They’re idiots, Teddy.

I’m sorry.

FUCK SHIT
PISS
!!!
I guess this means we need to get a prop on the ballot outlawing the minority Republicans!!

Back to the rallying cry!

Amen! Glad to see the ban upheld!!

Sorry Teddy and everyone in CA. This is bullshit.

It means the Mormons are celebrating and that the Supremes have no guts.

FUUUUUCKKKKK!
I’m beyond angry about this decision.

I can’t understand how that works. Either all the marriages are null, or it’s legal. Our Supreme Court is insane I guess.

The California Supreme Court has been afraid of the electorate since the Reich Wing was able to recall Rose Bird after she pissed them off about capital punishment.

I wish I could say I’m surprised by their cowardice, but it’s all part of their pattern.

Disappointing but not unexpected. It still boggles my mind that Iowa and Maine are more progressive than California.

The lesson of Rose Bird — thrown off the court by voters after getting ahead of them on the death penalty twenty years ago — was not lost on these justices, who decided to go with “the will of the people” even though an incredibly dangerous precedent has been set. Only in California can fundamental rights actually be taken away from a minority of citizens by a majority vote; that has now been ratified by our Supreme Court.

Very chilling times we live in, when Justices care more about staying in their seats than upholding fundamental rights they ruled in favor of just one short year ago.

I can’t understand how that works. Either all the marriages are null, or it’s legal. Our Supreme Court is insane I guess.

I tend to agree, but I haven’t read the text of the decision yet. It sounds like they tried to split the baby in half.

But all those same sex couples who were married during the Rainbow Window are safe.
Maybe you should tell them your feelings, frederic.

Looks like a recall in the works. If you have justices of your state supreme court that don’t understand the constitution, why not be rid of them?

Hang in, Teddy. Allowing that the pre-prop marriages are valid opens the door wide. It won’t be much longer.

LA Times story up: http://www.latimes.com/news/lo…..7891.story

Still need a working link to the decision.

Is it possible that by setting this up as the law in California, that the CASC is pushing for a Federal Equal Protection claim?

It is pretty clear that this is in fact set up to be unequal, and it seems pretty much a sure thing that it will head to Federal court…

Crowd blocking Van Ness at Grove says they will “block traffic until they get arrested” which is the big story on KRON4, of course….

*sigh*

Agreed, I don’t see how Equal Protection can be ignored.

When it comes to gays and lesbians it’s obvious it can be.

Ugh. Save for the Rainbow window, this is a really ugly outcome. Teddy, I am so sorry.

I hope CA’s people will make far better choices in 2010 – and I hope an equal protection claim in Federal court rescinds Prop 8 well before that.

As an old straight guy I really thought this would win. This time every one needs to work harder to get the vote out and not think you have in the bag.
jo6pac

So the CA courts think discrimination is ok as long as the people vote on it, eh? Maybe the religious right should pass a proposition outlawing divorce – how would the courts rule on that one?

Now, will California honor out-of-state same-sex marriages, as it will the Rainbow Window marriages? Soon, many if not all couples wanting to be married will be, but same-sex couples just won’t be able to have the ceremony performed in California. Strange.

Why are these people afraid of living in a real democracy ?

Can one of the Legal Eagles say if this can be challenged at the SCOTUS, say in the fall after Sotomayor has been confirmed ?

Kirk !

Is an Equal Protection Claim a real possibility ?

I would agree with our friend, macaquerman … this is a brief delay. This shouldn’t even be an issue in a true democracy but there it is.

SF media seems to be rolling with the “wtf?” aspect of this ruling, upholding Prop 8 and the marriages. Lots of “equal protection” and “different classes” chatter with legal professors.

Democracy to the bigots is a system where everybody does as they’re told by the believers of the myths of the Old Testament. Any society that is not ruled by patriarchal authoritarian sexually repressed white men cannot be a democracy.

Thanks but I’m tired of being a second class citizen in my own country.

It makes no sense to me. It’s a cop out.

Teddy, I’m so sorry for you/yours and all the people this impacts on such a hugely personal level… We’ll just keep trying until everyone can love/marry who they wish and it not be ANYONES business… Sad day, but it shall be overcome…

Judicial Cowardice – the initial commenters upthread were correct

p.s. still can’t get in to any server posting the decision

This ruling does appear rife with cognitive dissonance.

I’ll bet it inspires a lot of marriages in the states that currently allow it, hoping to be protected by a grandfather clause if the right is ever taken away.

bits and pieces of Decision via Calitics:

Contrary to petitioners’ assertion,
Proposition 8 does not entirely repeal or abrogate the aspect of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right of privacy and due process that was analyzed in the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases – that is, the constitutional right of same-sex couples to “choose one’s life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage” (Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 829). Nor does Proposition 8 fundamentally alter the meaning and substance of state constitutional equal protection principles as articulated in that opinion. Instead, the measure carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights, reserving the official designation of the term “marriage” for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law, but leaving undisturbed all of the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws.

oh, and full embrace of Starr Doctrine:

Neither the language of the relevant constitutional provisions, nor our past cases, support the proposition that any of these rights is totally exempt from modification by a constitutional amendment adopted by a majority of the voters through the initiative process.

Full Decision text here (PDF)

Join Repair California: http://www.repaircalifornia.org and lets write equality into a new state constitution!

Petro! So good to see you here.

Millineryman – and Teddy – and so many others – I apologize my nation treats you and so many wonderful people as second-class citizens. There is no excuse.

Oh – and anyone who can grab KQED’s coverage over 10:20ish to 10:4ish – upon discussing the opinion, Douglad Kmiec (?sp) and one other attorney soundingish person seemed to find the text is actaully supportive of same sex parternship, but can’t use the “m” word due to the hideous Proposition. All of that makes no sense to me whatsoever, but IANAL.

It does not surprise me that these black robed masonic cultist do not understand nor comprehend Equality.

I have already withdrawn and transferred my money left in California Banks and it has been placed in a Gay Equality out of state banks. California businesses are next on the list to be informed that California’s Apartheid is a violation of Good Business Practices so they are no longer on the list of suppliers.

Mormons are a Cult composed of a membership with Vascular Dementia.
Their level of comprehension is equal to that of a Crack Addict.
They qualify for Temple membership only after demonstrating they have been thoroughly broken of any vestiges of humanity. So Boycott, Boycott and Boycott all things Mormon and Utah. They are the Used Car Dealers of Cults.

The Holy Roman Empire needs more lawsuits against its criminal activities.
I am sure there are many thousands more of abused children out there.
Nazi Germany and conquered lands had a CHURCH TAX that all went to the Holy Roman Empire, need I say more………..

Instead, the measure carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights, reserving the official designation of the term “marriage” for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law, but leaving undisturbed all of the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws.

You’ve got to be fucking kidding me. How is that NOT “separate but equal”?

Via Calitics, statement from State Senator Mark Leno, whose marriage equality bill has passed the California legislature twice only to be vetoed by Arnold:

“Today’s decision is extremely disappointing for California and hurts thousands of caring couples who wish to make lifelong commitments to one another through marriage. Let today’s decision be a rallying cry for all Californians who believe in equality and fairness, and encourage thousands more to stand up and fight the pervasive injustices LGBT people face in our community and our nation.”
“The issue before this court was much greater than marriage equality. The question asked of our justices goes to the core of our society. Can a majority vote undermine a foundation stone of our constitutional democracy, equal protection under the law? Today our highest court ruled that minorities do not matter.”

“Through our disappointment, we will still find hope and encouragement, including the 18,000 couples whose marriages in California remain secure and protected today. Through our sadness, our resolve to fight for justice and equality only grows stronger. Love is an unstoppable force, and equality is right around the corner.”

Doesn’t California have two ways that voters can change this? Ballot initiatives and failure to reconfirm judges?

Isn’t it muscle time for progressives in California?

Also via Calitics, statement from US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi:

Today’s ruling by the Supreme Court in support of Proposition 8 is deeply disappointing because this ballot initiative takes away individual rights.

I have long fought for equality for all of California’s families and will strongly support efforts to restore marriage equality in California, so it can join the ranks of states such as Iowa and Vermont.

I have already withdrawn and transferred my money left in California Banks and it has been placed in a Gay Equality out of state banks. California businesses are next on the list to be informed that California’s Apartheid is a violation of Good Business Practices so they are no longer on the list of suppliers.

Mormons are a Cult composed of a membership with Vascular Dementia.

I’d suggest a boycott of both states.

I wonder how those Utah ski resorts, and all of the Marriott properties, would react to being told they’re being shunned because of their support for this?

I’m a bit torn on CA [was born there & used to live there], because obviously 50%+ of the folks there are okay, but is there some way for the rest of the country to demonstrate its disapproval.

Suggestions?

Just wanted to let you know that FDL had this up far before HuffPo, which still hasn’t posted.

What a bunch of fucking wimps, is this what we appoint Supreme Court members to do – equivocate and pass the fucking buck?

This means that, now, one gay couple in California can sue another gay couple in California for unequal protection under the law. Brilliant. Apparently gays HAD the right to marry in California for a very limited time, then it evaporated. How absurd.

They’re just passing this upstairs to the U.S. Supreme Court.

California voters better be careful when marijuana is legalized, because nine months later the Mormons will pay to have it re-prohibited and then all the hemp fields and grass cafes will miraculously become illegal again.

Although this is the decision everyone predicted, I am still shocked the court took the cowardly way out.

Some relevant snippets from the California Constitution:

Article 1:

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

SEC. 7. (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws…

SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

My bold.

I would agree with those who would argue that the equal protection clause can not be reconciled with the Sec. 7.5 prohibition. The California Supreme Court basically folded on this one. Its opinion is not a judicial response to the law but a political decision to throw this back into the laps of the political process.

Nazi Germany and conquered lands had a CHURCH TAX that all went to the Holy Roman Empire, need I say more………..

Actually “church tax”/”Kirchensteuer” (Christian) and “cult tax”/”Kultussteuer” (Jewish) are simply the German words for the membership dues of religious denominations.

The “tax” reference was (and is) a traditional denominator, rather than a legal description even during the Third Reich era.

This may do not anything for the folks Prop 8 targets, but if the rest of the union would just toss us out, CA would prolly be better off. Once CA’s no longer an incubator for extreme US right wingers, America’s politics can only improve. Once the nation’s most reactionary funders no longer have reason to flood our state with dollars for wingnut candidate, CA’s politics will definitely improve.

We’ll still send lettuce in winter, promise.

Any takers? *g*

Thanks, you really cut to the quick and nailed the salient point for me.

If this goes federal, how does SCOTUS distinguish Romer v. Evans?

I’m done with all of it. Obama could have shown leadership on this issue and others affecting the LGBT community like DOMA and DADT but he hasn’t. He’s been totally silent on all of it. Maybe Clinton would have thrown us under the bus as well but then maybe she wouldn’t have. I served my country honorably. I gave to Obama, I volunteered for his campaign. I’ve participated in the system more often than more than 99% of the population has done. I’m done with it. It doesn’t work when the majority can strip the rights from a minority. I’m done giving. I’m done volunteering. I’m done voting and since I can’t get the full benefits of society, I refuse to take on the same responsibilities so I’m done paying taxes. Yes, I’ll go to jail but WTF difference can that make? It’s not like I’m free now. I hope all of the bigoted assholes in California who talk shit about equal rights and then get into the booth and vote others’ rights away are happy. Please, feel free to pass any laws you want because I. Am. Done.

Dear CALI court – Sorry about your schizophrenia – there are medications available to treat this now, just sayin’.

Dear Margaret – I’m really very sorry for your pain today. In a majority rule democracy it is not unusual that the minority has to petition repeatedly for their rights. You won a half measure today and the rest will come. It is just difficult to overturn a measure that was subject to ballot a ballot, and equally difficult to understand why CA, of all places, is so stuck in the sand on this issue. This is not Obama’s fault, he is not in charge of all legislation in the land, nor is he (or should he be) in charge of court decisions. Should your anger subside at some point I hope you will go back to working for your cause. The future is heading your way.

This is not Obama’s fault, he is not in charge of all legislation in the land, nor is he (or should he be) in charge of court decisions

He could have shown leadership on Proposition 8 but he did not. He could have shown leadership on the Defense of Marriage Act but he has refused. He is the only one in the country who can show leadership on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell but he is backing away from that promise. Yes. I can blame him. I’ll blame him and all of the rest of the gutless so-called liberals who let shit like this happen without a peep. Maybe he isn’t guilty of committing the crime but he is definitely guilty of standing there mute while it happened.

It will be a durable and lasting equality for members of the military if DADT is overturned by law rather than Presidential pen. He has never been for same sex marriage but I believe he is persuadable on the subject and will follow the law when it gets there. You can’t expect a person to show leadership on an issue they don’t support. Many people are examining their conscience today and I hope it will hasten the day towards your goal of fair treatment and legal protection, truly deserved by all citizens.

I have another question for the Legal Eagles … does California have to recognize same- sex marriages from other states/countries ? If so, can a case be made that it is unfair to do so while refusing to allow Californians the same right (free choice of marriage) ?

Keep at this folks, giving up is not an option.

Dear Margaret,

You are misunderstanding Barack Obama. He is not (and has never been) a liberal, much less a radical liberal. He is (and apparently has always been) a moderate. It says a lot about how far this country has been pushed towards authoritarianism that President Obama can be labeled a liberal and the label be believed by anyone aware of the record.

All of Obama’s acts to this point (and I think throughout his presidency this will be true) are the actions of a moderate.

I also believe that Obama is probably as liberal a candidate as we could have elected last year. That’s a real shame, but that’s the nature of the beast. Quitting is exactly the wrong thing to do. Obama will do what we force on him. On the Federal level, I think that we need to kill Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell and DOMA. In California, repealing Proposition 8 and arranging the recall of the six judicial cowards who refused to rule should be the next things on the progressive agenda.

Prop 8 was upheld because the CASC is afraid of being Birded (see Rose Bird) by the Right. The Left now has to show them that they are also worthy of fear, if not respect. Recall the spineless weasels!

In a word, Petro, no.

DOMA says that no state has to recognize same-sex marriages that it didn’t license.

Impeaching judges for overturning a court ruling affirming a law that won majority sounds tough to me, but I am a Chicago moderate (if you’ve been to Chicago, you know how funny that is – we are v. urban liberal here). Still we are just getting around to considering gay marriage, although it should pass easily once it’s gets on a ballot. It’s the getting to the ballot bit that’s hard (damn those conservative downstaters). Anyway, wouldn’t repealing the law itself be a hell of a lot easier for CA? Or just arguing the against the logic of having one lucky group of marrieds that squeezed through the window and turning away all others as having created two classes of citizen rights? Obv. I’m no lawyer but this sounds Supreme Court bound to me.

Or possibly I’m not making sense… it sounds to me like they were ruling on the ability of the State to amend the constitution via Proposition and decided it was ok, then decided to not undo previous actions that went against the Prop.

I agree. Overturning 8 is probably the fastest course of action at this point, unless there is an expedited appeal possible to USSC. I don’t know if that’s the case, and I would not care to place a bet saying that Roberts and Company would do the right thing.

As far as what they found, apparently (I have not been able to get the text of the decision yet)they found that Prop 8 was indeed a permissible amendment (as opposed to an impermissible revision) of the State’s Constitution. The fact that this creates contradictions in the Constitution is apparently neither here nor there for them.

Recalling judges for ruling is tough love. In this case, I’m advocating removing them for failure to rule. This ruling tries to split the difference in a situation where there are irreconcilable differences in the positions. Part of being a judge is recognizing those situations and picking the ruling you believe in greatest harmony with the law.

The fact is that California appellate judges (state level, not federal) have been running scared of the Right for 20 years. It’s time to teach them that they have to fear the Left, too.

Thank you for the explanation, I would dearly love to see judges here in IL recalled for not making any damn sense at all! More power to the recall effort then. Also, just my opinion, Obama is pretty liberal socially, he is just slow walking his way toward gay marriage. Overtime I believe he (and lots of others) will see it as a civil rights issue and find it increasingly difficult to be anti. The ‘I support civil unions and not gay marriage’ line is a convenient cop-out for dems that can’t quite go there. Somehow, it always reminds me of the ’some of my best friends are black’ bromide. My preferred solution to the marriage issue is to deny all partners, regardless of sexual orientation, a marriage by the state, all unions will be civil and if you want to get married go to church. Oh, the wailing and gnashing of teeth a law like that would cause! People would get behind gay marriage in a hurray if ‘opposite marriage’ were on the chopping block too.

I think this is a critical part of the decision. They have narrowed Prop. 8 down to a single word that can’t be used to describe otherwise equal unions. All the same rights are still there, just not the word “marriage.”

Big deal. Put an initiative on the ballot to eliminate ‘marriage’ and make them all ‘civil unions’ that are recognized by the states. Get the government out of the marriage business and leave that to the biblicans and the churches. Why does it have to be any thing more than a civil union as far as the state is concerned? I think most people would vote for such an initiative and save a lot of time, money and energy. Informally people can call their unions what they want just like they always have.

The court was preserving a very important democratic process of lawmaking directly by the voters. Like every good thing, the initiative process can be misused and abused but there are still many good reasons that it should remain as a way for a direct voice especially at times when the elected officials are corrupt or bought off by special interests.

Civil unions for everyone! Ban all marriages for legal purposes. That will fix it. Just pass an initiative replacing ‘marriage’ by ‘civil unions’ in the California code. Poof!

That would work too.

It’s a solution I’ve advocated for years. In europe, couples who want to marry have a two-step process. They go to the clerk’s office and register the union, and they go to church (or where ever) to get whoever else’s stamp of approval is necessary.

Then everyone’s equal. The State need not recognize unregistered relationships, and the Church need not sanction any relationship it finds distasteful. So, I wouldn’t expect to see the Roman Catholic Church conducting same-sex weddings any time soon. But that wouldn’t stop gay couples from registering their unions with the County Clerk.

Sorry, Teddy. Rights are rights for everybody. Marginalization of minorities diminishes us all. Too bad that SCOCA has chosen to step backwards. Too bad that the MSM works to obscure the roots of this issue.

On a lighter note, I like Kinky Friedman’s (Texas satirist extraordinaire) take on supporting gay marriage.

I support gay marriage. I believe they have a right to be as miserable as the rest of us.

Speaking of bromides, I harken back to Himmler’s speech at Poznan (Posen).

And then they all come along, the eighty million good Germans, and each one has his decent Jew.

So who are you going to disenfranchise next, SCOCA? What equivocations, euphemisms and rationalizations will you use?