breaking news: prop 8 upheld

[Sasha]

just in, proposition 8 (banning gay mariage in california) is upheld by the californian court.
suprisingly they did also rule that the 18.000 gay couples that maried before prop 8 was past are still and will remain legaly maried. :confused:
i'm curious about the implication of this but i assume its good ammo for the "banning gay rights is unconstituional because discrimitory" civilrights campaing

[Stranger Than Paradise]

What does that mean upheld, does that mean it will not be brought into practice or that it will.

[brigadista]

it means no gay marriage - prop 8 got through- im not really surprised but i agree with Psycho that there are implications in recognising gay marraiges that pre date the passing of prop 8- no doubt there will be a lot of legal action on this

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Wow that is really quite amazing. I must've been wrong in thinking California, for America's standards was one of the more progressive states, in terms of the people there.

[Il Medico]

I live in Florida, and we had a similar prop, prop 2. I think that we should just protest prop 8 but also the ones here and in Arizona that passed. For some reason you don't ever hear about the struggle of gays in my state and Arizona. People should realize the discrimination is not just in California.

[Sasha]

Wow that is really quite amazing. I must've been wrong in thinking California, for America's standards was one of the more progressive states, in terms of the people there.

yup that must hurt when Iowa has less biggoted and more progressive laws than you and your fellow proud liberal califonians...

[brigadista]

look at the cartoon governor..

[Stranger Than Paradise]

yup that must hurt when Iowa has less biggoted and more progressive laws than you and your fellow proud liberal califonians...

Sorry what do you mean? Who's you?

[Jimmie Higgins]

The courts ruled in an illogical BS way if you believe in bourgeois democracy, but I hope this is teaching a new generation that the courts are not impartial and the system will only budge if you force it to. Many of the people out there marching have already learned that you can't rely on sitting on your hands and hoping the Democrats or mainstream liberal orgs. will do something for you. They have learned that the bigots are well-organized and funded and that they will have to do the same to defeat them.

The anti-prop 8 marches I've been on have been some of the most confident and optimistic protests in the US since the first set of immigrant rights marches.

I will be in downtown SF tonight marching for marriage equality - unfortunately I already missed the planned civil disobedience.

[Sasha]

Sorry what do you mean? Who's you?

sorry; i meant the cliche california liberal thats convinced that A. the whole rest of california is also liberal and B. that self confesed liberals cant be secretly discriminative bigots on certain isues

[Stranger Than Paradise]

sorry; i meant the cliche california liberal thats convinced that A. the whole rest of california is also liberal and B. that self confesed liberals cant be secretly discriminative bigots on certain isues

Oh ok. Fucken hate liberals myself.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Oh ok. Fucken hate liberals myself.

I don't think the problem with liberals in this issue was that they are secretly homophobes (though some are undoubtedly) because the proposition passed by only a few percentage points (a great gain in a country where you couldn't marry someone of a different race and could be openly fired for being gay only a generation ago).

The real probablem with liberals in this case is that they control all the gay rights organizations and have sway over the general consciousness of opressed groups in the US.

So when prop 8 got on the ballot, the mormons and bigot groups went all out with their advertisements, and talking heads, while liberal gay rights groups collected money to get Senator "gay-marriage is a state's rights issue" Obama elected. The when polls showed that prop 8 was beginging to gain support, the liberal groups decided they better put their own ads on TV and radio - adds that were "closeted" and did not mention gays or the bigotry of the proposition AT ALL! It was only the week before the election that they had an add with a gay person and called marriage a civil rights issue. Had they been agressive and unapologetic all along, then gay people would be getting married right now in California.

This is the message we should get out there: liberals do not have the ability to lead our fights, we have to make our own movements that are unequivocal and unapologetic. Radical socialists and anarchists have been on the right side of these issues more consistanly and more effectivley than the liberal leaders and so we should be out there saying if you want gay rights, and end to bigotry, become a radical and join us to fight the system not work within its constraints.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Just for those who are curious. Proposition 8 was upheld by the Californian Supreme Court by 6 votes to 1.

It's sad, but not devastating. I think the worst thing that has come from this is all the publciity, I already find it infuriating how the left views gay marriage as epitome of gay liberation. :/

[Jimmie Higgins]

Just for those who are curious. Proposition 8 was upheld by the Californian Supreme Court by 6 votes to 1.

It's sad, but not devastating. I think the worst thing that has come from this is all the publciity, I already find it infuriating how the left views gay marriage as epitome of gay liberation. :/

Oh, are there other mass movements against homophobia right now? I guess if you were in Alabama in the 1960s, you'd get on the bus and say, "Hey a bus boycott won't liberate Black people in the US". Well it isn't but it led to a movement that became explicitly radical 10 years later.

So how to we turn "no on 9" into calls for "LGBT power" and "worker's power"... well not by being a pomo ultra-left armchair-radical. Radicals should be there and express a radical vision of LGBT liberation.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Oh, are there other mass movements against homophobia right now? I guess if you were in Alabama in the 1960s, you'd get on the bus and say, "Hey a bus boycott won't liberate Black people in the US". Well it isn't but it led to a movement that became explicitly radical 10 years later.

So how to we turn "no on 9" into calls for "LGBT power" and "worker's power"... well not by being a pomo ultra-left armchair-radical. Radicals should be there and express a radical vision of LGBT liberation.

0_o I do shit loads for LGBTQ liberation thanks and not from my armchair :P.

And blacks are not liberated in US, nor are they substantiially better because of that bus protest. New Orleans? Mass Afro-Carribean disenfranchisement in Florida??

Of course we agitate within these movements, but our argument mustn't be as linear as 'YES TO GAY MARRIAGE WHOOOOT!!!!' we must show how in the pursuit of a docile and subservient working class, the capitalist class will prepetuate homophobia (racism, anti-semitism etc. etc.). Moreover we should be pushing for a radical LGBTQ self-empowered movement that views a state-contract of ownership between two people as irrelivent.

[Communist Theory]

Wait, so all previously married gay couples are still legally married but gays couples aren't allowed to be legally married in California anymore?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Wait, so all previously married gay couples are still legally married but gays couples aren't allowed to be legally married in California anymore?

Yes, that is exactly what has happened. The propostion got passed by a 6 to 1 majority by the way.

[Dimentio]

just in, proposition 8 (banning gay mariage in california) is upheld by the californian court.
suprisingly they did also rule that the 18.000 gay couples that maried before prop 8 was past are still and will remain legaly maried. :confused:
i'm curious about the implication of this but i assume its good ammo for the "banning gay rights is unconstituional because discrimitory" civilrights campaing

They were married before it was made illegal?

[More Fire for the People]

it means no gay marriage - prop 8 got through- im not really surprised but i agree with Psycho that there are implications in recognising gay marraiges that pre date the passing of prop 8- no doubt there will be a lot of legal action on this
Indeed. In my state three years ago the Constitution was amended to define marriage as between a man and a woman. And last year there was a proposition to bar gay couples from adopting children that passed.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

This is one of the reasons I tend to believe the idea of progress is a lie and that the inevitability of communism is the simply an opiate to get through the miseries of living in an ignorant world.

People are ridiculously stupid. Upbringing and media are all contributors, but this is really damn stupid. Those things are always happening, too. You don't talk to people for thirty minutes, point out their ignorance, and move onto the next person. I've contributed to one person changing their mind on this topic. It's difficult if not impossible to convince people otherwise. It takes a long time, and they won't always listen.

I've noticed that people tend to hold views in blocks. Amongst every person, they have a set of sets of views. 1 through 10, say, hold individually coherent viewpoints. These sets aren't always consistent with one another, but they still believe them. To convince someone homosexuality is legitimate, you almost always have to convince them theism is false. This is because there is a self-evident belief in theism that grounds their viewpoints.

A simple contradiction is not sufficient for convincing someone. It takes piles of evidence.

[redSHARP]

They were married before it was made illegal?


most likely a "grand-father clause" type issue (mainly used for building regulations in NYC as an example). if you do something before the law was passed, usually they let you continue your actions, like not being up to code or remain married (drugs and violent crimes are different).

the thing is, not everyone is radical as us. its like in the Matrix, yeah they would love to liberate the humans from the matrix, but most are not ready or willing to. marriage is a liberal bourgeois issue, and we should help out, but that is not our main agenda, and nor should we forget that. personally, marriage is bs in most cases. but we should help out, because if the gay community feels oppressed, we should help them in their quest for civil rights (even if it is in a bourgeois issue).

[Jimmie Higgins]

0_o I do shit loads for LGBTQ liberation thanks and not from my armchair :P.

And blacks are not liberated in US, nor are they substantiially better because of that bus protest. New Orleans? Mass Afro-Carribean disenfranchisement in Florida??

Of course we agitate within these movements, but our argument mustn't be as linear as 'YES TO GAY MARRIAGE WHOOOOT!!!!' we must show how in the pursuit of a docile and subservient working class, the capitalist class will prepetuate homophobia (racism, anti-semitism etc. etc.). Moreover we should be pushing for a radical LGBTQ self-empowered movement that views a state-contract of ownership between two people as irrelivent.

First and foremost, we should fight for equality. I haven't met anyone at one of these protests who thinks that gay marriage is the end rather than the beginning of a new fight for civil rights - this is the sentiment on the ground here. Most of the people I've met are young and don't even want to get married, but in a society that says you are sick in the head and you should hide your sexuality, how can winning gay marriage be seen as anything but a victory for the oppressed and a blow to the right.

Second, the US bus boycotts achieved nothing??!! It inspired a generation of Southern blacks to fight back which lead to proletariat blacks in cities to radicalize to the point where armed insurrection was on the table. Sure there were many problems with the movement and after initial gains (like with the women's lib movement) rights have been taken away and jim-crow was replaced by the prison system we have now, but that's a totally different discussion.

Saying the early liberal part of the civil rights movement is meaningless is like saying sperm is useless to forming a baby because 99.999% of the sperm dies. It's like saying the French Revolution was meaningless because at first the french radicals wanted to keep the King and have a constitutional monarchy.

[Jimmie Higgins]

They were married before it was made illegal?

The same state supreme court ruled that not allowing gay marriage was unconstitutional and civil unions were separate and unequal. 18,000 people got married once it was allowed and then prop 8 passed, outlawing gay marriage.

The court wanted to find a "middle ground" because it was feeling heat from both sides. So it pulled an 8-inch knife out of our backs an inch and wants thanks for leaving us to bleed to death.

But the sentiment at the protest tonight was that times have changed and if we keep fighting, it's only a matter of time. The mainstream liberal groups want to slow things and not make waves, I hope people have learned the lesson that their waves are what got the court to even consider hearing the case and their waves caused other states to legalize gay marriage.

[Sasha]

now this is an intresting take on the ruling, acording to the blog of this liberal lawyer (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/26/735571/-Read-page-36.-They-just-cut-Prop-8-to-the-bone) the californian court in fact only banded the right to call an gay-mariage a mariage (and at that only within california) wich is an insult and an disgrace but is also means gays for the rest can still get under state law the same exact rights as straight couples, inc even the right to call their husband/wife just that; their husband/wife, they (and others) only cant call their relationship an mariage as long as they are within state lines. :confused:

[edit] and someone just pointed out in the coments that under american free speech laws civilians can basicly say whatever they want so in the end it may turn out that the mormons and the rest of the bigots spended milions on forcing the californian goverment to call black an form of blackish gray wich is secretly just black like all other black but we are not alowed to call it that yet[\edit] :lol:


Read page 36. They just cut Prop 8 to the bone.

by Seneca Doane (http://seneca-doane.dailykos.com/)

Tue May 26, 2009 at 11:51:14 AM PDT

Being an activist progressive blogging lawyer requires wearing four hats, one for each word. My first response to Strauss, today's decision on Prop 8, was outrage and disdain. That came from wearing my first three hats. This diary comes from wearing my fourth one. There is still cause for anger, no doubt, but I think that -- as with the "defeats" for progressives in Bakke (regarding affirmative action) and Casey (regarding abortion rights) people have so far missed the most critical aspect of today's decision.
It's on page 36.
I'm not going to say that this decision is a win for our side. But in the most critical ways, it's a loss for the other side.

In last year's landmark 4-3 decision, In re Marriage Cases, the California Supreme Court decided that same-sex couples have a fundamental right under state law to every single advantage that heterosexual couples do, including the right to call their legal union "marriage."
Today, the court unanimously upheld the substantive fundamental right. Liberal to conservative, they all now accept it. They construed Prop 8 as narrowly as possible: as a initiative that addressed what we would label these relationships that we normally call marriage. The voters said that we can't call these relationships "marriage" when they involve same-sex couples. That's an insult to gays and lesbians and I hope and believe that it will not last. But note what this does not say.
Prop 8, now that the Supreme Court has stripped it down to a bare bone, does not say any of the following:
(1) It does not say that any provision of California law that invokes the label marriage does not also apply to these "civil unions" or whatever we call them -- how about "marrijezz"? -- that same-sex couples will henceforth undertake.
(2) It does not even say that these legal relationship aren't marriages. It just says that the voters decided that in California, if they occurred after a certain date, we aren't going to call them that. This isn't a minor point: it means that if a couple that has had a California "marrije" leaves the state, they have the right to say that they are "married" and have a correctly spelled "marriage" and -- when the Full Faith and Credit case eventually comes down -- have the same right to full faith and credit as does anyone from another state who got officially and legally married.
(3) It doesn't say that the participants in "marrijezz" can't call each other "husband" or each other "wife" -- or that they can't legally demand to be able to call themselves husbands and wives. This was, in the eyes of the California Supreme Court, entirely about cutting a particular tag off a dress before allowing same-sex couples to buy it. Do you think that the "this is called a marriage" tag is the same as the "I can call this man my husband or this woman my wife" tag? Nope -- that's a different tag. If voters want to eliminate the words "husband" and "wife" from same-sex partners, they have to pass a new initiaitve. Does that start to convey a sense of how deeply the Court carved down Prop 8 today?
Voters thought that they were putting an end to gay couples being able to take a legal step that gave them the privileges and immunities of marriage. They thought that they were undoing In re Marriage Cases. What the Supreme Court said, essentially is: "OK, public, we will give you the ground that we technically have to cede -- and not a millimeter more. Except for the one thing that you have specifically forced us to change, In re Marriage Cases stands as we wrote it. Except now it's not a 4-3 decision, it's 7-0."
The Court explains, as I've tried to do in comments, on pages 126-135 why it was OK to let existing marriages stands. It is using time-honored legal principles used to determine when a statute has to be determined to have a retroactive effect. The intent has to be explicit, especially when it is taking away vested rights. If the language is not explicit, it has to be crystal clear from context. In this case, as they note, the issue of retroactive application was not even raised in the voter guide statement submitted by proponents. That's not nearly enough for retroactive application.
However, the reason should be even more clear when you realize what they actually did here. In re Marriage Cases was, let's say, 95% substantive and 5% symbolic. If they recognized Prop 8 as taking away 100% of what they did in those cases -- or even 50% or 25% -- then perhaps there would be a close call involving retroactive application. However, if the only difference is what label gets sewn onto the same dress, then we're arguing about 5% of it. That 5% is still significant enough -- this is, after all, an "official insult" aimed by the voters at gays and lesbians -- that they can prevent retroactive application. But underlying that is this idea, in which I paraphrase the Court:
We now have two kinds of marriage in the state: those conducted up until the day Prop 8 passed and those conducted starting the day after it passed. For the former marriages, those conducted by both heterosexual and homosexual couples can be called marriage. For the latter marriages, heterosexual marriages can be officially called marriages and homosexual marriages -- which are still marriages in fact -- have to be called something else. So don't bother us about retroactivity; this difference between pre- and post-Prop 8 marriages is no big deal.
I still, I expect, would have signed onto Moreno's partial dissent. (I'm not done with my reading.) But if you look at who won and who lost today, we lost something emotionally important and our opponents, the people who paid for Prop 8, lost almost everything of substance. In time, they will realize that the battle was really over In re Marriage Cases, and they got their butts kicked.
So, while I'm disappointed, I'm no longer outraged. It's hard to be outraged when a unanimous California Supreme Court just reiterated that California law gives every couple regardless of gender the fundamental right to be married in fact, even if voters have messed with the labels. Our opponents lost more today than we did.
UPDATE Here's pages 36-37, starting halfway down the former:
Applying similar reasoning in the present context, we properly must view the adoption of Proposition 8 as carving out an exception to the preexisting scope of the privacy and due process clauses of the California Constitution as interpreted by the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th 757. The scope of the exception created by Proposition 8, however, necessarily is determined and limited by the specific language and scope of the new constitutional provision added by the ballot measure. Here the new constitutional provision (art. I, § 7.5) provides in full: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." By its terms, the new provision refers only to "marriage" and does not address the right to establish an officially recognized family relationship, which may bear a name or designation other than "marriage." Accordingly, although the wording of the new constitutional provision reasonably is understood as limiting use of the designation of "marriage" under California *\37 law to opposite-sex couples, and thereby modifying the decision in the Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th 757, insofar as the majority opinion in that case holds that limiting the designation of "marriage" to the relationship entered into by opposite-sex couples constitutes an impermissible impingement upon the state constitutional rights of privacy and due process, the language of article I, section 7.5, on its face, does not purport to alter or affect the more general holding in the Marriage Cases that same-sex couples, as well as opposite-sex couples, enjoy the constitutional right, under the privacy and due process clauses of the California Constitution, to establish an officially recognized family relationship. Because, as a general matter, the repeal of constitutional provisions by implication is disfavored (see, e.g., In re Thiery S. (1979) 19 Cal.3d 727, 744; Warne v. Harkness (1963) 60 Cal.2d 579, 587-588), Proposition 8 reasonably must be interpreted in a limited fashion as eliminating only the right of same-sex couples to equal access to the designation of marriage, and as not otherwise affecting the constitutional right of those couples to establish an officially recognized family relationship.
this is the kind of stuff that makes me regret i decided not to go to lawschool.