Will Prop 8 Have Nationwide Impact?

[tdogg]

So, let's say Prop 8 passes. Most legal experts agree the issue will wind up in the California Supreme Court again, and likely the US Supreme Court. Let's say it goes to the US S/C. The legal experts are also speculating that if Prop 8 winds up there it will likely be found unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court because it writes discriminatory language into the state constitution. What would the impact be?

Do you think, if that is the case, then same sex marriage will remain legal in CA and this will open the door to other states following suit, and eventually equality at the federal level? Then, it might make sense to hope Prop 8 actually passes, in order to expedite full equality. I don't hope it passes, but I have thought about the possibility of the impact if it does.

Of course, there are cautions - if Prop 8 passes, it could explode in our faces and set us back significantly. It is an interesting contemplation though, and gives me some hope even if we can't defeat this thing.

[BenL]

I'm certainly not a constitutional lawyer, so I would be hesitant to offer an opinion on whether Prop 8 would reach the Supreme Court, and if it did, what the outcome would be.

But your question shows how important the outcome of the presidential election next Tuesday will be. If Prop 8 reaches the highest court, who will be the justices who will hear the case? Who would you like to have hearing such a case, a judge appointed by Democrat Obama or a judge named by Republican McCain? (The assumption is that it would take a long time to wend its way through the system, and that by the time it reached the Supreme Court, the next president would have had the chance to appoint one or more new justices.)

Then there's the question of the larger court of public opinion, what fundamentalists like to call the "culture wars." The size of California is so important on any question like gay marriage. Here in the Northeast, we have Massachusetts and Connecticut in the marriage column and Vermont and New Jersey in the civil union camp. But all together, we still have just a fraction of the population that California has. That's why Prop 8 is so important for all of us.

Everything I've heard says that Prop 8 will be a close contest. That's why it's so important to get the vote out on Tuesday -- the "no" vote, of course. ;) But even if it loses, if the vote is close it will still be a step in the progress of spreading marriage rights to everyone. Unfortunately, a victory for the "yes" side will mean discrimination in the California constitution and not just a bad law.

The suspense is killing me. :eek:

[keltic63]

pass or fail, it will have some impact on the rest of the country, and like you, I believe that either way, we will eventually have marriage rights at a federal level. The question becomes, which path will we have to take?

Here's how things are looking here on the east coast: MA has marriage equality, Connecticut recently caught on. NJ has the legal equivalent, but lawsuits are already in the works to change civil unions to marriage, because separate is not equal. New York recently decided that it can grant gay divorces. Legal reasoning would certainly indicate that if gays can divorce in NY state, shouldn't they have the right to marry there? Gov Paterson has said that NY will recognize gay marriages performed from the states that offer them. How much longer will it take for NY to get in the wedding business?

I believe marriage rights will flow, east to west, hopefully west to east, and the tide will converge to eliminate the Federal DOMA.

[tdogg]

Great thoughts! I agree, and if Obama is our next president, I also believe we'll see real progress at the federal level. I think first let's abolish DADT, move on the hate crimes legislation and simultaneously work on federal equality. I also realize there are other major issues and he will be very busy, but I get the sense Obama is committed to ending discrimination and furthering equality.

Thanks for the thoughts. I will absorb the positives as I rally this weekend and visit polls on election day. Will definitely need to hang on to the positives while facing off the Yes people!!! :love:

[keltic63]

Great thoughts! I agree, and if WHEN Obama is our next president, I also believe we'll see real progress at the federal level. I think first let's abolish DADT, move on the hate crimes legislation and simultaneously work on federal equality. I also realize there are other major issues and he will be very busy, but I get the sense Obama is committed to ending discrimination and furthering equality.

Thanks for the thoughts. I will absorb the positives as I rally this weekend and visit polls on election day. Will definitely need to hang on to the positives while facing off the Yes people!!! :love:

there. fixed that for you!

[Matt Algren]

Great thoughts! I agree, and if Obama is our next president, I also believe we'll see real progress at the federal level. I think first let's abolish DADT, move on the hate crimes legislation and simultaneously work on federal equality. I also realize there are other major issues and he will be very busy, but I get the sense Obama is committed to ending discrimination and furthering equality.

Thanks for the thoughts. I will absorb the positives as I rally this weekend and visit polls on election day. Will definitely need to hang on to the positives while facing off the Yes people!!! :love:
I see it going beyond that. It's not the legislative branch that needs to act, it's the judicial. Word is that at least two of the Justices on the Supreme Court have been waiting until GWB is gone to retire. Within a year, there'll be a couple new relatively left-leaning Justices, and I firmly believe that a couple in California, Massachusetts, or Connecticut (and maybe Iowa after December 7th) will challenge federal discrimination against their marriage based on the 14th Amendment (equal protection).

This quote came from an interview Barack Obama did with Brian Williams today. It gives me new reason to hope.

And so my criteria, for example, would be-- if a Justice tells me that they only believe the strict letter of the Constitution-- that means that they possibly don't mean-- believe in-- a right to privacy that may not be perfectly enumerated in the Constitution but, you know, that I think is there.

I mean, the-- the right to marry who you please isn't in the Constitution. But I think all of us assume that if a state-- decided to pass a law saying, "Brian, you can't marry the woman you love," that you'd think that was unconstitutional. Well, where does that come from? I think it comes from a right to privacy-- that may not be listed in the Constitution but is implied by the structure of the Constitution.

[tdogg]

there. fixed that for you!

Part of my optimism which is still somewhat cautious. In other words, I'm trying really hard not to count my chickens but inside I'm already rejoicing! :love:

Ok, back to cautious optimism... :cool:

[inca nitta]

I think anything is possible, including hearing the marriage case in the US Supreme Court. However, there is no guarantee when it will happen. Right now, all 9 Justices are not interested in hearing such cases, because they believe that it should be dealt only on state level. However, they can change their opinions, but it could happen anywhere between next year or 20 years from now on. Thus, to answer the OP's question honestly, I don't know.