Chilling Account of a Muni Mugging
This Could Be Our Skyline, In a Couple of Decades
-thumb-110x110-460161.jpg)
Cops Get Tough With UC Berkeley Protesters
San Jose Swim Coach Impregnated Girl When She Was 14
Photo du Jour 512
As anticipated, the California State Supreme Court ruled to uphold prop 8, the same-sex marriage ban. That means that gay marriage in the state of California is still considered illegal, effectively stripping away civil rights of many GLBT Californians. The State Supreme court ruled that prop 8 is legal in a 6-1 ruling with justice Marino being the sole holdout.
Alas.
The 18,000 same-sex marriages, however, will remain legal, effectively creating two classes of people in the gay community, those who are married and those who are not. Vile.
Stay tuned for updates on public outrage, protests, comments, and what the GLBT community should to do next.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I predict that much preaching/protesting to the choir will go on.
I'm happy that the 18,000 already married remain so under California law. What's next? Another proposition on the ballot, I assume. What to do in the meanwhile? Come out ... and hold on to hope with the victories in Iowa, a good chunk of new england states, and potential in New York.
Not surprised. It's mildly amusing to think that California is so far behind the curve on such a major civil rights issue.
Even provincial Massachusetts beat us to the punch on this one. Quite sad too.
The US got a 21st Amendment. This constitutional error can be fixed as well.
Have a little faith Brock -- this will be overturned by the voters within five years -- justice delayed, not justice denied.
It's sad, but not surprising. And I do have faith, in my state and its citizens.
justice was delayed, it was way-laid.
This will likely be overturned next year. It's a point a year, naturally, and even though there's only a small swing, it'll be enough after all the press on the issue. Also, the ballot language can't possibly suck as bad.
@City Hall. So far, all is chill. Some marchers went by City Hall toward Market, others came inside for a press conference starting soon...will updated as needed.
I'm no lawyer (thank heavens for that) but the fact that 18,000 people ARE legally married in California should set up some sort of precedent/legal basis to allow others to GET legally married in California. No? How can something be legal and banned in the same place? Get to work lawtards.
Right?!!
Robin,
You make a good point.
I think both sides are equally pissed off:
--Pro 8 supporters don't like the fact that 18,000 marriages just got OK'd.
--No to 8 supporters just had their rights taken away.
I would guess the next legal challenge: Waiting for a marriage license, but was unable to due to the long wait list before the cut-off deadline.
Update: Van ness at grove is shutdown. Police deploying behind city hall. Marchers have locked arms and will likely get arrested at some point. Avoid MUNI lines 47, 49 and anything on Grove. Hell, avoid all of the civic center if possible. McAllister is traffic cop moderated.
Nobody's 'rights' have been taken away. A panel of the California Supreme Court invented the so-called 'right' of same-sex couples to marry, a right that no Californian had ever had from the establishment of our State to present.
These justices were then, via Proposition 8, overruled by a majority of the voting populace, which the full California Supreme Court has now acknowledged and recognized (while protecting the justices on the panel by 'reocgnizing' the faux marriages contracted during the term of their unconstitutional ruling).
Sorry, folks, the rule of law prevails. If you think you can craft a proposition that the people of California will vote for in the future, knock yourselves out.
So when the voters "knock ourselves out" and put the repeal is on the ballot, how will you vote Spike? Stand and be counted.
Are you asking a rhetorical question? (Sorry for even asking, but sarcasm is sometimes hard to detect on message boards.) In the future, I'll vote *for* traditional marriage, as I did last November.
Traditional marriage doesn't really mean what you think it means. Marriage has been continuously redefined by societies. Women's roles in marriage have evolved greatly and are far different than what they were in the past. Now they can actually choose a partner. Polygamy was the custom in many societies and in early Judaism. And I assume that you are not against interracial marriage...
So when you say traditional, do you mean the tradition since the late 60s? because peanut butter and fluff sandwiches are more tradition-laden than that.
Spike, I can't believe you didn't tell us about the 30,000 people that will be demonstrating in San Francisco in support of this decision.
And your lawfully wedded wife's nine children.
So my opinion on marriage doesn't count because I'm married and I have nine children? More inspired thinking from the Left!
Move on, gviri...
Your opinion on who can't get married doesn't count because you're married.
I don't know how you can treat denying others what you yourself have and presumably enjoy, when them having it is going to affect you in no way, as anything other than being an ass of the highest order.
Unless of course you think gay marriage is a larger Threat to The Society than divorce, teenage pregnancy, income disparity, public fiscal mismanagement, and Wal-Mart.
gviri thought really, really hard and came up with:
In one fell swoop of Jesuitical genius, gviri has destroyed my arguments and revealed the weakness of my intellectual underpinnings. Damn it all, had I known that I was dealing with a rhetorical giant, I would have folded my tent long ago.
Well done, gviri. Well done. All those years of schooling finally paid off.
For all the snark, one would think you'd check how I spell my handle at least once.
Please, do tell me: do you think gay marriage is a larger Threat to The Society than divorce, teenage pregnancy, income disparity, public fiscal mismanagement, and Wal-Mart?
This from someone who thinks any criticism of large families makes the critic an "aborter."
Wow, manys, you just can't let that one comment go from, like, four months ago? You may need to get some counseling on this... "Spike hurt my feelings and made me feel bad about my abortions," etc. It'll make you feel a lot better to open up.
But of course my opinion on abortion has nothing to do with my opinion on marriage, except insofar as my opinions on both are correct.
Yawn. Argued like a true mouthbreather. So shouldn’t you be off procreating like a good heterosexual?
Can't address my previous challenge, eh, Tendernob? So you resort to personal attacks. Very persuasive, I'm sure, to all the other group-thinkers on this board; not so much to anyone who can think independently.
it would sure be nice if the ists had a real commenting system that didn't require reload gymnastics. heads up: quality programmers are cheap and plentiful these days.
Dude, you're talking out of your ass. No "right" was invented by the California Supreme Court. The Court simply recognized that gays are a suspect class and are entitled to equal protection under the law. This means that you can't deny us rights that are afforded to others. Equal protection, by the way, is FUNDAMENTAL to our body of law. The whole point of our constitution is to protect minorities from majority oppression. that went flying out the window today when six assholes on the court, fearing having their jobs snatched away from them by a recall vote, decided to piss all over decades of constitutional legal tradition and reinstate the separate but equal doctrine. Stupid!
Christ, you're a perfect example of why the initiative process in this state needs to be completely abolished. People are too profoundly stupid and ignorant to make decisions on things like budgets and tax increases, let alone to allow them the power of yes or no over other people's rights. Anyone who voted in favor of Prop 8 shits all over what it means to be American.
For some reason, I'm profoundly uncomfortable when The Angry Young (Gay) Man refers to anything coming "out of [my] ass." Please stop focusing on my ass; it's what got you all into this trouble in the first place.
I know you don't want to hear it, TAYGM, but the 'right' to marry someone of the same sex was, in fact, cooked up by the CA Supremes. You, me, and every other Californian have never had that right, although the CA Supremes in their idiocy allowed the practice for a few short months (which, I'm sure, we will all remember fondly).
Equal protection? Heck, yeah, TAYGM. You and I have always shared the same right: to marry (one at a time, please; we're not Mormons) a person of the opposite sex. For you and me, that would be a woman to whom we are not too closely related (CA isn't West Virginia).
Now, I understand that an Angry Young (Gay) Man may find the prospect of marrying a woman a bit icky, in which case you have the equally protected right not to marry a woman. Many heterosexuals exercise this right; they're generally the ones with respectable bank balances who can't stop smiling.
What you don't have, TAYGM, and what I don't have, and what we have never had, is the right to marry a man. And the reason for that, as Proposition 8 clearly stated, is that the very definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
At this time in history, in this country, in the State of California, whether I like it or not, you have the ability within certain broadly defined boundaries to screw just about anyone you choose, so long as they are willing. While you're at it, feel free to set up house, visit the relatives, set up living trusts... be creative! But don't call it marriage, because it ain't.
Spike Pecan, it's clear that very basic legal concepts like equal protection are beyond your grasp. You don't know what you're talking about. All the same, thanks for sharing.
What were the comments that the Supreme Court published with the ruling? There has to be some reason they overturned the last one and not this one? Are they saying this is not an issue for the courts, but rather the legislature? Are they basically trying to create a public opinion backlash such that a new prop will show up? C'mon I know there are some lawyers on here.
If I recall, the first lawsuit that resulted in legalizing same sex marriage was based on equal protection arguments. The lawsuit to strike down Prop 8 was based on the technicalities of the ballot measure itself (i.e., are we revising the constition, in which case you need a lot more than a majority vote on a ballot measure, or is it amending the constitution, in which case writing discrimination into the constitution is a-ok).
Each suit was based on different legal theories, thus different outcomes.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
BlueCanary,
From my understanding of it all, you have it pretty much correct.
People have to try to understand that the Supreme Court isn't in the business of saying how things should be--it just isn't that branch of government. The Legislature is the branch that makes the laws that it feels should be made, or, in the case of CA, the "people" can make laws (see Prop 8). The Court has to look at the laws on the books and has to interpret those laws based on the rules it is bound by and reach a conclusion.
The issue before the Court wasn't whether or not gay people should be allowed to marry in CA. The Court has already spoken on that issue: the Court said homosexuals can marry in CA based on the CA Constitution. The "people" then changed the Constitution to make it explicit that homosexuals can not marry in this state. The issue, then, this time around, was whether or not the change in the Constitution brought about by Prop 8 was a valid one. The Court can not just say "oh, I don't like Prop 8 and is therefore invalid." These aren't moral or ethical or value judgments--they're legal ones.
I haven't yet read the 185 page decision, but I think the reason the 18,000 marriages can stand is that when they were married, homosexuals had the right to marry (via the first Supreme Court decision). Then, when Prop 8 passed, that right was immediately taken away, but did not apply retroactively. Thus, the insanity.
Basically, what today's decision means is that the legal course is pretty much done-ski. The CA Constitution is the final word in California. The Court has now said that the change in the Constitution banning gay marriage is legal and is now the law. It's done. So, if gay marriage is ever going to be legal in the state, it has to be done through the political process--with votes, not judges.
Unfortunately, the people changed the law and that is the law the judges have to work with. Now it's up to you and me and all of us to change the law again.
Yeah, basically, from my IANAL understanding it's not an issue of the content of Prop. 8, but whether or not it is legally valid as a constitutional amendement and despite the radical changes it enacted it looked like it was largely correct.
Hopefully this has taught us all some very, very important lessons about making it harder to change the state constitution (i.e. super-majority) otherwise we're just going to constantly be in and out of there. If it's no harder to change the constitution than pass a regular law what's the point in even having it?
What happened today, more than anything, is that we had a fatal flaw in our legal system revealed to us. If we had required a super-majority or otherwise made it actually remotely difficult to change the state constitution the earlier ruling would have held, a constitutional basis would have been established and Prop. 8 wouldn't have gotten enough votes to change it, ending the story.
But I bet you won't want to make the state constitution harder to amend until you get what you want in it first right belgand? This is why it was made easy to amend in the first place...To make sure that the will of the majority not be usurped...
No. The point of making it hard to amend is to protect us from a tyranny of the majority. If the constitution wasn't so easy to modify the courts would have upheld that, yes, the constitution says your simple majority law is unconstitutional and no, you can't just go and change it with another simple majority. That's the point of having a constitution.
If it's that simple to change we might as well not even have one.
Spike, you seem to be unaware that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled marriage to be an inalienable human right (Zablocki v. Redhail, 1978; Loving v. Virginia, 1969, etc). The right to marry regardless of race, gender or orientation has been there all along - the CA Supreme Court did not create it, because it didn't need to.
Furthermore, as you must know, the voting population (excluding you, of course) is progressively evolving. In 2000, Prop 22 (the first marriage ban) passed by a 60-40 margin, while Prop 8 passed by only a 52-48 margin. The tide is shifting—slowly, but it’s happening. In five to ten years, this WILL be overturned. Mark my words.
Tendernob wrote:
And you're prepared to document even one of the gay 'marriages' contracted during the first 230+ years of this country's history? Should be pretty easy to do, given that the right "has been there all along"? Oh, wait, I forgot... it hasn't been! It was a pseudo-right, created by judicial fiat and now over-ruled by the California electorate.
You all seem to not get that once again the voice of the people have prevailed and this time your precious liberal supreme court didn't back you up by usurping the will of the people. You lost...again...The more you rant about it, the more people you tick off to vote against you. I used to be indifferent to the whole thing but when I saw that there was a minority of people that thought that they should have some special right that I don't have then I got ticked off too...The majority have spoken..AGAIN....And you have lost....AGAIN.....keep screaming about it and tick more people off that'll surely be happy to oppose you later on.
oh, go drown some witches.
Very intelligent reply! Thank you! It supports my original comment!
what special right are you talking about? the right to be fabulous?
Very intelligent reply! Thank you! It supports my original comment!...No Einstein....The right to marry whomever I want.
"thought that they should have some special right that I don't have then I got ticked off too".......what i'm saying is that it's not a special right that "you don't have." assuming you're straight, you have the right to marry. extending that right to homosexuals isn't giving them "a right you don't have." stop acting like the victim - puhhlleeze.
You don't have the right to marry whomever you want? Who do you want to marry that you can't?
Darth,
While I agree that in a democracy the majority's idea of how the laws should be crafted should prevail, there are certain instances where the same democracy has to take care to protect those in the minority. In the US and in CA, legal philosophy has instructed the courts and the legislatures to protect certain classes of people and certain fundamental rights. In these cases, the courts are to be the shield against the tyranny of the majority.
For instance, in theory, a majority of the population could choose to throw all people of Arab descent in jail or to silence those who would protest the government or eliminate the right to heterosexuals to marry. The courts would then look at those laws, examine them through the lens of the Constitution, and despite the majority's wishes, find them unconstitutional and therefore void. In a democracy, the majority usually wins--as it should be. In a democracy, the majority sometimes loses--as it should be.
What many are concerned about is the ease with which a majority could change the Constitution. Afterall, you either believe in equal protection of the laws of you don't. If you do believe in equal protection as it is written in the CA Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, then gay marriage is as permissible as heterosexual marriate ("opposite marriage" anyone?). However one feels about gay marriage (Darth it seems you're against it), one can still be concerned at the ease with which the Equal Protection clause of the constitution can be altered. In the history of this country and state, it has been the norm to expand rights to greater classes of people and to protect fundamental rights for all classes of people.
This regression should be troublesome for all, left/right, gay/straight.
The good news is that people who think as you do are dying off, while people who support equality are moving into the majority. Time is on our side.
Enjoy your moment of discrimination, though. Aren't you proud?
"thought that they should have some special right that I don't have then I got ticked off too".......what i'm saying is that it's not a special right that "you don't have." assuming you're straight, you have the right to marry. extending that right to homosexuals isn't giving them "a right you don't have." stop acting like the victim - puhhlleeze.
While we're at it, can we bring back anti-miscegenation laws and re-vote on banning marriages between negroes and whites? All of this interracial commingling will just water down the purity of the white race.
I would also like some separate water fountains for whites and latinos. Separate but equal is still equal, right?
/sarcasm
what I would like to know is if so many people hate Prop 8 why didn't they vote against it and stop it from happening instead of leaving us with this mess?
You meant Moreno, not Marino, right? ;)