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


The Prop 8 Ruling: It's not unexpected, not un-shitty

by Jeremy Hooper

The California Supreme Court has upheld Proposition 8 by a 6-1 margin (thank you, Justice Moreno), keeping marriage inequality in the Golden State. However they did uphold the 18,000+ unions that were performed from June to November of '08.

And now we process.

**SEE ALSO: KRON 4 has ongoing coverage of the reaction.



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

Your thoughts

Cowardly bastards. The court has no authority if it can't even perform its most basic function.

Posted by: RainbowPhoenix | May 26, 2009 1:13:18 PM

Next step - use community anger to get prop 8 repealed. Those in California can take a small consulation in the fact that the religious right didn't get what they wanted either. And it is a step forward in the recognition of marriage equality

Posted by: a. mcewen | May 26, 2009 1:21:10 PM

Justice Moreno rocks.

Posted by: Bruno | May 26, 2009 1:24:34 PM

I'm sure both sides aren't completely happy about the outcome of the ruling (and definitively NOT us).

EQCA, you know what to do between today until November 2010. DON'T MESS IT UP!

Posted by: ---- | May 26, 2009 1:29:21 PM

Polite words cannot express how disappointed I am by this. It's not really a suprise, and given the frame work of the arguments, is anyone really suprised?

However, what happens next in California? Is there an effort to get a new ballot initiative in place soon, while the religious organizations cannot fund the campaign that they managed this last go around? Are activists working to turn around the opinions of the small majority that passed prop 8? It passed by a 6% margin. Are you honestly telling me we cannot make up those numbers if the issue returns to the ballot?

I am so heartbroken for the people of California who were hoping to be able to get married when this got overturned. At the same time, I am relieved beyond words for those 18000 couples who are no longer floating in limbo.

Posted by: jack | May 26, 2009 1:38:07 PM

Total coward's way out. The bright side is that, when this comes up again (and it WILL), there will have been 18,000, give or take, married same-sex couples in the state for years. And people will, I hope, be less freaked out that Ellen and Mr. Sulu are married to their same-sex partners.

The idea that anyone at all, ever, finds it necessary to vote for another group's civil rights still pisses me off. I mean, maybe we don't think marriages contracted in conservative churches where the wife agrees to "obey" and "submit" are good, right? In fact, we find them icky, right? Oh, so let's go vote!

But we don't. And they wouldn't. But people still believe the ways Maggie Gallagher, et al, twist words until they're unrecognizable.

See y'all at the protests. Damn it!!!!!

Posted by: GreenEyedLilo | May 26, 2009 1:42:33 PM

Moreno's dissension is proof that the arguments against Prop H8 were heard, and were valid. That a simple majority of voters may eliminate rights for minorities is truly abhorrent. What a sad place we are in, when blatant, unveiled discrimination is allowed and supported, let alone upheld. What's next?

Posted by: Dick Mills | May 26, 2009 1:42:59 PM

Fuck EQCA! Courage Campaign! It's time to start winning!

Posted by: Dick Mills | May 26, 2009 1:47:50 PM

Man...I'm going to have to spend an evening reading this.

Posted by: zortnac | May 26, 2009 1:49:39 PM

Unofrtunately, this Californian honestly thinks that the ruling was more about the ballot initiative process than the civil rights part. If they had overturned 8, then the whole process of ballot initiatives would have gone a bit haywire.

The next step is to prepare another ballot initiative that would allow for same-sex marriage. Not only would this help to avoid voter confusion (since No on 8 meant Yes to same-sex marriage) but it could include clauses to soothe the irrational and overblown fears propagated by the ridiculous Pro-8 ads. Also, we pro-civil rights types are not complacent and late-acting anymore, which should help.

Posted by: Heina | May 26, 2009 1:51:06 PM

When the amendment is repealed it will do more than bring back marriage equality, it will set a precedent. It will prove that no marriage amendment is safe in ANY state. We can take the experience gained in CA and apply it to other states and remove the offending amendments one state at a time.

Posted by: DanM | May 26, 2009 1:53:30 PM

Heina: It looks like this may be on the ballot as soon as next year. When we'll have to try and combat the typical Californian's impulse to vote "No."

And guess what kind of ads we'll be seeing? Don't think that footage of the poor old lady getting her cross stomped and the "kind and generous" Christianists being run out of the Castro will escape our television sets in the fall of 2010. Be prepared for more ugly fighting, this won't be easy no matter what poll trends show.

Posted by: Bruno | May 26, 2009 2:05:45 PM

So they effectively consecrated a two-tiered caste system for California's gays.

Posted by: Jamie | May 26, 2009 2:08:37 PM

Yeah, Jamie. Gods help you if you met The One and/or felt ready to marry *this* year, 'cause the State of California sure as hell won't.

Posted by: GreenEyedLilo | May 26, 2009 2:50:58 PM

No we will not back down! See you at the protests!

Posted by: Katie | May 26, 2009 3:47:02 PM

I think it's a good ruling. The case was about the right to amend the state constitution by ballot initiative, not on the fairness of marriage equality. A vote against the initiative, no matter how well intentioned, would just be bad law.

I don't want equality by judicial ruling. We need to fight harder and smarter in 2010, and get this stupid thing repealed. That's the road to lasting equality and fairness.

Posted by: John | May 26, 2009 7:04:15 PM

John, in your comment you suggest that any ballot initiative can be overturned by another one. That is not "lasting", instead it is the very definition of temporary.

The fundies can't eliminate abortion in California, because the US Supreme Court has ruled that it is a matter of privacy. But they keep throwing one "abortion restriction" initiative after another onto the California ballot every couple of years. They can't eliminate abortion, and the initiatives always fail, but they always throw up a fight. And, that is against something that they can't undo. If we do win at the ballot box, we will constantly be fighting them again and again every election.

But, I do have to admit, every year it seems to be much easier to defeat those abortion related initiatives.

Posted by: Dick Mills | May 26, 2009 11:53:38 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails