Now that the voters of California have banned gay marriage what's next for advocates of marriage equality? I know political winners will tell the political losers to give up. That's expected but not really going to happen. I think it is a matter of time before gay marriage becomes legal in California. Banning it in the constitution delays it for at least a few years it would seem. Do you agree?
I support marriage equality but I have many questions and views on the aftermath of the vote.
1. What happens to the reported 18,000 people that were married in the time same sex marriage was legal?
2. There are pending lawsuits arguing that Proposition 8 was a revision of the constitution, not a simple amendment. Revisions have to go through the legislature, whereas amendments can be put on the ballot by petition. This attempt failed in court when opponents of Proposition 8 tried to eliminate it from the ballot.
I don't have an opinion yet on if it is really a revision or an amendment. I am going to wait to read from some of the best legal minds around. I think many people will just decide to support whatever legal reasoning supports their position.
Click here to read an article about the lawsuits and the revision versus amendment argument.
3. I think the state legislature should pass a series of laws that clarify and strengthen the arguments against Proposition 8. Laws could be passed that update and empower parents to increase their ability to opt out of lesson plans they disagree about. Religious liberty laws could be made more clear. A whole series of laws that would have wide based appeal could be implemented.
That way when the vote comes up again, which seems like it will, the focus could be on gay marriage and not the other issues that were brought into the debate.
4. Somebody asked me if I thought people that voted Yes on Proposition 8 were bigots. Before I answer click here to read the dictionary definition of bigot by clicking here.
I do think that some of the people that voted yes on proposition 8 were bigots. But I also believe that many of the people that voted Yes on 8 were not bigots. I would treat them as individuals and not groups to answer the question.
But that goes for both sides. I argued with No on 8 people that had become bigots against Christianity in part because they saw some Christians as the people leading the movement to remove their basic rights. As a Christian I was offended to stand next to anyone, from either side, displaying bigotry towards others.
Both sides had people that stole signs, yelled hateful language, and likely turned off more voters than they convinced to support their cause.
So, what do you think is next?
None of the options looks great at this moment in time.
As the twin of a gay man, this issue is very close at home to me. I wish someone, ANYONE would explain to me, in a way that I can understand, how allowing gays to marry threatens MY marriage or that of my parents.
And don't throw Biblical 2quotes at me PLEASE. I've heard them all and dissected them all in one of my recent blogs:
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/markeggertsen
Mark.
For those of you that did not support Prop 8 you can go to the link I have provided to sign a petition at Equality California's website and learn more about What's Next
Even as an amendment, Proposition 8 is invalid. In 1959, California ratified the 14th Amendment, which required a 2/3 majority vote. Prop 8 passed with just 52%, so not only is Prop 8 unconstitutional by US standards, it is also invalid by CA constitutional requirements. The CA constitution states that in the case of two conflicting amendments, the amendment with the higher vote wins out.
Yeah right, when are you guys going to accept the inevitable? Prop. 8 passed. That's what the majority wants and majority rules in a democracy. End of story.
The courts aren't going to get involved in this. Start facing up to reality.
Why do people against prop 8 have a hard time understanding why others don't want gay marriage? The majority of people think it is immoral and they don't want it in society. To most people it is a repulsive act for two people of the same gender to have sex together. They don't want to see it in everyday life and to tell the truth they think it has already been accepted more than they would like to see. They have been intimidated to accept it this far but when they get to the voting booth where no one can see they are able to express their true feelings. If you think I'm wrong then argue with the last election results. Society has a limit on how hard it will be pushed to acceptance of anothers morality that is contrary to their own.
Yeah Right and risky - You can argue that majority rules all you want, but it is our Constitution that actually rules our country and state. The 14th Amendment (which was ratified in 1959 by a 2/3 majority vote in California) states "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
If you think that a simple majority vote is ever going to overrule the governing law of our entire nation, you are greatly misguided. Proposition 8 will be invalidated by the California Supreme Court. That's the reality that people need to be facing up to.
I still say the State should not be in the marriage business so perhaps its time for a Proposition that would confine the State's business to civil unions only and refuse to accept religious marriages unless they are also accompanied by a civil union certificate.
What I want to know is why people think it's their right to regulate morality and force people to believe their morality?
The Constitution is supreme in this land. Not God and certainly not the public's supposed majority morality.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you get to discriminate against people. The constitution protects against this type of thing. Don't like it, find a place that doesn't allow it.
What are we teaching our children here people? To be ignorant of those around them? That discrimination is okay as long as someone is doing something you don't like? I fear for the nation the supporters of 8 are building for our children.
One where hate and discrimination is accepted as normal. It's time for people to stand up and say no more!
Jared,
Go have a Subway sandwich. You're kidding yourself, man. The State Supreme Court is not going to intervene in this decision of the people. It would be suicidal.
Don't forget, judges are political beings and if they go against the will of the people again, there will be hell to pay, believe me. They would all be recalled and they know this.
Yeah Right,
They already intervened. Their jobs are to uphold the laws of this land not to be swayed by public opinion and it seems like they had no problem doing that earlier this year so why would it be different now.
It's a sad state of things to know people don't take our constitution seriously and would recall people over upholding the law. I mean God forbid these judges actually do their jobs and all.
It makes me very sad to live in a state where people believe this crap. It's okay to discriminate as long as it's not them who are being discriminated against. Do people ever look past themselves and look at what their actions actually mean for others?
Dont blame the people of CA. It was the Mormon church that bought a piece of CA's constitution and rewrote it to suit their own agenda. If not for the $35M? the Mormons spent to buy your rigths, Prop 8 would not have had a chance. Blame the Mormons.
Sure, blame the Mormons. Blame whoever you like. The bottom line is the people of the State of California voted again, just like they did 8 years ago (when no Mormon money was involved), to keep marriage legal between a man and a woman only. Accept the results of the election like all the McCain supporters have graciously accepted Obama's victory. To do otherwise only makes you look foolish.
Yeah, yeah, yeah! And the people of Germany voted to accept racial purity standards, blah, blah, blah. Doesn't make the majority right and until the Court rules on the issue I don't have to accept it.
And by the way, Mormon money also helped push the last anti-same sex marriage prop.
GS, there's no comparison there and you know it. It's just empty hyperbole. But, go ahead and continue to look foolish. I agree with the others. The courts will stay out of this. The people have spoken.
When the activist California State Supreme Court made interracial marriage legal it was unpopular with the electorate.
If a vote was held then, it is likely the ruling would have been overturned.
History is on the side of equal rights. It didn't happen this year but we all know it will happen in the near future.
Yeah Right - I am not kidding myself or you when I assure you that the Courts will overrule proposition 8. Proposition 187 passed by a much larger margin years ago and was overruled by the courts.
There is a reason that we have three branches to our government. Proposition 8 is a perfect example of how brilliant our founding fathers were in creating a system to ensure the integrity of our Constitution. Judges make the decisions about Constitutionality. Not politicians, not popular vote. This is the purpose of the Courts. The California Supreme Court has already made their decision. Same sex marriage is legal in California.
Don't fool yourself into thinking that Justices are politicians. You should read up about Samuel Chase to understand the stability of our Judicial branch here in America. There is already precedent on judges making decisions that politicians/the public don't like. There will be no impeachment of anyone in our Supreme Court when they hand down the decision that Prop 8 is invalid. And trust me when I tell you that it is a matter of *when* not if.
OK, keep dreaming, Jared. I have no doubt someone will challenge it, but that's no guarantee the Supreme Court will take it up.
Just remember what happened to one Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird in 1986. As I recall, a little "recall" went down in that year, courtesy of an inflamed majority of the people because of her opposition to the death penalty and soft on crime reputation, in direct defiance of the will of the people.
To "Yeah Right":
Fortunately for this state and the nation, the Supreme Courts have usually jealously guarded their independence in deciding cases despite threats of reprisal from the other two branches of government and various voter lobbies and interest groups.
The Supreme Court will ultimately decide whether to take up the issue and if so how to properly interpret this proposition's application as law vis-a-vis the state constitution. I say this even knowing that six of the seven members of the court were appointed by Republican governors who generally were moderate to very, very conservative on civil rights issues.
I am certain that it will be decided independently based on the law - and not on the politics of convenience or threats from those who oppose the independent judiciary that has been part of our national system since 1789.
To "Yeah Right":
Fortunately for this state and the nation, the Supreme Courts have usually jealously and successfully guarded their independence in deciding cases despite threats of reprisal from the other two branches of government and various voter lobbies and interest groups.
The Supreme Court will ultimately decide whether to take up the issue and if so how to properly interpret this proposition's application as law vis-a-vis the state constitution. I say this even knowing that six of the seven members of the court were appointed by Republican governors who generally were moderate to very, very conservative on civil rights issues.
I am certain that it will be decided independently based on the law and not on the politics of convenience or threats from those who oppose the independent judiciary that has been part of our national system since 1789.
Yeah Right - Bird was an exception to otherwise solid California Judicial Rule. It's not like the 4 Justices who voted in favor of same sex marriage protection in California have the long history Bird had. If you think something like that is going to deter the Supreme Court from ruling on what they have already ruled on, you're entitled to your opinion.
You are also missing the fact that this is an argument of the 14th Amendment of the *US Constitution* and NOT gay marriage. Even if the California Supreme Court rules in favor of proposition 8 (which they won't), this will end up going to the US Supreme Court. The issue of Proposition 8 has absolutely NOTHING to do with gay marriage and everything to do with whether states may pass laws that deprive citizens of privileges afforded to other citizens. The 14th Amendment *clearly* states that states may not pass laws of this type. There is already case law precedent for this as well. In the unlikely event that this does go all the way to the US Supreme Court, it will be invalidated there. Guess how many US Supreme Court Justices have been booted out? ZERO
Jared,
How many other states that had ballot measures to make marriage legal only between a man and a woman ended up going to the U.S. Supreme Court over the passage of the measures? Just curious...
Yeah Right - It takes a very long time for issues to make their way to the US Supreme Court. Before you make it to the Supreme Court, you have a considerable number of qualifications to make. So far, none of the cases have exhausted all of the local resources at their disposal.
I highly doubt this issue will end up in the US Supreme Court, but in the unlikely event that California's Supreme Court does not override Prop 8, it will go there. The Courts are slow but as final as you can get. Bookmark this article and come back in a few months. If you've managed to vote out a bunch of "activist" Justices from the California Supreme Court, then I'll admit I was wrong.
I love how the Yes on 8 people used lies and half truths to push their cause in order to put fear into people so they will vote yes.
Kind of reminds me of when Satan used that tactic in the Garden of Eden.
Lets face it same sex Marriage will eventually become legal in all states, It is just a manner of time. When it does all that will happen is business as usual.
Jared, I think "Yeah Right" has it correct. The difference between what the State Supreme Court did last May and what they will do now is significant. The political climate is much clearer now with regard to this issue. The voters just weighed in on it.
To say that the State Supreme Court is impervious to political influences is to be naive. On paper, this may be the case, but, certainly, not in reality. I don't believe they'll get involved in this, at least in the near term. Perhaps in a few years they might.
Of course, this is all conjecture right now and we'll have to wait, as you say, and see what happens in the next few months.
Yes on 8,
The word "impervious" is inappropriate in reference to the courts. I used the words: "usually jealously and successfully guarded their independence."
Dred Scott vs. Sanford and Plessy vs. Ferguson were examples of the courts failure to use that independence to put basic American principle of law above all else. There is historical proof that the civil rights of minorities in this country have been honored only slowly and reluctantly in the past as they have sometimes been sacrificed on the altar of political expedience and the status quo.
I firmly believe that the evidence now shows that those days of the failure of the courts are probably behind us.
Harold,
While I certainly see your points and actually, in a perfect world, would agree with them, unfortunately, I think Yes on 8 has made the correct call here.
I have practiced law in California for 33 years and the reactionary of nature of the State Supreme Court and 9th District Court of Appeals have never ceased to amaze me. But, in this case, I would be very surprised to see the Supreme Court rule against Prop. 8. I think they will see the practical, as well as the purely legal, side of the issue here.
Court Expert:
I agree the courts have bowed to popular opinion in the past. For example during WWII, they failed almost universally with regard to the injustice done to Japanese-Americans interned by the political cowardice in the face of public prejudice and hysteria of the majority population here in California and elsewhere. Those courts failed to protect these citizens out of cowardice and prejudice of their own. (See link)
As an experienced lawyer, you know the courts and for that reason I find your somewhat negative view of the courts' independence a bit disturbing and unsettling. It leads you to believe they will acquiesce once again to prejudice and hysteria - expressed in Prop 8 - even in what most think we are living in more "enlightened" times. Personally, I hope you are not correct.
The state supreme court also legalized interracial marriage at a time when it wasn't popular and when some were using the Bible to argue against it.
The voters did speak, but it wasn't exactly a landslide. I would guess the courts would enforce the law as they understand it regardless of threats from the anti-equality faction tries to make. But the real question is how they see the laws in this case.