« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »



by Jeremy Hooper

This just in from the AP:

Prop-8-beastSAN FRANCISCO -- The sponsors of Proposition 8 asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to nullify the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters approved the ballot initiative that outlawed gay unions.

The Yes on 8 campaign filed a brief arguing that because the new law holds that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized or valid in California, the state can no longer recognize the existing same-sex unions.

"Proposition 8's brevity is matched by its clarity. There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions or exclusions," reads the brief co-written by Pepperdine University law school dean Kenneth Starr, the former independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton.

Prop. 8 sponsors seek to nullify 18K gay marriages [AP via Sac Bee]

Happy Holidays, 18,000 gay couples! The unreasoned hijacking of your rights was on your list, yes?

**UPDATE: Oh, but here's the REALLY big Prop 8 news of the day. And this one's actually on the right side of history:

SAN FRANCISCO -- California Attorney General Jerry Brown changed course on the state's new same-sex marriage ban Friday and urged the state Supreme Court to void Proposition 8.

In a dramatic reversal, Brown filed a legal brief saying the measure that amended the California Constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman is itself unconstitutional because it deprives a minority group of a fundamental right. Earlier, Brown had said he would defend the ballot measure against legal challenges from gay marriage supporters.

Jerry Brown urges court to void Prop. 8 [AP via Sac Bee]
DOWNLOAD THE BRIEF: http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1642_prop_8_brief.pdf

Maybe there is a Sant-y Claus after all!

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper

Your thoughts

So far, I haven't seen any filing from Brown's office. I am interested in what he has to say about it. Back in the '60s, the CA Attorney General argued against Proposition 14, so, some have suggested that he could argue the con rather than the pro proposition 8. I won't hold my breath, but...

Posted by: Dick Mills | Dec 19, 2008 8:09:24 PM

Why are people still so adimit in their descrimination? Does it really hurt them, their faith, or any other part of their lives to have 2 people who love eachother pledge a commitment before God and everyone else? If they don't think that God hears them or recognizes them then why are they fighting so hard against this?

Posted by: tiff | Dec 19, 2008 9:23:19 PM

HOLY SHIT. Brown just asked the court to INVALIDATE PROPOSITION 8!

Posted by: Dick Mills | Dec 19, 2008 9:23:41 PM

My freind thought this was a strategic mistake from the get go. Now I agree. Straights are selfish about marraige. But many, if not most, support domestic partnership. So fine. Let them have their fine distinctions. Let's push for domestic partnership, and move on to more important issues, like health care and fair employment and housing in the sticks.

Posted by: WillBFair | Dec 20, 2008 12:07:23 AM

Ya'll...If I were the LGBT community I would push for CIVIL UNIONS...Right now....Give them the term but go for your rights.

Seems there's a really good chance some serious rights could be afforded right now seeing as how they are all focused on the word a word...let them have it...

then get married wherever you want...

I voted no on Prop 8 because of the constitutional nature of it...and I do not believe the government should define marriage AT ALL for or against the cause of the competing factions...

Wake up get smart I do believe you could get it if you push hard for it now...Give in...show understanding and compromise...Seems the right side of history right now...do it carefully and respectfully...

Posted by: Rebeccainca | Dec 20, 2008 1:38:13 AM

sorry, Rebeccainca, but no one gets to "have" the word marriage and keep it only for themselves. I don't really feel like giving in and compromising, as you suggest, to people who think their relationships are somehow better than mine. Yes, civil unions, domestic partnerships, civil partnerships and all the other terms made up in various countries are better than nothing, but I'm going to push for true marriage equality above all else.

Posted by: Joe | Dec 20, 2008 9:03:34 AM

Rebeccainca, I have to ask, would you ask your parents to trade in their marriage if someone objected to it? Even if it was the politically expedient thing to do.

Posted by: Steve | Dec 20, 2008 9:03:34 AM

Suggesting that we content ourselves with being second-class citizens (which we surely are by the strictest standard) is ludicrous. If a civil union and a marriage were equal in all respects, why would anyone object to the use of the term "marriage" to describe a GLBT partnership? It just doesn't make sense; the only possible reason is that the law and the population consider them to be unequal. It's a consolation prize, and if you don't push for it, you don't even get that.

Separate rights are not equal rights. We've learned that before as a nation, and we're going to have to learn that again. It won't happen if we settle for less, though.

Posted by: Brian | Dec 20, 2008 9:03:35 AM

Legally, they seem to be right... the language of Prop 8 can only be interpreted as anulling all existing same-sex marriages in the state. Not to say this is a good thing, of course, but in pure legal terms... that's what it says. Unless the court cancles the ammendment entirely (And that only leads to more legal games, as it would just be pushed back to the legislature or return on the next ballot with altered working), it appears all those marriages are being removed. Not ended, but anulled - in legal terms, they not only will no longer be recognised, but will never have existed at all. Divorced couples will have more legal recognition.

Posted by: Suricou Raven | Dec 20, 2008 1:20:35 PM

Truly wolves in sheep's clothing. It wasn't enough to stop all gay marriages they must see any valid ones destroyed and forcefully nullified. Sickening.

Posted by: Patrick B | Dec 20, 2008 1:42:01 PM

Patrick: I don't see any sheep's clothing at all. Maybe pigs with lipstick, but that's about as soft and nice this group gets. Also I'm tickled pink that they picked Ken Starr for their representation. I'm not sure that will help them in the court of public opinion, which I am starting to think is tilting our way.

Give 'em enough rope, I say.

Posted by: Sykler | Dec 20, 2008 2:40:35 PM

I'm no lawyer and have no real understanding of legal definitions or legal test, but there's something I've been pondering today:

So the primary argument for tossing out Prop 8 hinges on proving that the passage Prop 8 changed the Constitution of California (CofC) rather than simply amended it. And if its shown that it changed the CofC then it should have been subject to the more stringent test of having to pass with 2/3 vote in the Congress before going to a popular vote. Whereas if it simply amended the CofC then all it needed was the popular vote to pass. So they claim it was an amendment, we claim it was a modification.

So, with that in mind, if its being argued by them that the marriages that were *legally* performed prior to the passage of Prop 8 should be retroactively nullified, doesn't it necessarily follow then that Prop 8 has "changed" the CofC? So, in effect, aren't they making our case for us?

And conversely, if we're claiming that, no its not legal to nullify these marriages then aren't we in effect arguing against ourselves?

I dunno. Like I said, not a lawyer, but perhaps something interesting to ponder.

Posted by: spalding | Dec 20, 2008 7:38:30 PM

Ken Starr? I thought he was dead.

Heterosexuals who think they should be the only ones allowed to call their unions "marriage" are like spoiled children who won't share their toys. Not like I expected anything more from them. Now as these bigoted swine show their true colors.

They want a war. Bring it on, says I.

Posted by: Attmay | Dec 20, 2008 7:38:50 PM

After I read the first two paragraphs of this post I was struck by the similarity to the 1963 physical effort of Governor George Wallace to prevent desegregation by blocking two black students to University of Alabama.

Posted by: Richard Hodges | Dec 20, 2008 8:23:46 PM

Okay, you marriage-intense faggots, let's put our cards down. I'm not even going steady, so fuck your marriage shit. There are a lot of issues a helluva lot more important than whether or not you are domesticated with a partner or married. Take the goddamned loaf of bread, even if it's called cornbread and not biscuits.

We're winning this fucking war. Let's show some grace and go ahead and win some other big issues, like universal health care, a government that works for us instead of against us, etc., etc. We're winning this war, but it's not the only issue that is important to us.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell is something that can be fixed right away. Ending discrimination in employment is important to each of us, regardless of whether we're lucky enough to have a partner or not.

Whether something is called shit or shinola just isn't that fucking important in the grand scheme of things.

I'm sorry for all of the profanity. BWD, and all that.

Posted by: Houston | Dec 21, 2008 9:07:50 AM

I was watching one of the South Park Christmas episodes last night. The one where they bring Christmas to Iraq. Cartman want's an "Haibo" Electronic Dog, so he can torture it because it supposedly feels pain and hunger. Well, anyway, the boys save Christmas and Santa rewards them by giving Cartman, Kyle, and Stan Haibo Electronic Dogs.... and Cartman, seeing that the other two have the same toy gets all mad. They ask Cartman why he's upset, he said he wanted the Haibo Dog, and he replies that he doesn't want it anymore because he's not the only one with the toy anymore.

And that's EXACTLY how some of these straight people react to gays getting married. Their Haibo Dog isn't as special and cool because other people have one, too. Unlike Cartman, however, they're not willing to accept defeat and get over it, they're actively trying to take away our Haibo Dogs, too.

This is not now, nor has it ever been about religion, children, or definitions, it's about bigotry, plain and simple. It's about how much the idea of two men or two women actually loving each other is offensive, and how very much they see themselves as holier, purer, BETTER than gay people. So anything that brings us up to their level makes them feel like they've sunk down to ours, and THAT will simply not do!

Posted by: Jason D | Dec 21, 2008 9:08:13 AM

Hey all - let's remember that most straight people support our equality. Some of them have unexamined opinions about marriage, and I'll bet that if reached, they can understand why marriage equality is part of that. These are the ones that we come out to, that see that we are normal human beings, and that change their opinions when faced with the reality of gay people.

We should focus our anger and outrage not on those who can be our allies (on marriage and other issues) but instead on those true bigots that Jason D describes above. They are the ones actively working to harm us. Let's not lump them all together

Posted by: Sykler | Dec 21, 2008 10:31:08 AM

Houston, who said we dropped all the other issues that are important to us?

And who are you to say that we should only bother ourselves with one issue at a time? No other group does that.

So the fact that you're not even going steady is relevent, how? Do you only wait until the day you want to use your rights to bother fighting for them?

Houston, name me one right in this country that has different legal names for different groups?

Posted by: Jason D | Dec 22, 2008 7:17:22 AM

Going for marraige instead of domestic partnership was a strategic mistake. Straights are selfish about the former but support the latter.
As for that Warren creep being at the inauguration, Obama needs rightwing support to put through his domestic agenda. Of course it's a slap in our face. But the stakes are too high to make a fuss. If a black man can fix the Bush disaster, it will be a huge moral victory for liberalism. And I intend to do everything I can to help him. At the least, that means taking this insult like an adult and moving on.

Posted by: WillBFair | Dec 22, 2008 11:08:44 AM

"Going for marraige instead of domestic partnership was a strategic mistake"

Going for what is right and earned is never a mistake. We will win in a fair and reasoned court, where civil rights matters are typically decided. Just like we have won in two other states already.

"Of course [Warren] a slap in our face. But the stakes are too high to make a fuss."

This is far more than a right-leaning pastor: This is a man who has said DEPLORABLE things about gays. It's more than a slap in the face: It's a punch in the soul. A progressive president should not be honoring him in this way. Nothing should trump a principled stand here.

"At the least, that means taking this insult like an adult and moving on."

No, it most certainly does not. It is our duty as free citizens to speak out against the injustice we see in the world. This is how it always happens -- when the noise gets loud, the critics come out and tell folks to quiet down. Well what it nobody ever spoke out? What id nobody ever challenge the Warrens' of the world? What if they were free to implement their full agenda without pushback? Where would we be then?

Posted by: G-A-Y | Dec 22, 2008 11:13:17 AM

I'm talking about a totally different approach from the queer community, probably something with which many will never agree. But thank you G-A-Y for the thoughtful reply. Roger Wilco.

Posted by: WillBFair | Dec 22, 2008 1:27:25 PM

I just have different priorities. I want the economy fixed, car companies retooled for clean autos, green energy massively financed, clean mass transit, healthcare for all Americans, the poor cared for, etc... To get all those things, I'm willing to compromise. And I don't have time for identity politics.
Obama and the Clintons are our freinds. But they can't give us everything we want because there are many many people who are definitely not our freinds. Our movement went balistic over dodt and didn't lift a finger when Hillary went to the mat on healthcare. To me, that was another strategic mistake, especially considering our people's need for medical care. It was the best deal the Clintons could make at the time, but the identity people are still apoplectic about it. The Clintons have always had their priorities in order. Where are ours?
Marraige is just a label. To me it pales in comparison with other issues. There are gay issues more important, and I don't see the point in getting emotional about this one. I trust Obama to do what he can for us. But I very much want him to succeed and won't attack him over trivia. When I do push back, it'll be on something I consider more important than bouquet throwing.

Posted by: WillBFair | Dec 22, 2008 1:27:26 PM

WillBFair ...

"Marraige is just a label" Sorry man... you are way out of touch. I doubt you are gay, but if you are I am sad for you.

2 questions will answer your insane comments:

- Why are millions of gay and straight people upset to the point of action by the passage of Prop 8? Because they were not awarded the "label"?

- Why did 18,000 gay couples marry in just the few months it was legal? To get the label?

Come on man. I read your blog. You think out of the box.

Figure it out.

This is bigger than all of the issues you mentioned.

Its about equality. And this country will not move forward until it truly presents its people. Ignorance, homophobia, racism, bigotry and outright stupidity are holding us back.

Posted by: ForTheLove | Dec 24, 2008 11:06:25 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails