The California Supreme Court is going to issue its anxiously awaited ruling on gay marriage before June. What do you think the outcome will be? If they rule to overturn prop 8 what will the consequences be, and what happens if they rule to uphold the anti-gay marriage amendment. Take out your crystal ball and tell us where you see California with regards to the gay marriage fight in the upcoming months and years ahead.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Open Forum: What Will Happen in California?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
They will uphold 8 and allow the marriages to stand. We will again have it on the ballot in 2010. We will win after courting black voters for the next two years.
I would hope the court would toss 8 on the grounds that it violates several other tenets of the CA Constitution.
It would be nice if they could tank voter initiative too. The founding fathers of this country knew what folly true democracy was, it's why for most part we're a Representative Republic.
But CA subscribed to the Bread and Circuses model of democracy.
Telling from how one of the judges was making the Repeal 8 side reargue the case we won last year, clearly they've forgotten everything they learned.
On legal merits and common sense, 8 should be overturned. It cripples any attempt to protect minorities in California and gives unfettered power to temporary majorities. Which are two things our founding fathers abhorred and Californians themselves in the constitution wanted to protect against. Hence having the term 'revision' exist at all. But since some of the judges are not really looking at what this does in the bigger picture for some reason and instead are trying to argue that separate but equal is somehow ok [ that gays should be happy we give them anything at all . Ugh. So sick of that. How condescending. ] 8 will probably be upheld, the marriages will be upheld, and we will have to go back to the ballot. Biggest problem? Even if we regain our fundamental right in the next go around - California's constitution is forever scarred by this sundering of the courts powers. I'm still praying that the court does their actual job and doesn't fall under the stupidest argument ever. "but the voters said so" - yeah, this isn't a direct democracy. We have checks and balances. You guys hit up against a check. I'd like to keep the check so we can preserve some balance in our state.
It appears that prop 8 will be upheld. As one of the 18,000 marriages I believe our marriage will also be upheld and I'm not sure how I really feel about it. My prediction is that they will come after domestic partnerships next or gay adoption. Most of the state will vote against DP and against allowing gays to adopt. Gay rights will not be advanced in California, the state is not ready. Our rights will have to be won in the northeast and on the federal level. It's hard to believe but California = Arkansas when it comes to gay rights.
To Anonymous -
Stop being melodramatic. Try going to Arkansas and see how truly few protections gays have there. It might suck in California (and it can obviously get better), but at least you have workplace anti-discrimination laws, domestic partnerships, gay adoption, etc. For some people out in the heartland they worry if coming out will affect their ability to keep their job, pay rent and eat - not so in California.
Yeah the Kid makes a good point...everything isn't great in California but don't forget how badly it sucks to be queer in other states that haven't advanced so far, like...uhh...the rest of the country save for a few states.
Anyway, I'm not feeling as optimistic as I was just because right now but I just really hope it gets over turned in the name of what's right which doesn't mean much I guess. I'm hoping I get surprised half to death but I just felt like the previous marriages are going to stand but prop 8 is going to be upheld :/
They way the justices questioned the anti-8 side versus Ken Starr seems to me that they will uphold 8 but allow the 18k marriages to remain. What scares me is that the pro-equality justices in the initial ruling seemed to be the most resistant to the idea. Unless they were putting a poker face?
Post a Comment