CA Supreme Court to hear same sex marriage ban case

[sjbouza]

Good news for all of you out in CA, well for the most part. The CA Supreme Court has agreed to hear the same sex marriage ban case, however they are leaving the ban in place.

Here is a link to the article from Yahoo, also quoted below. Prop 8 Case (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081120/ts_nm/us_gaymarriage_california;_ylt=AlqexHglvTYPFJRB8GY 61E1MEP0E)



SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – California's Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to hear a legal challenge against the state's voter-approved ban on gay marriage and let the ban stand in the meantime.

A decision by the same court in May opened marriage to same-sex couples in America's most populous state, one of a handful of states, provinces and mostly European countries where such unions are recognized.

When state voters passed the ban on November 4, social conservatives celebrated, but nationwide protests by gays and other ban opponents since then have given the debate new life.

The court case also pits two fundamental concepts of U.S. democracy against one another, with gay marriage advocates saying the proposition would open the doors to systematic repression of minorities and opponents saying courts must recognize the will of the people under separation of powers doctrine.

"I am optimistic that the Supreme Court will affirm that separate is not equal," San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said in a statement. He has compared the fight for gay marriage to the 1960s civil rights battle against majority-tolerated segregation.

Some 52 percent of voters agreed to amend the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

"This is a great day for the rule of law and the voters of California," said Andrew Pugno, counsel for the gay marriage ban proponents, who also wanted the matter settled in court.

Trend-setting California is divided over the issue, with cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles more open to gay marriage, and inland valleys, often compared to the socially conservative Midwest, against it.

About 20,000 same-sex marriages may hang in the balance, since the court asked for arguments on whether the ban, Proposition 8, would affect unions between the May court ruling and the November election.

LEGAL LIMBO

Those marriages have been seen as being in legal limbo, despite state officials including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger saying they should stand.

Gay advocates argued that Californians could not strip a right from a minority with only a majority vote -- the constitutional amendment process followed for Proposition 8. A more rigorous process called a constitutional revision was required, they argued.

National Center for Lesbian Rights' legal director Shannon Minter said defeat for his side would open the door to measures targeting other minorities.

"It mandates discrimination," he said of Proposition 8. "I really can't imagine a more serious issue before the court, or a more frightening one."

Ban supporters said the single-sentence change was a relatively small measure and that the state constitution gave wide latitude to the people through the amendment process.

"It would be a radical departure from 150 years of precedent (to overturn Proposition 8)," said Pugno, calling the challenge a "long shot."

"I think the larger question is going to be what is the status of the marriages that were created prior to the election," he said, adding that he had not taken a legal stand on the issue.

The court said it would hear arguments on the amendment process, the effect of Proposition 8 on same-sex marriages before the election, and on whether the amendment violated the state's separation-of-powers doctrine.

The court in a 6-1 decision asked all sides to work quickly and said oral arguments could be held as early as March 2009.

(Reporting by Peter Henderson and Jim Christie)

At least they are hearing the case and not just bowing out due to the pressure that the Prop 8 people have put on the court. They are threatening any justice that votes to throw out Prop 8 with recall. So what they are saying is, "if you do the job that you are set out to do and we don't like how it goes then we are going to take your jobs away!" Wow, getting "fired" for doing your job, only in America.

Peace,
Scott

[tdogg]

Got the news today. There are three issues the justices are requesting those on both sides of the issue to research and write about:

1. Is Prop 8 a constitutional revision, rather than an amendment?

2. Does Prop 8 constitute a separation of powers doctrine under the CA constitution?

3. If Prop 8 is not unconstitutional, what effect does it have on the marriages performed before Nov. 4th?

It is expected the court will hear the arguments sometime March 2009. Meanwhile, no same sex marriage will be performed, unless and until the Supreme Court overturns Prop 8.

Also, meanwhile, I'll be sitting on pins and needles. Should Prop 8 be ruled unconstitutional, this will probably mean an end to any further real attemps to take away marriage equality in CA. Should Prop 8 be ruled to stand, we will continue to fight for equality, but it will take us a little longer than we hoped.

(Daniel, I changed the font just for you. ;)

[sjbouza]

tdogg,

You mentioned the three things the Justices want the lawyers to do. I understand 1 and 3, however 2 confuses me.

Can you or someone else please explain to me what it means?

2. Does Prop 8 constitute a separation of powers doctrine under the CA constitution?

Thanks and GOOD LUCK CA. I will be right there with you on those pins and needles Tdogg. I think if CA quashes Prop 8 it will be the spark that lights the fire across the country. We can all hope and pray for that at least.

Peace,
Scott

[labguy22]

I believe after they hear the arguments, they will have 90 days to make a ruling, so we're still in limbo for a time ( be careful with those pins and needles tdogg...lol)
They will also be detemining the status of those of us who were fortunate enough to get hitched prior to election day.
All in all pretty F'd up having to wait on anyone to say whether or not I am married!!!!!!!

http://www.ktvu.com/news/18018493/detail.html

[Matt Algren]

I believe after they hear the arguments, they will have 90 days to make a ruling, so we're still in limbo for a time ( be careful with those pins and needles tdogg...lol)
They will also be detemining the status of those of us who were fortunate enough to get hitched prior to election day.
All in all pretty F'd up having to wait on anyone to say whether or not I am married!!!!!!!

http://www.ktvu.com/news/18018493/detail.html
If what I read last night was right, the ruling would have to be in by the day after inauguration day.

[keltic63]

from this article: http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_11024156


Some conservative legal scholars say the Supreme Court has "no lawful authority" to upend the voters on the subject. But a string of prominent law professors have sided with gay rights advocates, including Harvard law Professor Laurence Tribe and Christopher Edley Jr., dean of Boalt Hall School of Law.
"Unlike other cases, this is a case where for the first time people have voted to single out one group of individuals entitled to the highest level of constitutional protection and taken away civil rights,'' said Donna Ryu, a Hastings College of the Law professor. "It eviscerates the equal protection clause.''

[tdogg]

Thank you Keltic for your post and the link. I've heard so much speculation, and mainly from the Prop 8 side, saying how there is no way the Supreme Court will rule Prop 8 to be unconstitutional. Reading your post very nearly put some tears (of hope) in these old green eyes. I need to hear more of that, because the waiting will be hard enough if I can't find much hope to lean on. :love::love:

[tdogg]

tdogg,
You mentioned the three things the Justices want the lawyers to do. I understand 1 and 3, however 2 confuses me.

Can you or someone else please explain to me what it means?


I'm not sure. I'll try to find the ruling and article(s) and see if I can figure it out. I'm not certain it means 'separation of church & state', it could mean voter decision v. judicial decision. Or have something to do with the requirement of the legislature to be involved if it's found to be a revision of the state constitution.

[TomWins]

Hi all, I just joined the website today though I've been somewhat involved with Soulforce for many years.

I live in San Diego. Besides getting married last July on our 7th anniversary, my husband and I have worked hard to defeat 8. So we've been watching the courts actions.

To help explain the legal maneuverings, here is the section of the petition that is related to the separation of powers doctrine.


Proposition 8 also violates the separation of powers doctrine embodied in the California Constitution... "The powers of State government are legislative, executive and judicial. Persons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others except as permitted by this Constitution."
Under the separation of powers doctrine, "the Legislature may not undertake to readjudicate controversies that have been litigated in the courts and resolved by final judicial judgement."
The power of the electorate in the initiative process is the constitutional power of the electors "to propose statutes ... and to adopt or reject them". Thus, the initiative process violates the separation of powers doctrine when it is used to readjudicate controversies that have been litigated and settled by the courts.

It does not relate to the separation of church and state but rather restricts one branch of the government from action that is rightly undertaken by the other. Why the court took this up is unclear.
Many people were upset that the court ruled that gay people had the right to marry and accused them of "making a law". So perhaps this is what they want to address. In May 2008 when the court determined marriage between same-sex couples should be allowed, the court concluded,
"under this state's Constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual's liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process."

Perhaps the court wants to put to rest the propositions they know will come if they overrule the initiative.

[Matt Algren]

The Box Turtle Bulletin posted an insightful article (http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/11/20/6838) on the arguments behind the challenges last night.

[sjbouza]

I was randomly searching for stuff today and came across this little tidbit on a legal site that was talking about the "equal protection clause" of the US Constitution. Now the way I read the decision by the US Supreme Court it seems to me that the DOMA is a true violation of this clause. Maybe I am wrong or is it that the US Supreme Court has lost its mind or that individual state Supreme Courts just can't understand the simple principle of "equal protection"?

Here is the section that caught my eye...bold is mine...the quote is taken from a much longer definition of "Equal Protection under the law" from Definition of Equal Protection. (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Equal+Protection+Clause)

Classifications Involving Sexual Preference In romer v. evans, 517 U.S. 620, 116 S. Ct. 1620, L. Ed. 2d (1996), the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed a Colorado state constitutional amendment that prohibited any branch of the state or local governments from taking action designed to protect the status of persons based on their "homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation." The immediate effect of the amendment, known popularly as "Amendment 2," was to repeal all existing statutes, regulations, ordinances, and governmental policies that barred discrimination based on sexual preference. Under Amendment 2, state officials and private entities would have been permitted to discriminate against gays and lesbians in a number of areas, including insurance, employment, housing, and welfare services.

The state of Colorado defended Amendment 2 by arguing that it did nothing more than place homosexuals on a level playing field with all other state residents. The amendment, Colorado submitted, simply denied gays and lesbians any "special rights." The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that Amendment 2 violated the Equal Protection Clause because it "identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board," which is something "unprecedented in our Jurisprudence."

Writing for a six-person majority, Justice anthony kennedy explained that "Equal Protection of the laws is not achieved through indiscriminate imposition of inequalities." The associate justice said that "[r]espect for this principle" demonstrates "why laws singling out a certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status or general hardships are rare." Amendment 2 is unconstitutional, Kennedy concluded, because any law that generally makes it "more difficult for one group of citizens than all others to seek aid from the government is itself a denial of equal protection of the laws in the most literal sense."

Maybe I am just going nuts, but it seems to me that the US Supreme Court has already said that it is unconstitutional for a state to deny protection under the law to a certain class of people. They also said that it was unconstitutional to make it more difficult for one group of citizens to seek aid from the government. Sounds like to me that this goes to the heart of the DOMA as well as Prop 8 and all the other state legislation that makes same sex marriage illegal.

Hope someone can see what I see. If not just call me NUTS!

Peace,
Scott

[tdogg]

Seems like a no-brainer, but I guess it depends upon the interpretation of each justice. Maybe because DOMA wasn't appealed to the Supreme Court, there was no ruling on that. Maybe I'm wrong but I haven't heard that the US Supreme Court reviewed DOMA. It was just passed and made into federal law without judicial review.

It will be interesting to hear what the CA Supreme Court does with Prop 8. That seems like a no-brainer to repeal, but then again, it already sounds like at least one of the justices who ruled Prop 22 unconstitutional back in May might be reluctant to vote the same way on Prop 8. There has also been talk on the side of Prop 8 supporters (not the original drafters though) of possible attempting a recall of any justice voting to repeal Prop 8.

I think we might see DOMA repealed under Obama's leadership.

[Matt Algren]

You're not nuts. Right now it's a question of whether homosexuals are a protected class.

[CaptainSnoopy]

I think we might see DOMA repealed under Obama's leadership.

You think he will reverse a Clinton passage with half the Clinton cabinet under him? You have more faith than I do.

[sauu4equality]

You think he will reverse a Clinton passage with half the Clinton cabinet under him? You have more faith than I do.

There are 7 Out Gay people on the Obama transition team (http://www.washingtonblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=22518). Also, Don't Ask Don't Tell, produced by the Clinton Administration was meant to allow Gay people to serve their country. Before its passing gay people could be kicked out for being gay. Now, they must be open or get caught in the act to be thrown out. True, it isn't exactly a good measure, but I think it was more of a compromise (http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=2379096&page=1) than a bad measure. Unfortunately, it was used to continue discrimination. This was not the fault of the Clintons. They were trying to further Gay causes without offending the majority who believed at the time that being gay was a choice. This view is now changing. This is why we can have some faith in the Obama Administration. Public Opinion has begun to swing in our favor. Especially, in regards to Don't Ask Don't Tell. I'm not sure why DOMA was made into law. But I know that the Clinton's are not anti-gay (http://www.aegis.org/news/wb/2007/WB070301.html). Both Clinton's made very pro-Gay comments at the DNC.

That being said, we are a late-term to second term issue. The Economy is bad. We are involved in an unjust war. Our healtcare system is the pits. While to me civil rights should always be high on the list, I think we have to allow Obama and Staff to get positive economic results before he starts entertaining our issues. Grassroots efforts are always more effective than those that come from the top by rule. Having a pro-Gay leader, however, could be something we use to our advantage.

Since, this thread is on the CA Supreme Court's conundrum, I'll put in my 2 cents:

I don't see how it was not unconstitutional for the proposition to be on the ballot based on what I've seen from the CA constitution. It puzzles me that this happened after the Supreme Court already said that this exact same language was unconstitutional earlier in the year. If Prop 8 is not repealed, the justices are liars and their credibility will be in question. If they decide to uphold Prop 8 they will likely be unseated because of efforts by the now power-hungry Mormon/Catholic/Evangelical Alliance who has promised to attempt to remove them from the Supreme Court (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/gay-marriage-fo.html) if they decide to do their job...insure justice. That being said, if we truly believe that a better run campaign by the gay community could have beaten Proposition 8, we need to make sure that these "better" practices are employed to save the jobs of these justices if they do decide to do what is right. This debate is really about who decides (judges or voters) (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/19/BAAV147103.DTL) in the rights of a minority group. I argue that we cannot allow the majority to make decisions about the lives of a minority. Unless there is clear evidence that doing so would be to the detriment of society. Which in this case there is not (any). We probably shouldn't be bashing HRC either (http://www.washblade.com/2007/3-16/news/national/10212.cfm). My personal opinion is that any loss in the battle for gay rights, is the fault of all gay people and their allies not being engaged enough in the battle. We cannot single out one group who operates on the baby steps method. Although we can as a community change their methods within and outside the organization. Ultimately, we also cannot be blamed for the conditions that we were born into (hatred of gay people are the conditions to which I refer).

[Daniel]

(Daniel, I changed the font just for you. ;)

Way to go!

[Daniel]

You're not nuts. Right now it's a question of whether homosexuals are a protected class.

Remember the legal case it New York a couple of years ago? It was on this particular issue that we lost: the court decided that gay people did not rise to a particular level of legal scrutiny. And because of that, could not be considered a class worthy of protection.

You hit the nail on the heat Matt.

[pnggrad79]

I don't understand. So what exactly did the California Supreme Court rule to be unconstitutional back in May? If they ruled the gay marriage ban to be unconstitutional then, won't they find the same thing this time around? I think this needs to go to the Supreme Court of the US. Maybe we would lose but California is doing the glbt community so wrong by doing this to them.

[tdogg]

Back in May, the CA Supreme Court ruled that GLBT people are a suspect class, which means they are considered a 'minority'. That was in the ruling. That's not actually a question in any of the suits being heard by the high Court, except that question #1 will take that into consideration (or common sense dictates it should). Whether the justices actually do uphold their own ruling remains to be seen. In addition, one would have to read the actual opinion of all the justices to see if any of them who voted to repeal Prop 22 did not consider GLBT to be a suspect class. That's where the upcoming ruling could be interesting, and in a bad way.

In my opinion, from what I've heard and read of the May decision, if the Court decides to uphold Prop 8, they will be contradicting themselves in their May ruling. Bad but not unheard of.

[Matt Algren]

I don't understand. So what exactly did the California Supreme Court rule to be unconstitutional back in May? If they ruled the gay marriage ban to be unconstitutional then, won't they find the same thing this time around?
You understand exactly right. One of the things pointed out over at the Box Turtle Bulletin is that regardless of how each justice felt in May, the ruling stands for all of them. According to the current reading of the California Constitution, homosexuals are a protected class. That stands whether they previously sided with the majority or not. So to rule against it, they would have to find something since May of this year that contradicts that conclusion to such a degree that the ruling from May would have to be overturned.

This isn't a matter of re-trying the May case; that one's done. This is a matter of finding something so earth-shatteringly conclusive from the last six months that would cause the reading to be changed from here on in.
I think this needs to go to the Supreme Court of the US. Maybe we would lose but California is doing the glbt community so wrong by doing this to them.
Absolutely. No minority has ever been given rights because the legislature, the executive officer, or the general population decided they wanted to. It always happens at the order of the courts.

[pnggrad79]

I never actually thought about it that way, but you are right. Every right any minority has gotten has come through the Court. The popular vote will never give us anything. And we shouldn't let the popular vote dictate our lives.

[sjbouza]

I saw an article today that is stating that Prop 8 is in the process to go back onto the ballot in 2010. It said that the opposition is gathering signatures to get it placed back on the ballot again to see if it will pass now.

My question is this...when will it stop. Ok, Prop 8 passed in CA with a majority vote. If it gets back on the ballot in 2010 and it fails this time, then the other side will just try to get it back on the ballot again...and so on. When will it end? I mean come on. Someone in another thread said that "no one has ever received 'civil rights' through popular vote, it has always been through the courts."

Let me put this to y'all. For some reason, and just follow me for a few, the CA Supreme Court says Prop 8 stands and gay marriage is outlawed. Then we get Prop 8 back on the ballot for 2010 and it fails with a majority vote so that now same sex marriage is legal again. Then the opponents take that to court and again the court is asked the same question for the third time. I mean what is stopping it from going round and round again and again. What are all these people suppose to do that are married. How are they suppose to have any sort of stability.

What seems to me like a "duh" question is turning into a over complicated issue. It is obviously a question that is going to have to go the US Supreme Court to finally decide just like all other civil rights issues have in the past. I think that when it does go to the US Supreme Court and if they find that same sex marriage should be legal that is going to bring a whole new issue to this country. Then every state will be challenged and it is going to not be a pretty sight in this country. I am not saying that the challenges are going to be a bad thing, that is what needs to happen. But you know the religious right will be up in arms about it to the most extreme that we have ever seen. I am just afraid that it may tear this country apart.

One good thing that I have been seeing going on with the religious right is that they are seeing a financial struggle too. FOF has had to lay off 600 or so people. Dobsy seems to be loosing some credibility on his own side over these issues. It is seeming like people in CA are really realizing when they voted Yes on Prop 8 that they were doing harm to their fellow Californians. The LDS church is being slashed as the hypocrites that they truly are. The Pro-Prop 8 groups are trying to distance themselves from the more radical sects of their side. Over all it seems like the Pro-Prop 8 side is splintering and falling apart. What will this mean for us? I hope something good.

Peace,
Scott

[tdogg]

I attended a very small protest at the CA Capitol today. Towards the end, a gentleman came to speak with us, and identified himself as one who worked on the No on Prop 8 campaign. He has an incredible amount of political and lobbying experience, having worked on numerous campaigns (including No on Prop 22 and Obama's) and gave us some inside scoop. That being, the biggest problem with No on 8 was that they didn't center their campaign at the Capitol. That left the center of CA politics open to the Yes people.

He also said it's iffy if the CA Supreme Court will overturn Prop 8. We have 3 definite justices in favor of overturning. We have 3 that are definitely in favor of upholding Prop 8. The deciding factor is Justice Joyce Kennard, who voted to overturn Prop 22 but has stated she isn't likely to vote to overturn the votes of the majority on the Prop 8 issue. This means, she's kinda on the fence, and she's probably the one who will decide Prop 8's fate this spring/summer.

Then he gave some advice. We must reach out to Justice Kennedy and talk to her every chance we get. Be there when she pulls up to the Court. Send her letters, emails, phone calls. We need to be doing this between now and March like crazy. She is leaning towards upholding Prop 8 but we have a chance to change her mind. Protesting is good, but better if she's around or at least aware of it. We need to concentrate efforts on communicating to her. That is our only chance to see Prop 8 overturned next year.

The other thing happening is Courage Campaign (or Campaign Courage) who is currently conducting research for the best language to put on a ballot initiative for 2010, which would legalize same sex marriage. I haven't heard Prop 8 being put back on for a vote - there would be no reason unless it's overturned next year. However, I don't put it past the people involved in Prop 8 (especially the mastermind and campaign manager Frank Schubert) to add in something that takes away domestic partnership rights. ESPECIALLY since they are trying to break away from the more zealous Prop 8 proponents. Silence is golden, they can come back in 2010 and try to completely zap us out of the water.

Folks, don't rely on the CA Supreme court to overturn Prop 8, I think the chance is greater that it will be upheld. Get your letters and emails off to Justice Kennard.

[pnggrad79]

Maybe I just don't understand. Why would the same court that gave gays and lesbians the right to marry in California all of a sudden change their minds? It doesn't make sense! If it goes back on the ballot in 2010, I hope that all the backlash of this debacle sends it way over the top in favor of gay marriage, as a lot of people are put off by this atrocity. Even straight people are angered by this.

[Matt Algren]

My question is this...when will it stop.
It won't. Get that thought out of your head, because it ain't gonna happen any more than abortion debates have stopped. It might simmer for awhile if/when the SCOTUS finally declares the 30-odd constitutional amendments unconstitutional, but it won't go away.

Put it this way: Do you really think that there aren't people who want to take the vote away from women? That want to put up a new set of Whites Only drinking fountains? There will always be someone wanting to take our rights away. Always.

Right now, it's just a matter of getting the law on our side and digging in.

[TomWins]

I was born and raised in Alabama in the 60s and 70s and saw the consequences of school integration. It still has not stopped. My family still grips about it. The on-going attacks and defunding of the public school system has roots in this.

So we cannot expect the attacks on gay marriage to go away.

I have often wished that we would win this battle in a vote rather than in the courts to take away the power of those who keep yelling "the people have spoken."

[tdogg]

We will win this battle with a vote. It just didn't happen in 2008. Maybe 2010, maybe 2012 or a few years later. But winning is inevitable, and with it will be a win for everyone, even those who don't realize it.

Sadly, I just don't see us winning it next year in the high court. With threats of a recall, and the very real possibility that will happen (note Justice Bird and the 'death penalty' controversy) I just don't see the state's supreme court voting to overturn Prop 8. Keeping my fingers crossed but it's not looking promising.

There is apparently some research going on and work in progress to prepare a petition to get this on the ballot again in 2010. Between now and then, it's up to us (as in everyone who wants to see equality in our lifetime) to speak with others about marriage equality. If we can help open minds and hearts to see our love as good and no different from another's, then we'll have a shot at winning this in the voting booth.

[sjbouza]

We will win this battle with a vote. It just didn't happen in 2008. Maybe 2010, maybe 2012 or a few years later. But winning is inevitable, and with it will be a win for everyone, even those who don't realize it.

I mean, if the courts do not knock down Prop 8 and it goes to ballot in 2010 and we win then the fundies will just take it to court saying that the court already ruled that same sex marriage is illegal. How can they do a 180 on their own ruling just a few months ago? I don't think it is whether Prop 8 should have been up for a vote, I think it is should Prop 8 stand on its own merits to constitutional scrutiny?!

Either way it goes it will have to go to the US Supreme Court. No matter if the citizens of CA win the battle or the fundies, it will end up there. I think that may be a bad thing for either side. If same sex marriage is found to be a violation of "equal protection" by the US Supreme Court then I think the DOMA will be in BIG TROUBLE. That will open a door that I think the fundies don't want to do, but they aren't thinking that way. However, if it looses, then it will set us back decades in this fight. It is a scary thing when your lives hang in the balance of of just a couple of people and how they will vote.

I tell you I am both scared for you all in CA and elated. If it goes for equality then that will open the door for many other states. I am still praying for you all out there. Good luck and keep the faith, no matter what faith it may be!!!

Peace,
Scott

[tdogg]

Thanks Scott. It would be a simpler matter if the ruling was just whether or not same sex marriage should be legal and then base that ruling on the prior ruling. Problem is, the CA high court is basically looking to rule based on 3 issues (explained elsewhere). Depending on what they decide on these 3 issues is how they will rule on Prop 8. Word is, the main character that could decide this entire issue is Justice Joyce Kennard, who back in may was one of the 4 votes that overturned Prop 22. However, she voted to hear the case against Prop 8 based only on the one issue of whether or not the marriages performed will remain legal or be ruled invalid. That is an indication that she will not be voting on overturning or upholding Prop 8. That leaves the remaining justices, 3 who voted to uphold Prop 22 and are likely to uphold Prop 8 as well, and 3 who voted to overturn Prop 22 and are likely to vote to overturn Prop 8. However, out of those last 3, only 1 has given any indication that he will definitely be voting to overturn. Sorry to say I don't know if any justices abstained from the prior vote and could have any effect on the ruling next year.

It's all complicated but if the vote is to uphold Prop 8, then apparently a group will be ready with a 2010 ballot initiative to once again vote on legalizing same sex marriage. It's enough to drive anyone insane. Yes you are right, this will absolutely not stop until it hits the US Supreme Court. I think we stand a better chance if Obama can repeal DOMA (which he indicated he wants to do) and if we can get some new, more socially liberal blood on the high court bench. Otherwise, we will get set back some but must still look at the states that are legalizing same sex marriage - MA upholding marriage equality, the CT ruling, NY recognizing same sex marriages performed in other states, and now the IA hearings. Slowing but surely, and yes sometimes I forget, and have to remind myself to look at the big picture. The whole prop 8 thing is pretty depressing for me.

I'm actually quite concerned about the upcoming ruling on marriages already performed, my own included. Based upon the wording of Prop 8, I'm not sure how it couldn't be applied to us too. "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in the state of California." Sucks big time.

[tdogg]

Thought I would post this, especially for those of you here in CA (there's not too many of us on SF). I attended an interfaith meeting last night, to seek out ways we can begin to reach out to people and build bridges in seeking support of equality and even changing some minds out there. Mainly to prepare for a possible future ballot initiative here that would once again legalize same sex marriage.

One of the things discussed was the need to start preparing for possible scenarios for the CA Supreme Court hearings (ruling is expected by June 09). There are of course three possible decisions:
1. The Court will uphold Prop 8 and invalidate the marriages performed
2. The Court will repeal Prop 8 and the marriages will remain valid
3. The Court will uphold Prop 8 and the marriages will remain valid (although given the language of Prop 8 I'm not sure how that would be justified by the justices)

Any of the above 3 outcomes are going to result in a huge outcry, either from those against or those for marriage equality. We need to start thinking about how we want to handle the outcry and the outcome in the GLBT community. I believe planned actions are better than immediate reactions (if we don't get the ruling we want). I believe we need immense media attention (so need to start figuring the 'how' of that out today and making our contacts for the future).

Another concern for me (especially in light of #1 above) is the emotions of all of this. Prop 8 winning was really difficult for me to handle, it still is in some ways. Maybe the high Court decision won't be as bad, because I actually anticipate scenario #1 being more likely than #2 or #3. Any ideas is greatly appreciated. I'm volunteering for Equality Action Now (.org) and the leader of the group I'm in (Faith Outreach) is going to bring this up to the heads of EAN.

I do not believe we are going to win this one in June. Many people are also in agreement, some of those are scholars specializing in constitutional law. We've got to keep our eye on the prize, which is the big picture of equality and try not to let the smaller-scale losses get us too far down.

[tdogg]

Not a surprise. Prop 8 proponents have filed a request with the CA Supreme Court, requesting the Court invalidate the 18,000 same-sex marriages performed in CA.

Just after the election, these same folks declared they would not seek to invalidate the marriages already performed. Of course, I don't believe anything they say, so it's not a shock they are have requested the Court to do just that. It is just another example of how these people, who profess to follow Jesus, cannot do just that. I don't think they could follow Jesus if he appeared in person and led them.

I'm also thinking that this move could help persuade the justices to actually overturn Prop 8. A slim chance, but slightly better, in my opinion, than the chance we had before their move.

[BruceChris]

Many things have yet to happen, and we have yet to see what factors the as-yet to be president Obama will introduce into the process. But I still believe that "while the arc of justice may be long", that it will continue to bend in our direction.

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[tdogg]

Arnold has been against Prop 8 from the beginning but other than announcing it in the local paper, he wasn't part of the No on 8 campaign. It's Jerry Brown who has made a sudden U turn and is now standing with those trying to repeal Prop 8. Basically, he has said he can't find a good reason to defend Prop 8 so he is going to join in the arguments to repeal it.

Of course, the Prop 8 folks are screaming and crying "recall" of JB.