Hoooookay.

[kyburg]

Last word on the Prop 8 front - they're taking it Federal.

As in, you can't do that on a state level - it conflicts with the Federal level, with regards to discrimination.

Which, if you recall - hasn't been exactly receptive to the whole idea.

...

Anyone besides me think is a Bad Idea?

Like, the SCOTUS probably won't even see the case?

But the stakes couldn't be any more juicy - they win it there, it's automatically everywhere, New York, Neeeeew Yaaaaahrk.

*sighs*

Things remain harder than they need to be, nobody is really looking hard enough at this to see it means less government, not more and I can't see where it's changed/threatned me in the least. I mean, 18,000 cases already exist and I don't know any of them (except George, and that's at a significant remove).

Going home now.

Comments

[washuotaku.livejournal.com]

I think the Federal Court is much too conservative for them to win, but then who knows, stranger things have happened. Yes, it's true, if Supreme Court rules against California on the law, it would strike down every other state constitution in the nation.

If the courts side with the state, then I don't feel that would be a negative either; you already have states that either have a ban or not and that's not going to embolden more states to do one or other. I also don't see craziness on the streets against gays and what not; I think we are beyond that stuff. Even then, they will probably bring up another case again in 5-10 years if the court changes more to there favor.

I say "go for it," can't hurt to try.

[legolastn.livejournal.com]

As I understand it, technically a ruling striking down prop 8 on equal protections grounds could simply force states that have civil unions to change to marriage, without forcing states not offering same-sex couple benefits to do so. Especially if it goes to SCOTUS and there is a favorable ruling in regards to same-sex marriage (which is questionable to begin with), this seems the most likely outcome since SCOTUS rulings tend to be as limited in scope as possible.

[sarahwilder.livejournal.com]

I don't think SCOTUS will hear it because they'll wait for a straight up marriage discrimination case. What makes this one murky is the issue with the right of citizens to change their state constitution. I think they'll pass until something more cut-and-dried shows up (which it will).

[moropus.livejournal.com]

I look at the SCOTUS and I see mostly dried up, conservative, white men. They won't be pro-gay, IMHO. if they even see the case, they will bounce it out on the sidewalk. Its too soon. We need a younger, more diverse court. We need people from every possible background. Then and only then will the SCOTUS be fair to people other than mostly dried up, conservative, white men.

[magaliiiii.livejournal.com]

What with DOMA still existing, I tend to agree with you; the Fed isn't exactly opening the door to gay marriage. Plus, as one commenter already mentioned, this case is a little too ensnared by other hang-ups, like the validity of the election etc.

I think forcing this on people via the courts instead of taking it to popular vote is just going to make people madder; I believe we could and would pass gay marriage legislation sometime in the next couple election cycles, but not if we keep pissing undecided people off by saying "fuck you, we're going over your heads!"

Have you read the actual ruling?

[worldmenders.livejournal.com]

I spent a little time digging though the legalese, Overall I'm not particularly impressed with the ruling, but in the end I think we can say that the original proposition:

"Shall the California Constitution be changed to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry providing that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California?"

when passed though the bowels of the California Supreme Court, came out as:

The California Constitution shall be changed to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to be called 'married' providing that the word marriage may only be applied if the couple is a woman and a man, excepting for those same-sex couples who were legally married between June 16, 2008 and November 5, 2008, who's marriages are valid and recognized, and may use the word 'married' to describe their relationship, so there.

Re: Have you read the actual ruling?

[kuangning]

That was my take too; the CSC basically went "We have to take away the word marriage because of Prop 8, but we're not touching the state of *being* married, the state will just have to call it something else for same-sex couples. Except those 18,000 who got in before this and are grandfathered in. Oh, and by the way? Their civil unions? They still have to be de-facto marriages with all the rights of marriages under state law, even if the state can't call it that. You get the word though; enjoy your win."

Re: Have you read the actual ruling?

[worldmenders.livejournal.com]

My favorite suggestion for a new word comes from the Princess Bride: "Mawidge" (Hat Tip to homogenius at the Daily Kos:)

Mawidge is what bwings us togevvuh".

Re: Have you read the actual ruling?

[kuangning]

I saw someone suggest calling it a "devotion," for reasons that struck me as entirely sensible, including the fact that it has strong religious connotations and combats the image that gays can't be just as loving, generous, and committed as any Christian ought to be.

Re: Have you read the actual ruling?

[worldmenders.livejournal.com]

Just realized how freakishly narrow the ruling is - The Terms "Husband" and "Wife" are still available to all couples, and as far as I can see there is nothing in the law of California that prevents any couple from using those terms.

Heck, My wife may start calling me wife any time now!

Re: Have you read the actual ruling?

[kuangning]

Yep! It's not ideal, in that they should never have had to be dealing with Prop 8 in the first place, but it really seems that they bent over backwards to both take the impact out of it and to clear the way for the next set of challenges to Prop 8.

Re: Have you read the actual ruling?

[tomlemos.livejournal.com]

although CA has domestic partnerships, which do not even come close to being the same as marriage, in fact, to have them become "equal" to marriage, a whole lot of work would have to happen.

Re: Have you read the actual ruling?

[nagasvoice.livejournal.com]

But I think this ruling does allow the inequality to be challenged, which is an improvement.
I'm not sure taking it federal is any help, but I lean on analysis of it by others such as Daily Kos on that one.

Re: Have you read the actual ruling?

[kuangning]

*nods.* Yes, it will. To have the Court re-affirm that gays have the right to have an institution indistinguishable from marriage and granted all the rights of marriage within the state, even in the teeth of Prop 8 taking away the right of the state to call it marriage, though, is not a bad thing.

This whole Federal issue...

[tomlemos.livejournal.com]

has come up because you have 18,000 folks who have something that others can't.

I don't know how far it will go, but this really pisses me off.

[taiki.livejournal.com]

Quite frankly, having 18,000 cases that are already recognized while denying new ones is a constitutional crisis of minor proportions.

The big question here is, and this is a question that should be answered sooner rather than later, how does this play against the 14th Amendment and the precedent set by Lawrence v Texas?

[catsonmars.livejournal.com]

I think it's a bad idea too. Although, to be clear, the argument will be a new one on discrimination grounds, not the "people don't have the right to change their own constitution" route.

However, doing this now is terrible strategy. The court is more conservative now than it has been in decades, thanks to eight years of one of the most horrible people in American history. Jumping the shark and taking this issue to the court now would likely see them rule against us, setting back marriage equality for decades. A few more years on the federal route might see more sympathetic judges (and if there is a God, Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia will drop dead by then) instead of right-wing loons who mask their contempt for the common man through rhetoric of constitutional adherence, the Founders, etc.