"Shame on You!"

[scott snedeker]

The california supreme court upheld proposition 8 banning gay marriage with honoring existing gay marriages.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/26/california.same.sex.marriage/index.html

Sounds like they took the path of greatest cowardice and least legal inconvenience! These "justices" have earned my deepest disrespect and are invalidated as worthy to preside over a court. Chasing ambulances are more their caliber of legal practice!

Shame indeed!

[keltic63]

my first thought is that there is another legal case to be fought. If 18,000 same-sex couples are legally married, how can the court deny that right to other same-sex couples? is this the "in"??? is this where the battle needs to be fought, as well as in another ballot initiative?

[Emproph]

my first thought is that there is another legal case to be fought. If 18,000 same-sex couples are legally married, how can the court deny that right to other same-sex couples? is this the "in"??? is this where the battle needs to be fought, as well as in another ballot initiative?

Either way, the "family" groups are supposedly expressing disappointment of the upholding of those 18,000 marriages (if not, they will be), so we should expect another legal challenge or amendment to invalidate them.

And let's all remember that they lied in order to pass Prop 8, making the success of that measure fraudulent - at least on an ethical level.

[peoplegottabefree]

I agree with all of the above...except i would add the feeling of ...mad as hell! it seems that the mormon church and the conservative christians are able to buy themselves a few judges via influencing public opinion thru their disgraceful tv and radio adverts and newspaper inserts.

i find it very difficult to understand why they consider it strange that we are mad as hell and protest in front of their churches etc. when they seek to take away our rights. i live in prague, czech republic and was totally out of touch with what was going on in california until the day of the election and the vote. i live here basically in a czech world where its ok to be gay and no one cares who you sleep with or who you love. one month before the vote my mormon cousin came to visit my partner and i for a week. during this time she brought up these anti gay adverts that were being shown in california and trumpeted around the usa but i didnt know what she was talking about. so i thought she was just being a typical south georgia biggot. i didnt think much more about it.

then after the vote and i read about it and i talked to her about it, i learned that she knew about it when she flew her butt over here and stayed with us for a week and not only did she know about it but she had been supporting it!!!! so in my most humble away from america but still pissed off opinion...it's time to protest. a protest the size and noise of which would make harvey milk proud. i would like to protest over here but there's no reason to as we have gay rights here and no one thinks it strange to be gay or lesbian....so my thoughts and support and whatever else i have to offer are with you all who are there in the usa and california who are also mad as hell and frustrated and angry... fight on!

[Emproph]

Thanks for the support, peoplegottabefree. And btw, they're already calling the dissenting judge an "activist judge" (as opposed to the others who were activists last year, but this year are not).
------------
Autumn Sandeen at Pam's House blend has put together a "link farm (http://pamshouseblend.com/diary/11156/link-farm-reations-to-the-california-prop-8-ruling)" of responses to the ruling:

Everybody (and-their-dog's-named-Spot), it seems, has a reaction on the Prop 8 ruling. With this in mind, we've put together a "Link Farm" post with links to different organizations' response to the ruling: from LGBT non-profits and civil rights organizations to religious right/conservative "Christian" organization responses to the ruling.

It's pretty comprehensive, but if you can't get the page to load, it's probably because the site is really busy right now. I hope they don't crash. :eek:

[peoplegottabefree]

thx dude... will check it out in a bit...i just tried it but couldnt get on it. mz partner is czech and an athiest and since czech is an athiest country for all practical purposes, he was surprised to learn how small minded and prejudiced america really is. most czechs only know america from hollywood films but as you know the reality is vastly different.

power to the people!

[tdogg]

Standing with the community (and media) just before, during and after the decision, it was very difficult. Painful. Heartbreaking. Tears and more tears, hugs, all the while attempting to maintain some sort of positive aura to gear up to continue our fight. We are a little tired today. It was hard to muster up 'positive'.

Although this was the decision I anticipated, there is no logic in it. One could say there is an 'in' to proceed, and in some ways that is right. I believe they took the easy way out, trying to give some satisfaction to both sides. I was one of the lucky folks who were able to get married between the May 2008 decision and November 4th. I'm being congratulated and told exactly how lucky I am, mainly by straight well-meaning folks and some pro-Prop 8'ers.

Well, it doesn't feel so lucky. It doesn't feel good. I take nothing away from my wife and I, are marriage or our wonderful wedding day. But it does have a slightly 'not so right' tinge to it. I am married, while some of my best friends do not have that right. It makes no sense, I can find no reasoning in the decision. I'm curious to read the opinions, but can't do it right now. I do understand the decision today was whether or not Prop 8 was a lawful amendment or a revision, not whether Prop 8 is a good or bad thing. That helps, every so slightly.

It was an awful moment, the moment the decision came down. Followed, for me by shock, a feeling of surreal and then grief. As a community we came together to grief and support each other. And that is where we need to go on from. Together, as a community. Which includes our straight allies. From here, we gather steam, we grab onto the momentum, and we push forward. It will take a lot of hard work, more tears, some sweat and probably even some blood. But it's coming. Full equality is coming to CA and to this country.

When DOMA is repealed, I believe we shall see our greatest progress and most glorious triumphs. The state-by-state fight is tiresome, going back and forth and never really feeling completely done. By working to repeal DOMA, we can get this done faster and more widespread. I'm in CA and working to continue the fight to repeal Prop 8. But my personal struggle in this will never cease until each and every citizen of this country has nothing less than the full and equal rights, privileges and protections as the next. Tonight, we protest, march & rally. From there, we live out and proud, working together and individually to bring justice and equality to all.

[Emproph]

Oh, I get it. Atheists don't have their "faith" to hide behind and appeal to - and no fear of retribution from a petty and vengeful god. :lol:

Stats show that 70-80% of the US identifies as Christian. Though not all are of the social "lying is ok" conservative variety.
_________
Poignant Courage Campaign ad (https://secure.couragecampaign.org/page/contribute/Fearless):
In response, the Courage Campaign will hit the California airwaves with a 60-second TV ad version of "Fidelity" -- the heartbreaking online video viewed by more than 1.2 million people, making it the most-watched video ever in the history of California politics.

You can watch the video at the link, it's pretty good. :tup:

[Daniel]

Oh....Tdogg...I am so so sorry. It is a heavy blow. And I'm shaking my head thinking about all the money that is going to have to be spend putting a measure overturning this decision on the ballot and then getting it passed. All over the word 'marriage'. That's really what this is about.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/us/27marriage.html?hp

In questions that clearly anticipated the logic of today’s majority opinion, the justices had seemed to be seeking a middle ground that would allow the rights they had affirmed the year before to be preserved in the form of civil unions, which would be different from marriage in name only. Justice Kennard suggested that the substantive rights of gays were the same after the proposition, and all that had changed was “the label of marriage.”

That distinction was deeply dissatisfying to Mr. Minter, representing the plaintiffs, who argued that without the right to the word “marriage,” same-sex couples would find “our outsider status enshrined in our Constitution.”

Chief Justice George’s opinion dealt directly with that point, stating that the court understood the importance of the word marriage and was not trying to diminish it. However, he wrote, the legal right of people to call themselves married is only one of the rights granted to same-sex couples in the decision last May, and so “it is only the designation of marriage -- albeit significant--that has been removed by this initiative measure.”

Karl Manheim, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, called the decision a “safe” position written by justices who can be recalled by voters. The change wrought by Proposition 8 was anything but narrow, he said, and claiming that the word marriage was essentially symbolic was like telling black people that sitting in the back of the bus was not important as long as the front and back of the bus arrive at the same time.In the months since the case was argued, three other states have legalized same-sex marriage. On April 3, Iowa’s supreme court struck down a state statute that limited civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman — and cited California’s 2008 decision repeatedly in support of its ruling. Less than a week later, the Vermont Legislature narrowly overrode a veto by Gov. Jim Douglas of a bill that allowed same-sex couples to marry. Then on May 6, Maine’s legislature, too, passed a bill allowing same-sex marriage, and Gov. John Baldacci signed it.

So....the word marriage is not that big a deal according to Justice Kennard, who wrote the majority opinion? It's just a label?

Then why all the fuss?

We're back were we started, except that 18 thousand couples are still married. Otherwise, gay people in California are being told that the back the bus is right where they belong.

Know what's ironic in this situation? This is the same group of judges that gave the green light for gay marriage in the first place.

[Daniel]

And our "fierce advocate" in the White House? Nary a word.


White House spokesman Robert Gibbs was asked if he had any response to the California Supreme Court's decision on Proposition 8.

Said Gibbs: "I have not talked to the President about it. I think that the issues involved are ones — you know where the President stands."

Sorry Mr. President. That isn't good enough. But I think I know where you actually stand now....

in limbo.

If I remember correctly, that's actually one of the levels of hell.

[BruceChris]

Amicus brief, or letter to the editor:

Refusing to address the much broader issues, the California Supreme Court issued a narrowly based ruling upholding Proposition 8, which set me to thinking.

Our hair color and skin color, our nationality, and our sexual orientation are all conditions present at birth, and any or all of them may change over time. I would find it hard to find reason for the first three to be reasonable grounds for discrimination, so why the fourth?

Q.E.D., Bruce Chris

[Petrese]

well, I can rest easy now that marriage is safe in California, that and Miss California make the state proud. Maybe they can do sister states with North Dakota or some other equally progressive place.

[Daniel]

The LATimes reports...


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/05/bush-v-gore-rivals-challenge-prop-8-in-federal-court.html

Bush vs. Gore rivals challenge Prop. 8 in federal court
5:29 PM | May 26, 2009

Two prominent attorneys who argued on opposite sides of Bush vs. Gore, the legal battle over the 2000 presidential election, announced Tuesday that they will challenge Proposition 8 in federal court and seek to restore gay marriage until the case is decided.

Former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, who represented then-Vice President Al Gore in the contested election, have joined forces to tackle the same-sex marriage issue, which has deeply divided Californians and left 18,000 gay couples married last year in legal isolation.

In a project of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, Olson and Boies have united to represent two same-sex couples filing suit after being denied marriage licenses because of Proposition 8.

Their suit, to be filed in U.S. District Court in California, calls for an injunction against the proposition, allowing immediate reinstatement of marriage rights for same-sex couples.

The California Supreme Court ruled in May 2008 that state law prohibiting same-sex marriage was unconstitutional under the privacy, due process and equal protection guarantees of the California Constitution.

But in November, voters passed Proposition 8, which amended the state Constitution to restrict marriage to between a man and a woman. The high court upheld the voter initiative in a 6-1 ruling today, with Justice Carlos Moreno dissenting.

Legal scholars have observed that proponents of gay marriage have avoided taking the issue to federal court so far because of the dominance of conservative judges and justices on the federal bench after the eight-year tenure of President George W. Bush.

The U.S. Supreme Court has what usually results in a 5-4 majority against extending rights to gays by recognizing sexual orientation as a vulnerable class of citizens in need of protection.

And all but one of the 13 federal appeals circuits has a reliable conservative majority. Even the exception, the San Francisco-based U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, experienced a curtailing of its liberal orientation with Bush’s seven appointments.

-- Carol J. Williams



One might say that the way to Gay Marriage is not....how can I say this without rolling my eyes.... a straight shot! And it's not clear, considering the justices involved, that this would be successful.

It really is getting interesting, isn't it? The winding path that we are on.

[Daniel]

That is, one of the lawyers litigating Prop 8?

http://www.americablog.com/2009/05/ted-olson-better-known-as-devil-is-now.html

Evil incarnate. At least he was. A conservative who's now fighting for our rights. Now .....who would have thought?

Makes you wonder if the guy who helped get Bush into the White House is- himself- gay?

But you know what? It doesn't matter: we can use all the help we can get!

[tpdncr4christ]

I had the opportunity to go to a rally today! It was really exciting.

I just want to say that while the decision today sucked, I think it was necessary to our movement. In that, as long as courts keep doing our work for us we will never really get the respect that we deserve. I think that something like this, for California, needs to come from the people. I know we can achieve a majority vote, and I know we can be one of the first states, if not the first state to pass a voter initiative to allow same sex marriages. We know how to fight the fight this time, so I am without a doubt that we will achieve this within the next two years. We have a lot of work ahead of us, but I am excited that we have been given this opportunity.

[tymejumper]

If we lose federally, were pretty well screwed. It will set a really bad precident for the future. We may have nothing more to fight about. I think wwe need to be cool and win state by state, how can we win now federally when most judges are conservative?

I just spent the night crying and went to work with my eyes all red. People that knew me appoligized and said they were sorry. They also saod to hang in there, it will change. I was suprosed at the support I guess. I spent alot of time very sad and angry. Still am.

[Daniel]

If we lose federally, were pretty well screwed. It will set a really bad precident for the future. We may have nothing more to fight about. I think wwe need to be cool and win state by state, how can we win now federally when most judges are conservative?

I just spent the night crying and went to work with my eyes all red. People that knew me appoligized and said they were sorry. They also sad to hang in there, it will change. I was suprosed at the support I guess. I spent alot of time very sad and angry. Still am.

I agree with you.

I'm starting to hear and read criticism about Ted Olsen & Co bringing a federal lawsuit. If it was decided against us, it would be an immense setback. Huge! Is that risk worth taking? He- and the plaintiffs think so. But I want to hear a LOT more about this case before this case proceeds.

Big hugs to you!

[tdogg]

There are a couple of other cases going federally as well, regarding domestic partnership benefits of federal employees. I'm not completely up on that case, only knowing it arises out of San Francisco (attorneys, appellate court, or something to that effect) and involves two same-gender couples. Federally, it won't work unless DOMA is repealed and there are enough justices on the bench to consider it, otherwise we are doomed for a long time.

The rally last night in Sac was really good, we had some awesome speakers. But to get this done we ALL have to get off our butts and get to work. So many people are relying on the thought that eventually it will happen. But eventually it may not happen if we don't want it bad enough. Again, the rally was great but why 1,000 and not 10,000??? I know there were rallies all over the state. It will be interesting to see how big the Fresno rally is this saturday. I've got a seat on the Sac bus to Fresno!! (Are you going Austin, if so let me know - maybe we can meet!?)

In the aftermath of yesterday, there are a lot of articles - newspaper, on-line, etc. - with the Prop 8 supporters saying how 2008 was our best shot in CA to pass marriage equality (of course they call it gay marriage) and we will not win in 2010 or 2012. They say attitudes are changing, more and more people are realizing that 'traditional' marriage (whatever that is) between a man & woman is the best and changing their attitudes. Stating how polls are showing approval of gay marriage is slipping now and it would never pass. Etc. It's very important to know what they are saying but not to listen. Don't buy into the negativity because their hope is, if they can take away ours, then they will keep winning for a while. So close your heart to that crap!

The work needed remains a grass-roots movement to (1) live out and proud, (2) talk to people, have those one on one discussions, (3) get our stories out and for those of us fortunate enough to be ready to tie the knot while we could to (4) live out and proud as a couple. We must show them, like those before us in Massachusetts, that the sky will not fall just because we are 'married'.

In hope, love, peace and solidarity for equality,

Tdogg

[Unmasked]

I think we should start a ballot initiative to ban ballot initiatives. They only lead to trouble.

Sometimes I think my parents' generations (Boomer+X-er=weirdness) really just need to die off, but that's only when I'm getting really cynical.