Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< And to answer a previous question- yes the argument could be made that the law violates the federal constitution as opposed to the state because the state can't enact laws that restrict right granted by the feds. The state can only expand them. >>> Which federal constitution provision would a gay marriage ban be in conflict with? It's never been ruled that the equal protection clause applies to gay marriage: if it had, then gay marriage would be legal in all 50 states. Could a state Supreme Court rule that in its interpretation of the US Constitution's equal protection clause, gay marriage is a protected right even though no federal court has done so, and strike down a state constitutional provision? Of course, if one did, that ruling would be applicable only in that state.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I think it likely the court will let the Prop stand, but there must be a CHANCE that it could be considered a revision rather than an amendment, or they could have refused the case, no? My guess is that they'll a). let Prop 8 stand, b). affirm that the marriages that took place in 2008 are still legal, and that c). CA will vote again on this in 2010 or 2012 and Prop 8 will be overturned. Thousands more will get married, the polls will show an continued gain in support for marriage equality, and the anti-equality forces will focus their time and money on other states.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< My guess is that they'll a). let Prop 8 stand, b). affirm that the marriages that took place in 2008 are still legal, and that c). CA will vote again on this in 2010 or 2012 and Prop 8 will be overturned. Thousands more will get married, the polls will show an continued gain in support for marriage equality, and the anti-equality forces will focus their time and money on other states. >>> I think that's pretty much it, although I'm not so sure about b). At least for CA, I think the way that the Mormon church intervened at the last minute has really rubbed people the wrong way, what with money coming from Utah, the beaming of marching orders via satellites into the churches a couple of weeks before the election, and so on. A lot of these details were not widely known on the day of the election, and had people been aware of them, they might have voted differently. I guess that's another reason why the Nevada system is sensible. Any nonsense that goes on by certain groups during the first vote can be exposed to the voters and be taken into consideration the second time around.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer >>Had this passed BEFORE the courts granted same sex marriage, I don't think there would be as much of an uproar.<< Note, the Petitions with all the required signatures were submitted PRIOR to the Supreme Court ruling allowing Same Sex Marriages. And IF the Supreme Court rules Prop. 8 as valid, it will more than likely be the law of the state for a LONG time. As if you want to REVISE the State Constitution, you need a 2/3'rd's vote to make changes. (To add something, that is only a Majority vote, and why the arguements discussed the Amend vs Revise issue.) But I found it interesting listening the the news on the Radio this evening, some Gay Activists area already scheduling "protests", even if the Supreme Court rules against the voters.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Note, the Petitions with all the required signatures were submitted PRIOR to the Supreme Court ruling allowing Same Sex Marriages. >>> I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Prop 8, like all other initiatives, goes into effect the day after the election (assuming that it gets upheld). An initiative has no legal standing until it's passed, so the fact that the signatures were collected and submitted prior to the Supreme Court ruling has nothing to do with anything. <<< And IF the Supreme Court rules Prop. 8 as valid, it will more than likely be the law of the state for a LONG time. As if you want to REVISE the State Constitution, you need a 2/3'rd's vote to make changes. (To add something, that is only a Majority vote, and why the arguements discussed the Amend vs Revise issue.) >>> This is a very interesting legal theory. Adding a restriction to the Constitution is an amendment, but relaxing a restriction is a revision? Darkbeer, could you cite a source for this? Regardless, it does provide an interesting early peek at what the pro-Prop8 folks will do if a future initiative passes to unto Prop 8: while they steadfastly support the word of the people in passing Prop 8, if another initiative gets passed to undo it, all of a sudden the will of the people will no longer count and they'll take it to the court to argue that it's a revision and not an amendment.
Originally Posted By jdub >>US Supreme Court has ruled that bans against interracial marriage are unconstitutional at the federal level<< Activist judges.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "And IF the Supreme Court rules Prop. 8 as valid, it will more than likely be the law of the state for a LONG time. As if you want to REVISE the State Constitution, you need a 2/3'rd's vote to make changes. (To add something, that is only a Majority vote, and why the arguements discussed the Amend vs Revise issue.)" Dream on about that one. It'll be on the baloot again as soon as practical. "But I found it interesting listening the the news on the Radio this evening, some Gay Activists area already scheduling "protests", even if the Supreme Court rules against the voters." Really? Why is that?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Which federal constitution provision would a gay marriage ban be in conflict with? It's never been ruled that the equal protection clause applies to gay marriage: if it had, then gay marriage would be legal in all 50 states. Could a state Supreme Court rule that in its interpretation of the US Constitution's equal protection clause, gay marriage is a protected right even though no federal court has done so, and strike down a state constitutional provision? Of course, if one did, that ruling would be applicable only in that state." Remember now, the question was could it be argued, not that could it be successfully argued. It would certainly give the state court pause though, which is often enugh for landmark rulings.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "But I found it interesting listening the the news on the Radio this evening, some Gay Activists area already scheduling "protests", even if the Supreme Court rules against the voters." Well of course. There's nothing surprising about that at all. Why do you think that the date of the ruling was announced. Communities need to be prepared for the uprising...
Originally Posted By Mr F Don't Forget, the Supreme Court were the ones who made Same Sex marriage legal in the 1st place.
Originally Posted By barboy ///Mormon church intervened at the last minute has really rubbed people the wrong way, what with money coming from Utah/// And this is where I don't understrand why close to all(might well be every single anti 8er on WE's)of the familiar faces on World Events denounce the actual meddling itself as if that something inherently wrong. For every anti 8er here if money had come from Florida to help DEFEAT 8 would you still have cried foul.....after all we shouldn't have other 'states' meddle in the affairs of another right? The point here of course is that outside meddling and interference are only allowed if it helps your cause otherwise "stay the hell out of our business" is the slogan.
Originally Posted By Mr X It's not that simple. It's not just a matter of "meddling in other states' affairs), it's the idea that they are actively trying to deny equal rights to a group of people..a group which exists not only in California but everywhere. So, what happens in California doesn't necessarily stay there (so it's not like it's some folks in Arizona trying to influence say, zoning laws in California or something else that's none of their concern).
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt I think it (the Mormon influence) suggests that there is something inherently wrong with the democratic system in California. The unholy union of the LDS and Catholic churches, and their successful monetary campaign that led to a change in our constitution, is good reason for Californians to pause for a just moment.
Originally Posted By ecdc So the court upheld the ban but let's the 18,000 marriages prior stand. Not a surprise, but terribly disappointing. A woman interviewed on CNN put it very well: The idea that we can put someone's civil rights on the ballot is appalling. Perhaps we should put to a vote handicapped peoples' right to vote, or elderly peoples' right to free speech. It's disgusting. The silver lining is that the bigots are losing the war. They have REALLY pissed people off. This will force them to withdraw more and more; they'll be beaten back and they'll retreat into their own communities. That's a good thing.
Originally Posted By mele Yes. Trying not to be really upset but then I realized, the people for Prop 8 are stuck in their tiny worlds and tiny minds. It's a pity but, hey, couldn't happen to a nicer group of people. ;-) They'll lose eventually and that's the thing that matters the most.
Originally Posted By Sara Tonin This is so disappointing...but, it will come up on the ballot again! And as God as my witness, we'll make sure civil rights are returned.
Originally Posted By mele <---picturing Sara shaking her fist at the sky (possibly with a half eaten root vegetable clutched in her hand)
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "This is so disappointing...but, it will come up on the ballot again! And as God as my witness, we'll make sure civil rights are returned." Yep. A campaign to overturn Prop 8 in 2010 will launch within the next few weeks. The Mormons had better check their bank accounts.
Originally Posted By markymouse Like everyone else I am not surprised but I am still disappointed. As for why there was little mention of equal protection in the arguments against Prop 8. It is my understanding that such arguments are a natural conduit to the US Supreme Court because of - is it the 14th amendment - and gay rights leaders want to keep gay marriage far, far, far away from the Supreme Court. They want to change the world, and then have the Supreme Court confirm that change even if that takes twenty years, rather than have the Supreme Court make a definitive anti-gay marriage statement in the near future that would have ramifications for decades to come.
