Prop 8 Update

[Guest andrewd]

The latest news on Prop 8 that came out today, 8-8-08. Whoo Hoo!!

 

'When the state's voters decide Proposition 8 this fall, it appears they will check "yes" or "no" next to a ballot title that reads: "Eliminates the Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry."'

 

'Prop. 8 proponents said they will file an appeal today, but time is short: The ballot title, summary and partisan ballot arguments filed by each side are due at the state printer at 5 p.m. Monday.'

 

It's looking better and better. Hopefully, a large number of people will have a moral epiphany and conscience when they vote to realize they will be stripping rights from a group of people should they vote in favor of 8.

 

When is Novemeber?

[Guest ncm2169]

If I understand correctly, you can thank Jerry Brown for that.

[RM]

Actually, my radio talk show is complaining about Jerry Brown about that.

[seaboy4hire]

Short, simple and to the point oh and I almost forgot truthful title for this crap on the ballot. Thank you Mr. Brown. It will be interesting to see how this plays out around the country after Nov.

 

Hugs,

Greg

seaboy4hire@yahoo.com

http://seaboy4hire.tripod.com http://www.daddysreviews.com/newest.php?who=greg_seattle

http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/6707/lebec084a9ad147f620acd5ps8.jpg

I need a holiday!

[Guest zipperzone]

>Short, simple and to the point oh and I almost forgot

>truthful title for this crap on the ballot. Thank you Mr.

>Brown. It will be interesting to see how this plays out around

>the country after Nov.

 

It will be more interesting to see how it plays around California in November.

[+ glutes]

You better get ready!

 

From Americablog:

 

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

CA Sup Ct Prop 8 decision rumored to be imminent

by John Aravosis (DC) on 5/19/2009 11:04:00 PM

They're placing police barriers in the Castro District in SF. Hardly a good sign. And the SFPD is rumored to have let it slip that they've been told to get ready for a decision Thursday morning.

[Kevin Slater]

From Americablog:

 

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

CA Sup Ct Prop 8 decision rumored to be imminent

by John Aravosis (DC) on 5/19/2009 11:04:00 PM

They're placing police barriers in the Castro District in SF. Hardly a good sign. And the SFPD is rumored to have let it slip that they've been told to get ready for a decision Thursday morning.

 

That's standard procedure any time a potentially explosive decision is expected. SFPD has no inside knowledge of the decision, just an understanding that it could possibly go either way.

 

Kevin Slater

[seaboy4hire]

Damn now I wish that I would have allowed for more time between flights at SFO on Thursday to check out the scene in SF. I am very nervous about this but we'll see. I am hoping for the best but expecting the worse.

 

Hugs,

Greg

[+ honcho]

It is apparently standard practice for the the CA state supreme court to say the morning of the workday before a decision is read that it will happen the next workday. So leaking to the SFPD is only 12 hours earlier than it would normally have.

 

There will be a gathering at city hall at 5pm regardless of the decision, and a march from 6 to 6:45pm to Yerba Buena Gardens (3rd & mission), and the rally will continue there afterwards. It has also been planned to have a Rally in fresno the saturday after the decision is announced, called "Meet in the middle".

[+ glutes]

Newsom = Pants Shitter

 

If you didn't know Hoovillians, Newsom's father was a CA Supreme Court Justice.

With that in mind, the following is from Towleroad.com:

 

 

 

 

Exclusive: SF Mayor Gavin Newsom Asked Court to Delay Prop 8 Ruling

 

Confidential sources close to San Francisco City Hall told Towleroad's Corey Johnson that the California Supreme Court was prepared to release its opinion on Proposition 8 tomorrow, but decided to delay the ruling after a call from Mayor Gavin Newsom.

 

Newsom"Newsom reached out to the Supreme Court and asked them to hold off releasing their decision so it did not coincide with the White Night riots," said our source.

 

As mentioned earlier, a ruling Thursday would have fallen on the 30th anniversary of the San Francisco riots, which were set off when the court handed down the most lenient decision possible (voluntary manslaughter) against Dan White for the murders of supervisor Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone. The ensuing riots in San Francisco on May 21, 1979 caused hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage.

 

UPDATE: Towleroad received this tip from a highly credible source who did the interview on the condition that they remain anonymous. We have been working to get additional sources.

 

Gavin Newsom's office has issued a release denying the story.

 

San Francisco Supervisor Bevan Dufty spoke with Towleroad late this afternoon, saying he doubted the claims. Said Dufty: "It is implausible if not impossible to imagine that the Mayor could reach out to the California Supreme Court. Any thinking person would know that he would be radioactive to the justices given his leadership on the issue. His father is a retired federal judge. The Mayor's courage on this issue is unimpeachable. He would not intrude in what we've been waiting for."

 

http://www.towleroad.com/2009/05/exclusive-sf-mayor-gavin-newsom-asked-court-to-delay-prop-8-ruling.html

[uwsman2]

Rumor denied

 

The mayor's office denied this story promptly. The mayor has neither inside information nor any influence with the court on the timing of decisions.

 

The reason the cops were getting set up was because of the expected 30th anniversary White Night riots commemoration. It had nothing to do with the court decision, which will probably be coming out next week.

[+ glutes]

And the decision doesn't look good...

 

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/gay-marriage-court-2425414-ballot-ban

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/22/BAE017PFC8.DTL&tsp=1

[uwsman2]

Speculation

 

This afternoon the California Supreme Court announced that they will issue their decision on Prop 8 on Tuesday morning, 10 am Pacific time.

 

Nobody knows how they will rule, but the betting is on them upholding Prop 8 -- unless some of the justices were really playing devil's advocate during the hearing on the case. The betting is also on them finding a way to avoid invalidating the marriages that actually took place form mid-June to November -- although doing that will require them to jettison normal rules of grammar in interpreting constitutional language. (But California courts actually pioneered the art of giving words the opposite of their every-day meanings in interpreting contracts, statutes, and constitutional provisions in the past....)

[William]

Court will OK Proposition 8, But Not Apply "Retroactively"

 

As the previous poster suggested, the conventional wisdom is that the Court will uphold Prop 8 against constitutional attack. The vote will not be 4-3, it will be more lopsided, either 7-2 or 8-1 or perhaps even 9-0.

 

But it is just as probable that the Court will preserve the same-sex marriages entered between June and November 2008. This would not be any kind of creative interpretation by the Court; it is a standard rule that legislation is presumed not to apply retroactively, i.e., to disturb reliance interests (couples may have purchased property, even decided to have children based upon the marriages that were legal that summer). The presumption against retroactivity can be rebutted with a clear statement or (perhaps) clear intent in the public discussions, but the evidence presented by Ken Starr (representing the supporters of Prop 8, who intervened in the case) was not strong on that front, and the Justices seemed dismissive of his position. Also the Attorney General supported us strongly on this point.

 

The Court will want its disposition to be viewed as Solomonic, giving each side its due. For our side, it will be a disappointment (our attorneys did an excellent job) --- but also should stimulate serious activism and fundraising for 2010 or 2012, when an Anti-Prop 8 Initiative can revoke what the voters did in 2008.

[+ glutes]

The Justices ruled, it was a limited time offer only...

[Guest Wetnwildbear]

Prop 8 Election Consitutional - Equal Protection a Fight for Another Day

 

Though disappointing todays Calif Sup Ct decision was expected by many legal eagles.

 

Based on the facts before them the court could do little else.

 

 

However, what the Court did by validating the 18k existing same-sex marriages is to set the

 

stage for future litigation by those wishing to join that group.

 

The disenfranchised marriage seekers can now make a constitutional arguement on the

 

basis of Equal Protection which most likely will be a winning argument for

 

same-sex marriage.

 

 

Be of good heart all is not lost.

 

"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival"

 

Winston Churchill

[uwsman2]

Equal Protection

 

Nope to the previous poster... They can't make an argument based on equal protection under the California Constitution, because the court ruled that Prop 8 "carves a narrow exception" out of the California equal protection clause. And if they try to make a federal case out of it, they end up before our conservative U.S. Supreme Court, which is not likely to rule for same-sex marriage - unless it gets to them a few years down the line by which time Obama has had a chance to replace at least one of the present conservative justices. By the way, it looks likely that Sonia Sotomayor, whose confirmation is highly likely, will probably be a good vote for us - although it is always hard to predict when there isn't a substantial track record. And my understanding is that on LGBT issues there is not a substantial track record, although she's been on the appeals court for a long time.

[+ glutes]

Morford Speaks

 

The big gay shrug

Sorry, enemies of gay marriage. Prop 8 or no, you've already lost

 

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist

 

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

 

Here's a fun thing to do to calm your frazzled, saddened nerves in the wake of the CA Supreme Court's very unfortunate, but also merely annoying and karmically fleeting Proposition 8 decision:

 

Head on down to your local high school -- hell, make it a junior high or even an elementary -- and take yourself an informal survey. Ask the various wary, bepimpled youth of Generation Tweet what they think about those scary gay people getting married.

 

Ask them, in your most panicky, alarmist, Mormonified voice: Aren't they horrified at the very idea? Aren't they shocked at the very thought of two people in love having their union officially recognized and validated by the state?

 

Don't they know the musty ol' Bible mutters some barely coherent, mistranslated silliness about it in a single word or two written 1,500 years ago in a long dead language by acidic church elders with powermad political agendas and violently repressed libidos who nevertheless wish to instruct us all how to live and love and screw?

 

Please note the response. Please observe how the kids merely look at you as though you're more than a little bit deranged and prehistoric, so out of touch you might as well be Dick Cheney talking up the diesel-powered rectal thermometers he so loved back in World War I.

 

Watch carefully as they sigh and roll their eyes, then whip out their Nokias to text their friends about how this creepy elder just tried to convince them that the harmless, yawningly commonplace homosexuality currently saturating the popular culture all around them, from fashion to movies, Facebook to "American Idol," is not only wrong, but so wrong that the law should ban it forever because... well, no one really seems to know exactly why.

 

Did you see it? That big, sighing shrug of what-the-hell-is-wrong-with-you, combined with lots of who-the-hell-cares? Because that's the reaction to note most of all.

 

Here is what it tells you: Gay marriage is a foregone conclusion. It's a done deal. It's just a matter of time. For the next generation in particular, equal rights for gays is not even a question or a serious issue, much less a sinful hysterical conundrum that can only be answered by terrified Mormons and confused old people and inane referendums funded by same. It's just obvious, inevitable, a given.

 

Let us hereby be reminded, before sadness and frustration overwhelm once more: Proposition 8 and its ilk are merely the last, fitful gasps of a long-dying ideology, markers of a certain kind of sad, conservative desperation. They are the final clawings and scrapings of a reactionary worldview that attempts to outlaw and punish all it cannot, will not understand. Same as it ever was, really.

 

The pattern is as old as fear itself. Remember, only rarely does true progress appear as a single, momentous, Obama-like shift that reverberates across the planet and changes everything in an instant. Most frequently it comes in fits and starts and hiccups, small lurches and hard-fought battles shot through with little spitballs of hate and intolerance and heaps of misunderstanding. You know, just like now.

 

Evidence? Plenty. Just look at the numbers: Support for gay marriage is now the highest it's been in American history, somewhere between 42 and 48 percent nationwide. Just a few decades ago, support was down in the 20s. It's been rising steadily ever since, never once regressing.

 

Or, flip that data around. According to FiveThirtyEight, marriage bans like California's are losing support at a rate of about two percent a year. According to that model, more than half of U.S. states will vote against bans like the contemptible Prop 8 as soon as 2012, if not sooner. By 2024, even miserably homophobic joints like Alabama and Mississippi will be flying the rainbow flag.

 

You could say, then, that we are, right this minute, at the tipping point. You could say that very soon indeed -- sooner than many people expect, in fact -- we will all look back on this inane gay marriage hysteria and wonder, what the hell was that all about? What the hell were we thinking? And by the way, isn't President Obama's second term going just astonishingly well?

 

As for massive, schizophrenic California, well, what can we say? In our convoluted, lurching, two steps forward eight steps sideways sort of quasi-progressive way, we flail and flip and frequently fail. It's just our way.

 

We may be a die-hard blue state overall, full of revolutionary ideas and world-class academics, Nobel Laureates and wondrous alternative belief systems, but we are also messy and flat-footed and just too damn big for our own good, and our southern half is packed to the Orange County rafters with piles of aging social conservatives and religious zealots with far too little spiritual/sexual awareness and far too much money. Sorry.

 

It's an undeniable shame indeed that this powerful, iconic, world-altering state couldn't get its damnable act together on The Last Civil Right. But, you know, oh well. Can't be the vanguard for 'em all. Iowa and Massachusetts, et al, please show us how it's done. And by the way, thank you.

 

Do not misunderstand: Setbacks like this Prop 8 decision are painful and even cruel, and the gay couples and activists who've been at the forefront of the fight since the beginning are nothing short of heroic. Like civil rights activists of any stripe before them, the subsequent generations who will take gay rights for granted will have them to thank forevermore for paving the way and fighting the good fight.

 

What's more, there is still an enormous amount of work to be done, new referendums and protests and fundraisers and awareness-raisings. The change will not come without help and push. Hate and homophobia still seethe in myriad pockets of the culture and the populace at large, even trickling down to dumb-blond silicon-injected beauty pageant runner-ups who parrot the same childlike religious misinformation her handlers have pumped into her kind for 2,000 wickedly patriarchal years.

 

But these setbacks are not insurmountable roadblocks. They are merely obnoxious speed bumps on what social conservatives see as our nation's ungodly highway to hell. They only slow us down a little.

 

A new campaign in the fight for marriage equality is already taking shape. Evolution is happening, the energy and momentum are unstoppable. Simply put, the ignorance and homophobia that fueled and funded Prop 8 in the first place will not stand.

 

Don't believe it? Hey, just ask your kids.

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2009/05/27/notes052709.DTL&tsp=1

[uwsman2]

Someone's taking the federal plunge...

 

According to a story posted on The Advocate's website, some mysterious new foundation (nobody knows who is funding it) is supporting a lawsuit by two California same-sex couples in federal court, claiming that denial of marriage rights to same sex couples violates the 14th Amendment. The kicker is that co-counsel on the case are reportedly Ted Olsen (GW Bush's Solicitor General) and David Boies (who argued against Olsen in Bush v. Gore, the 2000 Supreme Court case that put Bush in the White House). Reportedly, Olsen, a hard-right conservative, is a libertarian on gay issues -- a "fact" he's kept totally quiet until now. He believes the denial of marriage to same-sex couples violates core equality principles. I suspect that Olsen arguing on "our" side may make a difference in the federal courts.

[seaboy4hire]

Ca Supreme Court ruling = cop out.

They need to be voted out. I thought my states Supreme Court's ruling was bad with having to protect children and all that baby making mess. I'm smelling a ban on the state of Ca.

 

Hugs,

Greg

[Guest Wetnwildbear]

Allow me to Clarify

 

The Equal Protection argument will be taken to the US District Ct for Northern Calif which

 

will most likely uphold the state Supreme Ct decision or refuse to rule on jurisdictional

 

grounds.

 

 

The case will then go to the 9th US Circuit Ct of Appeals - a Ct which is infamous for its

 

progressive thinking, a Circuit that strikes fear in what passes for the hearts of

 

BornAgainBigottyBastards-MoronMormons-NumbskullNeoNazis-PissyPradaParadingPapists -

 

everywhere. The 9th will correctly conclude that pursuant to the US Constitution you

 

cannot exclude an entire class of people from rights granted to all others, including other

 

members of that group. As such the nefarious ninth will declare the amendment to the Cali

 

Constitution null and void.

 

 

RESULT: Rice and Rainbows reign all over the marriage-minded same-sex people of Cali.

 

In the alternative - The issue will be repealed by another ballot initiative in an off year

 

election.

 

 

"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival"

 

Winston Churchill

 

Nope to the previous poster... They can't make an argument based on equal protection under the California Constitution, because the court ruled that Prop 8 "carves a narrow exception" out of the California equal protection clause. And if they try to make a federal case out of it, they end up before our conservative U.S. Supreme Court, which is not likely to rule for same-sex marriage - unless it gets to them a few years down the line by which time Obama has had a chance to replace at least one of the present conservative justices. By the way, it looks likely that Sonia Sotomayor, whose confirmation is highly likely, will probably be a good vote for us - although it is always hard to predict when there isn't a substantial track record. And my understanding is that on LGBT issues there is not a substantial track record, although she's been on the appeals court for a long time.

[William]

After the Ninth Circuit Rules . . .

 

The previous poster makes a valid point that the Ninth Circuit is pretty liberal, and quite pro-gay, but consider some further analysis:

 

How "liberal" the Ninth Circuit is depends in part on who is on the panel. If it's a more conservative/moderate panel, they might boot the Olson-Boies claims. SCOTUS (Supreme Court of US) would probably deny certiorari (discretionary appeal).

 

The Ninth Circuit has an en banc process that could reverse a conservative panel (previous paragraph) --- but does the Circuit really want to do that, knowing that their recognition of gay marriage makes it likely that the issue will end up at SCOTUS, which is much more conservative on this issue?

 

Even some Ninth Circuit liberals might want to duck this issue rather than throw down a gauntlet that SCOTUS is likely to pick up if Ninth Circuit strikes down Prop 8. (If Ninth Circuit OK's Prop 8, doubtful that SCOTUS would take review.)

 

Olson and Boies -- a same-sex couple for the ages (right up there with Oscar and Felix, Mutt and Jeff, Bush and Cheney) -- are rolling the dice in a high-risk game here. Both of them know SCOTUS intimately, but . . . the conventional wisdom is that there are not nearly five votes for them on SCOTUS . . .

[+ glutes]

I 'heart' Dick

 

(06-01) 13:01 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --

 

Former Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday he supports gays being able to marry but believes states, not the federal government, should make the decision.

 

"I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone," Cheney said in a speech at the National Press Club. "I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish."

 

Cheney, who has a gay daughter, said marriage has always been a state issue.

 

"And I think that's the way it ought to be handled today, that is, on a state-by-state basis. Different states will make different decisions. But I don't have any problem with that. I think people ought to get a shot at that," he said.