Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Homo / News CA Supremes Uphold Prop 8...
Posted by Dan Savage on Tue, May 26, 2009 at 10:06 AM
...and declare, according to a banner headline at the LA Times, that the 18,000 same-sex couples who married in California are still legally married. So some gay couples in California are more equal than others. Congrats to all who rushed to the altar and it ain't over, bigots, not by a long shot.
UPDATE: Story's up now at the LA Times:
The California Supreme Court today upheld Proposition 8's ban on same-sex marriage but also ruled that gay couples who wed before the election will continue to be married under state law.The decision virtually ensures another fight at the ballot box over marriage rights for gays. Gay rights activists say they may ask voters to repeal the marriage ban as early as next year, and opponents have pledged to fight any such effort. Proposition 8 passed with 52% of the vote.
Although the court split 6-1 on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the justices were unanimous in deciding to keep intact the marriages of as many as 18,000 gay couples who exchanged vows before the election. The marriages began last June, after a 4-3 state high court ruling striking down the marriage ban last May.
The anti-gay bigots said before the decision that they wanted Prop 8 upheld and they weren't concerned about the 18K gay couples who wed while same-sex marriage was briefly legal in CA. That exposes their fundamental dishonesty. If they believe, as they claimed during the campaign, that married same-sex couples are a threat to the family, a threat to children, an invitation to hurricanes and earthquakes and wildfires, and that the existence of married gay couples somehow requires homosexuality to be taught in schools, how can they be indifferent to 18K married gay couples rattling around the state? Won't all those bad things still happen?
Either they don't believe any of that crap—and many don't—or they intend to go after the 18K couples whose marriages were declared legal this morning.
Share via
3
Watch us march in tears and ask again, pleeeease guiiize. Giiiive us the rights.
Holy living fuck I'm pissed.
Holy living fuck I'm pissed.
9
So, really, it comes down to timing.
All the gay people who did get married before Prop 8 = okay
All the gay people who wanted top get married after = no
This makes no sense. According to this, you can set of a Prop to invalidate anyone's future marriage.
All the gay people who did get married before Prop 8 = okay
All the gay people who wanted top get married after = no
This makes no sense. According to this, you can set of a Prop to invalidate anyone's future marriage.
11
I'm sorta happy about this decision. This issue NEEDS to go to the US Supreme Court where the matter will be decided in favor of Gay Rights for the entire country. States and voters should not be able to make discriminatory laws. Period.
12
whoa...that looks like a US Supreme court case in the making --some gays can be married, but others not? Take it to next level! Marriage for all!!!
21
A person from Lambda Legal on the Stephanie Miller Show this morning said it was not likely to go to the Supreme Court if Prop8 was upheld.
So...there?
So...there?
23
Crap!
We went down and got married last year, so we're still "legal" but I'll be at Westlake today protesting for equal rights for everyone else.....
We went down and got married last year, so we're still "legal" but I'll be at Westlake today protesting for equal rights for everyone else.....
25
I expect the US Supremes to rule against gay marraige even if 'bama's pick gets in there...also fully expect the 18,000 marraiges to be invalidated by later court decision. Again the debate needs to be argued in the courts on the basis of human/civil rights for everyone/..
27
I'm not surprised by this decision at all. Does it hurt? A little, but I think that gays will win at the ballot box in a couple of years. Marriage equality for all will come to California, it's just a matter of time.
I also don't want it to go to the US Supreme Court, at least not the court in its current configuration because we'll probably lose.
I also don't want it to go to the US Supreme Court, at least not the court in its current configuration because we'll probably lose.
29
Why is everyone so surprised? This is exactly the outcome that makes sense. If the court were to rule against prop 8, this would further ignite the "activist judges" rhetoric of the right. The judges figure, 1-3 years max, and prop 8 will naturally get overturned by the ballot. Especially with 18,000 married couples existing and california not falling into gay-induced anarchy. Chill out people, this is a process which can no longer be stopped. We have to keep pushing, but just look at this as a motivation to fucking volunteer and donate more next time.
31
I am so fucking sad.
Seriously disappointed in my home state. Poop on you, California.
@11 - I'm not so sure the current Supreme Court would rule for the gays. Even the "liberal" justices ain't all that liberal.
Seriously disappointed in my home state. Poop on you, California.
@11 - I'm not so sure the current Supreme Court would rule for the gays. Even the "liberal" justices ain't all that liberal.
33
So when Prop 8 gets overturned at the ballot box, it's still saying that a minority's rights are subject to approval by the majority. Yes, it would be an outcome I would be pleased with, but still a shitty way to get there.
34
Yes, Iowa is lovely this time of year, because it's not yet hot and humid enough to be miserable. I suggest Des Moines instead of Sioux City.
California will come around eventually. The bigots at my parents' church in Des Moines just gave the pastor clearance to do gay weddings in the church and everything, and if it can happen there with those close-minded elderly men and women, it will eventually happen everywhere.
Keep fighting.
California will come around eventually. The bigots at my parents' church in Des Moines just gave the pastor clearance to do gay weddings in the church and everything, and if it can happen there with those close-minded elderly men and women, it will eventually happen everywhere.
Keep fighting.
35
@8 - my thoughts precisely - I can legislate the right of your kids to marry at the ballot box at any time. At least we know that is clear. I wonder what else I can legislate with a clipboard?
37
I am against prop 8, but I think this is a good thing:
1. They essentially have created two classes of California gay people -- those who are married within a certain window, and those who aren't. California is, essentially, recognizing gay marriage, and this is a wedge that makes it seem MORE unfair. Separate but unequal. Since they recognize gay marriage, however, they will have to recognize marriages performed in other states.
2. If the California Supreme Court had overturned the prop process, it would have driven the wackjobs even wackier, and potentially violent (it hits all their bullshit victim buttons, activist judges, etc etc). This way, a new proposition can be pushed through, and (as the rest of the country is showing) will get voted through. They will have no solid argument against it since they were beaten at their own game.
Gay marriage is coming to all of the US very soon. This is laying groundwork that will pay off.
1. They essentially have created two classes of California gay people -- those who are married within a certain window, and those who aren't. California is, essentially, recognizing gay marriage, and this is a wedge that makes it seem MORE unfair. Separate but unequal. Since they recognize gay marriage, however, they will have to recognize marriages performed in other states.
2. If the California Supreme Court had overturned the prop process, it would have driven the wackjobs even wackier, and potentially violent (it hits all their bullshit victim buttons, activist judges, etc etc). This way, a new proposition can be pushed through, and (as the rest of the country is showing) will get voted through. They will have no solid argument against it since they were beaten at their own game.
Gay marriage is coming to all of the US very soon. This is laying groundwork that will pay off.
40
@35: Probably anything you can get Mormons to fight for. Californians seem to care a lot about what Mormons think, for reasons I can't fathom. Prop 8 was losing until they stepped in.
41
@39: Direct democracy doesn't work. Representative democracy works better. Most of California's problems come of having too much direct democracy.
42
The court has abdicated it's role. What is worse than "activist" judges are judges that allow the tyranny of the Majority to strip a civil right away from a minority; a court that does NOT do its duty to America. NOW EVERY minority group can be a target.
California has said that the rule of the majority, in its damage to the minority, is fine and acceptable. Sounds like Iraq to me.
California has said that the rule of the majority, in its damage to the minority, is fine and acceptable. Sounds like Iraq to me.
44
This decision is fucked up in so many different ways it boggles the mind.
The only words that come to mind are God fucking damn it!
The fight will continue. It has to.
The only words that come to mind are God fucking damn it!
The fight will continue. It has to.
47
It was a ruling on a technical issue, and although it's like asking which hose is most efficient on rioting black students, it's still a technical question. The question pertaining to the civil rights issue is in allowing the marriages to stand, which they did unanimously.
It was unfortunate that their hands were tied, but this was strictly based on interpreting a very muddled and inadequate constitution that has bankrupted the state and made it possible for one group to hold dominion over another.
As far as I can tell, the largest suit in CA history involved around 40,000 people. This will beat that one in numbers handily, I guarantee it.
It was unfortunate that their hands were tied, but this was strictly based on interpreting a very muddled and inadequate constitution that has bankrupted the state and made it possible for one group to hold dominion over another.
As far as I can tell, the largest suit in CA history involved around 40,000 people. This will beat that one in numbers handily, I guarantee it.
48
That reveals their dishonesty.
sniff sniff
If you believe that married same-sex couples are a threat to the family, a threat to children, an invitation to hurricanes ...blah blah blah... how can you be indifferent to 18K married gay couples rattling around your state?
boo hoo hoo
Unless, of course, you don't believe any of that crap.
whaaaaaaaaaaaaa
sniff sniff
If you believe that married same-sex couples are a threat to the family, a threat to children, an invitation to hurricanes ...blah blah blah... how can you be indifferent to 18K married gay couples rattling around your state?
boo hoo hoo
Unless, of course, you don't believe any of that crap.
whaaaaaaaaaaaaa
49
"I cannot prevent anyone from getting angry, or mad, or frustrated. I can only hope that they'll turn that anger and frustration and madness into something positive, so that two, three, four, five hundred will step forward.. come out.. say 'enough'.. and tell everybody, wear a sign, let the world know. Maybe that will help." ~Harvey Milk
50
@28
I think I agree. The US Supremes have proved many times over the last decade what irresponsible and biased dickwads they are. But I'm pretty sure this issue will take a number of years to finally be heard by them. Maybe by then the winds will have shifted in the "right" direction.
On the other hand, I think even Scalia and Roberts have enough respect for the Constitution to rule against legalizing discrimination.
Being basically a pessimist and not giving a damn about marriage I don't know why I say the things I do...
I think I agree. The US Supremes have proved many times over the last decade what irresponsible and biased dickwads they are. But I'm pretty sure this issue will take a number of years to finally be heard by them. Maybe by then the winds will have shifted in the "right" direction.
On the other hand, I think even Scalia and Roberts have enough respect for the Constitution to rule against legalizing discrimination.
Being basically a pessimist and not giving a damn about marriage I don't know why I say the things I do...
51
@42 Agreed, their ruling has terrifying implications for the rights of all minority groups in California.
53
The eyes of the american people will be upon gay groups now and I sincerely hope that they show them that even if they do not agree with the decision they are going to accept the court's decision with civility and respect for the law and the state of California.
This was a decision based on the California state Constitution and all the judges have done is their job which is to protect and uphold the constitutional expression of the electorate's will. Because after all the divisive issues and controversies we're all americans and we all want what's best for our nation and those generations that will come after us.
This was a decision based on the California state Constitution and all the judges have done is their job which is to protect and uphold the constitutional expression of the electorate's will. Because after all the divisive issues and controversies we're all americans and we all want what's best for our nation and those generations that will come after us.
55
*sigh*
Take solace in the fact that, while we may not have equal rights, we're on the right side of history? :-/
Take solace in the fact that, while we may not have equal rights, we're on the right side of history? :-/
56
@51 These implications are outlined by Justice Carlos Moreno, the only justice that dissented from the Prop 8 opinion. He thinks that this ruling will be dangerous for other minority groups since it effectively creates this hazy ground in which rights can be limited, a notion that he thinks counters the very definition of equality.
57
Of course the CA Supreme Court let those 18,000 marriages stand. The government can't retroactively invalidate a contract, but it can bar similar contracts from being made in the future.
59
@43
you call THAT violence??
do you have any idea how many people are physically attacked, some even killed, for suspicion that they are gay?
you call THAT violence??
do you have any idea how many people are physically attacked, some even killed, for suspicion that they are gay?
60
I've got to agree with @47, this was not a ruling on rights, it was a ruling on a technicality in how laws are passed. It wasn't ethics that was at the heart of this lawsuit, they judged on whether a proposition was conducted correctly. The ethical arguement they did rule on let the marriages stand, which is a great thing.
I wish it got knocked down too, I wish the fight were over, but as Dan has said, it isn't going to be over until everyone has equal rights, but this wasn't our real fight today -- things like what happened in Iowa where the ethical concerns were addressed and where we won are the important fights and its still going our way. Try not to be too discouraged, we are still going to win.
I wish it got knocked down too, I wish the fight were over, but as Dan has said, it isn't going to be over until everyone has equal rights, but this wasn't our real fight today -- things like what happened in Iowa where the ethical concerns were addressed and where we won are the important fights and its still going our way. Try not to be too discouraged, we are still going to win.
61
Hmm... What other minorities can we strip rights from by popular vote, without worrying about that pesky court system? We now have a great precedent.
62
This decision makes me want to start smoking...and then drive northward along the entire length of California, chucking my half-smoked, smoldering butts out the window at regular intervals.
Let them burn.
Let them burn.
65
58 Failed argument. Rejected by the California electorate and by the supreme court of California and rightfully so. Pseudo racial hijacking of legitimate struggles will no longer be accepted rationale.
67
@40: California is a close second to Utah in Mormon population. California is also the most churched state in the country.
California is way more religious than people think.
As said above, bummed, not surprised, California will get its shit together one day on this issue. Remember Prop 22 in 2000, the "older Prop 8"? That passed by a much wider margin, without Mormon money.
Be patient. It's very hard to keep being patient, i know :(
California is way more religious than people think.
As said above, bummed, not surprised, California will get its shit together one day on this issue. Remember Prop 22 in 2000, the "older Prop 8"? That passed by a much wider margin, without Mormon money.
Be patient. It's very hard to keep being patient, i know :(
68
While I understand the realpolitik behind the decision, it's still half-baked idiocy.
What's the point of having rights that can simply be voted away?
The whole concept of constitutional rights and freedoms in the US is a repulsive sham.
What's the point of having rights that can simply be voted away?
The whole concept of constitutional rights and freedoms in the US is a repulsive sham.
69
58, You are against equal civil rights for a group based on who they are. How do you feel being the equivalent to the folks who were screaming, and throwing things at the black students trying to enter a school in Little Rock?
70
@65 Loveschild, you were actually sounding halfway OK there for a microsecond or so there but the struggle is not a hijacking, though it is a different struggle and a different minority.
71
@68: I wouldn't say "in the U.S." I'd say "in California." There are states where it's MUCH harder to amend the constitution. Iowa is one of them; the legislature has to get involved.
72
@69 Correct.
The specific civil rights are different in some cases (and in some cases like employment discrimination, they are the same) but there can be no argument or confusion this is about civil rights.
The specific civil rights are different in some cases (and in some cases like employment discrimination, they are the same) but there can be no argument or confusion this is about civil rights.
74
Actually, my previous post at 69 should be directed at the hateful, bigoted woman on post 65. She has the pull the ladder up mentality when it comes to civil rights. Now that she has equal civil rights, she feels it her duty to keep others out of the club.
75
Loveschild, the exact same thing would have happened in Alabama in 1963.
No need to "hijack." This is a legitimate struggle for civil rights and equality for an oppressed minority. I can draw you a dozen parallels if it won't make you squirm too much.
No need to "hijack." This is a legitimate struggle for civil rights and equality for an oppressed minority. I can draw you a dozen parallels if it won't make you squirm too much.
76
F#ckYou, LovesChild (A name this is truly a joke!)
"This was a decision based on the California state Constitution and all the judges have done is their job which is to protect and uphold the constitutional expression of the electorate's will."
Wise up, DipSh&t! The "electorate's will" used to be that slaves were property, and later, that blacks and whites couldn't marry. You are so willfully obtuse you're not even funny. Read a book once in a while and stop being so damn ignorant!
"This was a decision based on the California state Constitution and all the judges have done is their job which is to protect and uphold the constitutional expression of the electorate's will."
Wise up, DipSh&t! The "electorate's will" used to be that slaves were property, and later, that blacks and whites couldn't marry. You are so willfully obtuse you're not even funny. Read a book once in a while and stop being so damn ignorant!
77
@ 76 - There's no waking up for that bitch. She's snapped her mind shut like a bear-trap. It would be quite galling, if she weren't such an ugly, mindless asshole.
78
@65: It wasn't rejected by the supreme court, otherwise they would have found in favor of Ken Starr in overturning the previously performed marriages.
What they did do was concur that the current constitution allows for this, but it's no secret that the CaSC doesn't approve of the standing constitution, especially since the very same you laud has bankrupted them by popular vote. There are talks of redoing this constitution, since the same constitution you cheer is the one that has basically put thousands on the street and has sent many children to their early death for lack of food and shelter. And you celebrate this constitution when it suits you, right? Evil.
And it's foolish, again, to pretend that this and that are not congruent. They are. Bayard Rustin and Coretta Scott-King themselves acknowledged this. Suggesting that it's racist to combine the two is fundamentally racist since you are saying that no other race has license to take upon itself any struggle for what it sees to be justice and presupposes that all proponents of gay rights are white.
Your run in with riz has proven time and again that you are indeed highly racist, questioning his race and making reference to a mainstream gay culture you blindly assume is solely white.
I'm for gay rights, but I'm not white. I donate money and fight for equality, but I'm not white. And my people are still not free.
But freedom and equality are racist, right.
I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice … But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King, Jr., said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”… I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people.
– 25th anniversary luncheon for Lambda Defense and Education Fund, March 31, 1998 == Coretta Scott-King
More...
What they did do was concur that the current constitution allows for this, but it's no secret that the CaSC doesn't approve of the standing constitution, especially since the very same you laud has bankrupted them by popular vote. There are talks of redoing this constitution, since the same constitution you cheer is the one that has basically put thousands on the street and has sent many children to their early death for lack of food and shelter. And you celebrate this constitution when it suits you, right? Evil.
And it's foolish, again, to pretend that this and that are not congruent. They are. Bayard Rustin and Coretta Scott-King themselves acknowledged this. Suggesting that it's racist to combine the two is fundamentally racist since you are saying that no other race has license to take upon itself any struggle for what it sees to be justice and presupposes that all proponents of gay rights are white.
Your run in with riz has proven time and again that you are indeed highly racist, questioning his race and making reference to a mainstream gay culture you blindly assume is solely white.
I'm for gay rights, but I'm not white. I donate money and fight for equality, but I'm not white. And my people are still not free.
But freedom and equality are racist, right.
I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice … But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King, Jr., said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”… I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people.
– 25th anniversary luncheon for Lambda Defense and Education Fund, March 31, 1998 == Coretta Scott-King
79
I'm still reading the case, so my own opinion is going to trickle in.
Our California Supreme Court jurists weren't being activist judges in In re Marriage Cases and the aren't now in Strauss v. Horton, S168047; Tyler v. State of California, S168066; City and County of San Francisco v. Horton, S168078. They're just doing their job, and from what I'm reading, they're doing it with meticulous consideration of all the relevant minutiae.
They've addressed that Prop 8 does indeed deny equal representation by law to a protected minority, but that unlike other states that have restrictions on proposal, modification or repeals of rights chartered in the constitution, in contrast, the California Constitution contains no comparable limitation.
In other words, it is as I feared, any minority, protected by strict scrutiny or otherwise, could be denied rights. Heck, we could outlaw Mormons from owning property, if we so chose, with a petition of 8% and a majority ruling.
The court does not deny that the spirit of prop 8 and the inequality it establishes are morally objectionable, but rather notes that the court would be outside its legal jurisdiction to overrule it. They would be acting in an activist manner had they overturned it.
This shouldn't slow us down from demonstrating, or heck, rioting, if that is what is necessary to be heard; constitutional protections against a tyranical majority should be in our constitution, and they aren't. Gays remain oppressed. But so far I'm not reading anything in the court statement that is contrary to law.
Exactly how they preserve the marriages of the early 18,000, in direct defiance of prop 8 as it is worded, I do not yet know. I'll report back as I read more.
More...
Our California Supreme Court jurists weren't being activist judges in In re Marriage Cases and the aren't now in Strauss v. Horton, S168047; Tyler v. State of California, S168066; City and County of San Francisco v. Horton, S168078. They're just doing their job, and from what I'm reading, they're doing it with meticulous consideration of all the relevant minutiae.
They've addressed that Prop 8 does indeed deny equal representation by law to a protected minority, but that unlike other states that have restrictions on proposal, modification or repeals of rights chartered in the constitution, in contrast, the California Constitution contains no comparable limitation.
In other words, it is as I feared, any minority, protected by strict scrutiny or otherwise, could be denied rights. Heck, we could outlaw Mormons from owning property, if we so chose, with a petition of 8% and a majority ruling.
The court does not deny that the spirit of prop 8 and the inequality it establishes are morally objectionable, but rather notes that the court would be outside its legal jurisdiction to overrule it. They would be acting in an activist manner had they overturned it.
This shouldn't slow us down from demonstrating, or heck, rioting, if that is what is necessary to be heard; constitutional protections against a tyranical majority should be in our constitution, and they aren't. Gays remain oppressed. But so far I'm not reading anything in the court statement that is contrary to law.
Exactly how they preserve the marriages of the early 18,000, in direct defiance of prop 8 as it is worded, I do not yet know. I'll report back as I read more.
80
Well, this one was already lost in November. Sure, at this point California would be a lovely and huge feather in the equality cap, but look at the other gains lately: the administration is being confronted regularly about DADT; several states have made the proper moves for equality; WA will soon do so as well...
Not winning exactly, but gaining. This ruling is just a "no change", not a loss.
Not winning exactly, but gaining. This ruling is just a "no change", not a loss.
81
Ugh. I don’t see how reasonably well-educated people can hand down a double-think decision that’s so blatantly self-contradictory, not to mention an insult to the intelligence of sane people who have a coherent value system.
Either you have fundamental rights that can’t be voted away or you don’t.
Either the court protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority or it doesn’t. Looks like a resounding “no” on all counts.
“2 + 2 = 4 sometimes, but other times 2 + 2 = 3.”
“We’re against discrimination, except when it matters, then we’re totally for it.”
One of the reasons I drive a 12 year-old car and shop heavily online is because I don’t want to reward the State of WA with my hard-earned tax dollars, since I was so pissed at the even worse WA State Supreme Court decision from a couple of years ago. Hello $9 BILLION deficit.
I’ll still visit my cousin in Hell-LAy, but I’ll couch surf and I won’t rent a car–take that Cali!
Either you have fundamental rights that can’t be voted away or you don’t.
Either the court protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority or it doesn’t. Looks like a resounding “no” on all counts.
“2 + 2 = 4 sometimes, but other times 2 + 2 = 3.”
“We’re against discrimination, except when it matters, then we’re totally for it.”
One of the reasons I drive a 12 year-old car and shop heavily online is because I don’t want to reward the State of WA with my hard-earned tax dollars, since I was so pissed at the even worse WA State Supreme Court decision from a couple of years ago. Hello $9 BILLION deficit.
I’ll still visit my cousin in Hell-LAy, but I’ll couch surf and I won’t rent a car–take that Cali!
82
@79: I think the ruling is best-case. The court left open many doors to getting this overturned, they kept standing marriages valid and they've motivated hundreds of thousands of people.
Annnnnnnnnd they totally slapped the crap out of the current constitution. Which is a good thing, seeing as they really were unable to have their say, even though they are the one state body most effected by a faulty constitution.
Bankruptcy or a constitutional crisis? I wonder which will push CA over the edge first.
Annnnnnnnnd they totally slapped the crap out of the current constitution. Which is a good thing, seeing as they really were unable to have their say, even though they are the one state body most effected by a faulty constitution.
Bankruptcy or a constitutional crisis? I wonder which will push CA over the edge first.
83
& 39 is so right. Democracy in the US just doesn't work. It's completely inconsistent, arbitrary, and dysfunctional.
I'd love for someone to ask those asshole (In)Justices how they'd feel if people banned their marriages.
I'd love for someone to ask those asshole (In)Justices how they'd feel if people banned their marriages.
84
77, you're right. LovesChild has a mind like a Stainless Steel Trap. Nothing in it gets out alive...
86
@78
Thankfully, riz went off so I don't have to...yet. I wish Loveschild would look me in the face and tell me that I don't deserve the same rights as her skank ass.
Thankfully, riz went off so I don't have to...yet. I wish Loveschild would look me in the face and tell me that I don't deserve the same rights as her skank ass.
87
I'm with you there @MonkeyNose (#38). Very astute reading.
Regarding the "recognition" strategy, keep an eye on the D.C. council bill to recognize same-sex marriages from other states also. So far, no big noise from Congress to overturn the council's decision yet, though given the nature of the controversy, I expect there will be. They still have a week or so left as all new laws passed by DC are subject to a period of 30-day congressional review under Home Rule Act of 1973.
For the amendment to be struck down, the decision will have to pass both houses and signed by the president. Unlikely.
State recognition is indeed a frustratingly incremental strategy. But all successful movements, including the earlier one for civil rights, have been built on foundations of incremental successes.
Regarding the "recognition" strategy, keep an eye on the D.C. council bill to recognize same-sex marriages from other states also. So far, no big noise from Congress to overturn the council's decision yet, though given the nature of the controversy, I expect there will be. They still have a week or so left as all new laws passed by DC are subject to a period of 30-day congressional review under Home Rule Act of 1973.
For the amendment to be struck down, the decision will have to pass both houses and signed by the president. Unlikely.
State recognition is indeed a frustratingly incremental strategy. But all successful movements, including the earlier one for civil rights, have been built on foundations of incremental successes.
88
C'mon, Chitown Kev, that was a little harsh. We have no definitive proof that her ass is pure skank. I mean, it's a good bet, almost as good a bet as the one that says she is a clueless, religious, homophobic bigot with an axe to grind against something that doesn't affect her in the least. Of course, skank might just be a step up for her...
91
One can only hope that the 18,000 marriages will be enough evidence to swing the voters of California to some common dignity and respect for gay rights. I feel saddened for those that lost today but I have to believe that momentum is on the right side. State by state gay marriage is winning, even if its painfully slow.
92
65,
Failed statement. Pseudo rational that separate is equal in no longer an accepted rationale.
I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice … But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King, Jr., said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”… I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people.
– 25th anniversary luncheon for Lambda Defense and Education Fund, March 31, 1998 == Coretta Scott-King
Failed statement. Pseudo rational that separate is equal in no longer an accepted rationale.
I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice … But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King, Jr., said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”… I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people.
– 25th anniversary luncheon for Lambda Defense and Education Fund, March 31, 1998 == Coretta Scott-King
93
65,
"Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever!" - MLK JR
Keep trying to make separate become equal. Keep trying to convince yourself that there are lesser humans amongst us. We are either all worthy of equal rights or none of us are worthy.
"Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever!" - MLK JR
Keep trying to make separate become equal. Keep trying to convince yourself that there are lesser humans amongst us. We are either all worthy of equal rights or none of us are worthy.
94
92
MLK's family has been whoring off his reputation for years.
There's a reason Coretta doesn't have a National Holiday...
MLK's family has been whoring off his reputation for years.
There's a reason Coretta doesn't have a National Holiday...
96
Yeah, number 24. By saying Fuck America, you will convince and win over the majority to support gay marriage. Thank you for the over the top reaction and confirming the words of the bigots.
98
@97 = I <3 you.
Loveschild, the only thing you said in your above initial comment that seriously rankles is"..and rightfully so." See, that's arrogant, that does not speak of the Christian love you claim to profess for others.
How can anyone call or refer to the decision to deny people rights, "..and rightfully so..?" I know plenty of long..LONG..term gay couples, & they haven't caused a rift in the hetero-married-couples, w/ or w/out kids, in my community. Some people have kids..some don't..some are straight..some are gay..some are white..some are black/red/yellow/etc. None of these groups of people is any LESS EQUAL. Each of those individuals should be able to declare their love to each other, in front of their communities, & have the same legal rights. To say otherwise is bigtory.
But: the important thing is, the marrieds stay married. The dichotomy will make the issue keep coming up for vote/court action until it eventually passes. ONE-TENTH of the country currently has full-on gay marriage. It's being debated in 11 others states. It'll happen.
Loveschild, the only thing you said in your above initial comment that seriously rankles is"..and rightfully so." See, that's arrogant, that does not speak of the Christian love you claim to profess for others.
How can anyone call or refer to the decision to deny people rights, "..and rightfully so..?" I know plenty of long..LONG..term gay couples, & they haven't caused a rift in the hetero-married-couples, w/ or w/out kids, in my community. Some people have kids..some don't..some are straight..some are gay..some are white..some are black/red/yellow/etc. None of these groups of people is any LESS EQUAL. Each of those individuals should be able to declare their love to each other, in front of their communities, & have the same legal rights. To say otherwise is bigtory.
But: the important thing is, the marrieds stay married. The dichotomy will make the issue keep coming up for vote/court action until it eventually passes. ONE-TENTH of the country currently has full-on gay marriage. It's being debated in 11 others states. It'll happen.
99
BTW: Were it up to me somehow, I'd be for a serious blacklisting of companies/individuals that we *know* supported Prop 8, just to remind them that we know:
http://guydads.blogspot.com/2008/12/anti…
Now I know where to have my company book their rooms for the San Diego Comic*Son this year..NOT @ The Manchester Grand Hyatt..!
http://guydads.blogspot.com/2008/12/anti…
Now I know where to have my company book their rooms for the San Diego Comic*Son this year..NOT @ The Manchester Grand Hyatt..!
101
I'll qualify this comment by stating I've only gotten through the summary of the opinion so far: The CA Supreme Court is not taking away anybody's substantive rights either retrospectively or prospectively, they are merely allowing the populace to take away the name given to those rights, which in itself is not a Constitutional Revision (and given that the process we now have to make Constitutional Revisions was not passed by the previous revision process makes it seem rather suspect). The Court seems highly skeptical of the whole amendment by initiative process, but must abide by the Constitution.
In a nutshell, separate is equal when it comes to the "designation" we give to rights; I guess it's up to us to make sure that separate is equal, or else there could be heck to pay.
I'm sure it would stick in the craw of the pro-Prop 8 crowd if we amended the marriage license application to read "Application for License of Marriage and/or Civil Union and/or Domestic Partnership," which conceivably is the only way to comply with the amended Constitution and the court's ruling today. However, I won't press this issue until after we present any ballot initiative in 2010.
In a nutshell, separate is equal when it comes to the "designation" we give to rights; I guess it's up to us to make sure that separate is equal, or else there could be heck to pay.
I'm sure it would stick in the craw of the pro-Prop 8 crowd if we amended the marriage license application to read "Application for License of Marriage and/or Civil Union and/or Domestic Partnership," which conceivably is the only way to comply with the amended Constitution and the court's ruling today. However, I won't press this issue until after we present any ballot initiative in 2010.
102
@ 89 & 63 regarding 59
Because if it was only five or ten, then that sort of thing would be fine, right?
Because if it was only five or ten, then that sort of thing would be fine, right?
103
#79: I'm still reading the opinion, too. But I think the rationale re: preserving existing marriages is that, barring express language to the contrary, the amendment is read prospectively. Those "14-words" say nothing of retroactivity.
104
@102
It's astounding to me that many sophisticated, urbane, liberal & progressive people think that so much progress has been made that they think "what's the big deal?". They think we've come so far that there is not much more to do. I think most of these people live in big cities and therefore are out of touch with reality outside their bubbles. I've had gay friends in Seattle that definitely like to wear heavily tinted rose-colored glasses.
Those glasses sometimes get very rudely knocked off their heads with baseball bats and kicks to face. Their outlook changes very suddenly in the emergency room. But these rude realities are willfully ignored by most straight people, especially those that have had the new rose-colored laser eye procedure, which renders them blind to all harsh truth.
It's astounding to me that many sophisticated, urbane, liberal & progressive people think that so much progress has been made that they think "what's the big deal?". They think we've come so far that there is not much more to do. I think most of these people live in big cities and therefore are out of touch with reality outside their bubbles. I've had gay friends in Seattle that definitely like to wear heavily tinted rose-colored glasses.
Those glasses sometimes get very rudely knocked off their heads with baseball bats and kicks to face. Their outlook changes very suddenly in the emergency room. But these rude realities are willfully ignored by most straight people, especially those that have had the new rose-colored laser eye procedure, which renders them blind to all harsh truth.
105
I continue my take on the situation under We're Winning.
here, @ http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
here, @ http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
106
Just spoke with a friend in New York. They had to shell out about $20,000 for a will to assure a nosy, greedy little asshole of a Christian in the family can’t get involved if one of them dies, or worse, the state (maybe that’s not worse). Because they invested the $20,000 in a good lawyer they can pretty much be treated like a married couple if one or the other dies. Here’s the problem; if they were straight it would have cost them about $50...for something called a marriage license.
Anyone who thinks it is not OK for gays to marry, fuck you; you owe a couple of my friends about $20,000.
Anyone who thinks it is not OK for gays to marry, fuck you; you owe a couple of my friends about $20,000.
107
@ 102
It seems that you think that I am one those urban liberals wearing rose colored glasses. But you may have misread my post. I was responding to 89/63 in sarcasm. They seemed to be suggesting that if there weren't billions or zillions of people getting gay-bashed, then it wasn't really a big deal- which you and I know is crap. No one should ever have to deal with getting their ass kicked because they're gay. One time is one time too many. And even here in Hillcrest (San Diego) it still happens. Sorry if my sarcasm didn't come across well.
It seems that you think that I am one those urban liberals wearing rose colored glasses. But you may have misread my post. I was responding to 89/63 in sarcasm. They seemed to be suggesting that if there weren't billions or zillions of people getting gay-bashed, then it wasn't really a big deal- which you and I know is crap. No one should ever have to deal with getting their ass kicked because they're gay. One time is one time too many. And even here in Hillcrest (San Diego) it still happens. Sorry if my sarcasm didn't come across well.
109
107
perhaps 63/89 was responding with sarcasm to 59.
perhaps you should let the adults handle sharp weapons like sarcasm.
perhaps 63/89 was responding with sarcasm to 59.
perhaps you should let the adults handle sharp weapons like sarcasm.
111
Mr. Poe's comment (No.16) smacks similarly to the Mormons, the KofC, Focus on the Family, the American Family Association, NOM, et al... There ARE lots of Churches, Religions, Synagogues who worked hard to defeat Prop. 8, and not with just a few benevolent words from a Pulpit.
What would one expect from someone whose anti-religious venom could blind him to the beauty of Notre Dame, Paris's incredible windows? Fighting hatred with hate, just adds more hate!
What would one expect from someone whose anti-religious venom could blind him to the beauty of Notre Dame, Paris's incredible windows? Fighting hatred with hate, just adds more hate!
112
@memorex #107
I understood perfectly. Sorry that wasn't clear, I was refering (possibly) to 89/63 and lots of other people. I was agreeing with you. Again, sorry for the confusion.
I understood perfectly. Sorry that wasn't clear, I was refering (possibly) to 89/63 and lots of other people. I was agreeing with you. Again, sorry for the confusion.
113
@109
why would a mature and reasonable person reply to 59 with sarcasm? it was not a question that needed a number as an answer.
[waits for smart-ass reply]
why would a mature and reasonable person reply to 59 with sarcasm? it was not a question that needed a number as an answer.
[waits for smart-ass reply]
116
So...has no one at The Stranger heard the news about Olson and Boies filing suit?
=On Tuesday, lawyers Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, who represented opposing sides in the 2000 Bush v. Gore election challenge, announced they had filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of two gay men and two gay women.
Their case argues that California's voter-enacted ban on same-sex marriage, known as Proposition 8, violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection and due process.
Olson said he hopes the suit, which seeks a preliminary injunction against the California measure until the case is resolved, will wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.=
SF Gate/AP
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg…
http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/abo…
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/27/…
c'mon guys!
=On Tuesday, lawyers Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, who represented opposing sides in the 2000 Bush v. Gore election challenge, announced they had filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of two gay men and two gay women.
Their case argues that California's voter-enacted ban on same-sex marriage, known as Proposition 8, violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection and due process.
Olson said he hopes the suit, which seeks a preliminary injunction against the California measure until the case is resolved, will wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.=
SF Gate/AP
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg…
http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/abo…
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/27/…
c'mon guys!
119
This ruling seems clearly intended to point up the contradictions inherent in Prop 8 and California's whole proposition process. It's absolutely the best thing they could have done -- it points the way towards a much more broad-reaching decision in the future by creating a present rife with internal conflicts and patent discrimination.
Which doesn't mean people shouldn't be marching in the streets -- they just shouldn't waste time or energy bitching about the court. Aim your ire at the assholes who pushed Prop 8 through in the first place.
Which doesn't mean people shouldn't be marching in the streets -- they just shouldn't waste time or energy bitching about the court. Aim your ire at the assholes who pushed Prop 8 through in the first place.
120
I live in NYC, the Bronx, where we are having our own fight where the Gov has appreciably pushed the issue, so even if it doesn't work this year, it will come back. Those who think tolerance is here, I'm afraid it isn't, even in so-called gay friendly NYC. (Not for our Bronx representative, certainly).
The California decision is a balls-up, maybe deliberately so in order to provide leverage to overturn this elsewhere. Some obviously don't like comparing this to race discrimination, however from a lawyer's point of view, the parallels are indisputable. Fifty odd year ago, religion was also used as a moral basis against mixed-race marriage. Race is an immutable characteristic (in law). Sexual orientation eventually will be recognized as an immutable characteristic. The refusal to do so is the main argument (the lifestyle argument, which is connected to religious morality). Take away the bullshit morality argument and there is no basis to deny gay marriage. The CA Constitution is not suppose to allow voting away fundamental rights, however the Court did not seem to find this issue fundamental enough.
Violence isn't the answer, voice is the answer. Presence is the answer. Boycotts, coalitions, getting involved. I have no doubt fundamentalist and conservative religious practitioners are against gay marriage. I have no doubt there are atheists who are homophobes. I also have no doubt there are many religious person who support it--and churches that have come out in favor as such. Do not lump all religious persons together and erode support. Just as with the civil rights movement in the sixties, it had to be done in spite of majority opinion (that's the point of constitutional protection). It has to be forced and then finally, later, gay jokes/discrimination become as unacceptable in the mainstream as racial remarks are now.
For the person who posted Harvey Milk, right on. Let the story of his life and his work serve as example--never shutting up, but building coalitions the smart way, and never giving up. Protest, but not violence. Don't play into the haters' hands the Rushes and Chuck Norris of the world, who are waiting for instances of "gay violence" to use against gay rights supporters (gay and straight).
For the person who so self-righteously refers to this issue as a failed argument (as other so-called citizens of CA babble about majority rule) enjoy it while you can. You and your kind will be as acceptable as the Klan soon enough and you'll have to keep your bullshit to yourself. The rest of us, LGBTQ and straight who believe in civil rights and that this is a civil rights issue will prevail.
More...
The California decision is a balls-up, maybe deliberately so in order to provide leverage to overturn this elsewhere. Some obviously don't like comparing this to race discrimination, however from a lawyer's point of view, the parallels are indisputable. Fifty odd year ago, religion was also used as a moral basis against mixed-race marriage. Race is an immutable characteristic (in law). Sexual orientation eventually will be recognized as an immutable characteristic. The refusal to do so is the main argument (the lifestyle argument, which is connected to religious morality). Take away the bullshit morality argument and there is no basis to deny gay marriage. The CA Constitution is not suppose to allow voting away fundamental rights, however the Court did not seem to find this issue fundamental enough.
Violence isn't the answer, voice is the answer. Presence is the answer. Boycotts, coalitions, getting involved. I have no doubt fundamentalist and conservative religious practitioners are against gay marriage. I have no doubt there are atheists who are homophobes. I also have no doubt there are many religious person who support it--and churches that have come out in favor as such. Do not lump all religious persons together and erode support. Just as with the civil rights movement in the sixties, it had to be done in spite of majority opinion (that's the point of constitutional protection). It has to be forced and then finally, later, gay jokes/discrimination become as unacceptable in the mainstream as racial remarks are now.
For the person who posted Harvey Milk, right on. Let the story of his life and his work serve as example--never shutting up, but building coalitions the smart way, and never giving up. Protest, but not violence. Don't play into the haters' hands the Rushes and Chuck Norris of the world, who are waiting for instances of "gay violence" to use against gay rights supporters (gay and straight).
For the person who so self-righteously refers to this issue as a failed argument (as other so-called citizens of CA babble about majority rule) enjoy it while you can. You and your kind will be as acceptable as the Klan soon enough and you'll have to keep your bullshit to yourself. The rest of us, LGBTQ and straight who believe in civil rights and that this is a civil rights issue will prevail.
121
I have a sincere, honest question to any gay LDS people that are active in the church: Do you still believe in following the prophet and believe he is the Lord's chosen? I am not looking for a fight, just to understand.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Your Daily Douchebag by Dominic Holden
-
The Procession for Officer Brenton by Dominic Holden
-
What She Said by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: She Needs Oral by Dan Savage
-
Rules for Waitstaff by Bethany Jean Clement
-
What He Said by Dan Savage
-
Titties and Beer by Dan Savage
-
This "Pledge of Allegiance" Drives Me Crazy, Teabaggers! by Paul Constant
-
That's It: R-71 Wins! by Dominic Holden
-
Two Announcements: Dominic Holden to Become News Editor, Eli Sanders to Become Associate Editor by Christopher Frizzelle
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (121) RSS