and funding, so the question would fall as to whether or not it's in the best interest of the state to allow the rights of a minority to be up for a vote.
I imagine that it would be sent back for consideration on the question of whether or not the rights of a minority can be expressly forbidden in the state constitution, especially given that Prop 8 used language that targeted gay and lesbian couples specifically. The obvious precedent would be hard to argue away, and with increasing animosity toward the hispanic community, it could be argued that with gay rights thus subdued, it would only be a matter of time before the next obvious target was found.
I mean, the court could rule outright that, yeah, forbidding rights is a step beyond withholding them and that a popular vote on the rights of a minority is a dangerous ground to be treading, but I doubt they'll say that. They'll probably uphold Prop 8 and let their decision go unpublished and refer that primary question to a lower court upon request.
Also, I'm guessing the barricades are for the 30th anniversary of the riots and not a forthcoming CaSC ruling.
More...
The actual ruling is an interesting guess, since the main thing not considered by analysts is whether or not this will be punted to another court but upheld in the meantime because, although it seems to be procedurally sound, it's difficult to determine if, at all, it's legally prudent to allow for a vote on minority rights, recognized or not. It's no secret that it was several minority classes identified as primary supporters and funding, so the question would fall as to whether or not it's in the best interest of the state to allow the rights of a minority to be up for a vote.
I imagine that it would be sent back for consideration on the question of whether or not the rights of a minority can be expressly forbidden in the state constitution, especially given that Prop 8 used language that targeted gay and lesbian couples specifically. The obvious precedent would be hard to argue away, and with increasing animosity toward the hispanic community, it could be argued that with gay rights thus subdued, it would only be a matter of time before the next obvious target was found.
I mean, the court could rule outright that, yeah, forbidding rights is a step beyond withholding them and that a popular vote on the rights of a minority is a dangerous ground to be treading, but I doubt they'll say that. They'll probably uphold Prop 8 and let their decision go unpublished and refer that primary question to a lower court upon request.
Also, I'm guessing the barricades are for the 30th anniversary of the riots and not a forthcoming CaSC ruling.
6
This ruling may be what Obama has been waiting for... I stress "may". (Either way, I've been unhappy with the way he's been dealing with gay rights issues. Anyway...)
7
Think happy thoughts; but, stock up on canned food, bottled water, and pepper spray just in case...
9
Our case before the court is extremely weak (we are asking, in essence, for an exception to the rule of law); and Thursday is the day before Harvey Milk's birthday and the 30th Anniversary of the White Night Riots (Google it, Kids).
How many conservatives with handicams are going to be recording raw footage for their Flaming Fags Rampage over Marriage commercials for months and years to come, and raising millions with their fear-based campaigns?
Fingers crossed indeed, Dan.
How many conservatives with handicams are going to be recording raw footage for their Flaming Fags Rampage over Marriage commercials for months and years to come, and raising millions with their fear-based campaigns?
Fingers crossed indeed, Dan.
10
I think they will overturn Prop 8.. but no matter what happens, the decision will be brought before the Supreme court... which should take care of it for everyone...
13
@12
you're onto something here, uriel-238... and while we're at it, could we go about un-baptising my dead jewish family members who were "saved" by the mormon church a few years ago (seventy-odd years after their deaths)? that would be just swell.
you're onto something here, uriel-238... and while we're at it, could we go about un-baptising my dead jewish family members who were "saved" by the mormon church a few years ago (seventy-odd years after their deaths)? that would be just swell.
14
No, it won't. SCOTUS doesn't get a say as to interpretation of California constitutional law, unless the CA Constitution violates someone's rights. There is currently no right under the U.S. Constitution ensuring straight people protection from the indignity of seeing gays getting married.
the decision will be brought before the Supreme court... which should take care of it for everyone...
No, it won't. SCOTUS doesn't get a say as to interpretation of California constitutional law, unless the CA Constitution violates someone's rights. There is currently no right under the U.S. Constitution ensuring straight people protection from the indignity of seeing gays getting married.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
Dear Huffington Post... by Dan Savage
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
Because Guns Make Us More Safer by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
The Rick Santorum Rally in Tacoma Probably Could Have Gone Better by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (16) RSS