California Supreme Court upholds ban on SSM

24 posts / 0 new

Tue, 2009-05-26 13:59

josh

Upholds Prop 8 vote.

"The California Supreme Court upheld a ban on same-sex marriage today, ratifying a decision made by voters last year that runs counter to a growing trend of states allowing the practice.

The decision, however, preserves the 18,000 marriages performed between the court's decision last May that same-sex marriage was lawful and the passage by voters in November of Proposition 8, which banned it. Supporters of the proposition argued that the marriages should no longer be recognized.

Today's decision, written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George for a 6-to-1 majority, said that same-sex couples still have the right to civil unions, which gives them the ability 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." But the justices said that the voters had clearly expressed their will to limit the formality of marriage to heterosexual couples."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/us/27marriage.html?ref=us

Tue, 2009-05-26 14:05

Debater

I support SSM and have campaigned for it, but this may actually be a good ruling in the sense that if Prop 8 had been overturned, the opponents of SSM would say it was judicial activism and illegitimate.

What this allows for is the possibility of the issue returning to the voters in the next election and the chance that the voters will end up voting for SSM. That would mean that opponents of SSM could not call it judicial activism if voters support it.

The vote in California was very close last year compared to the previous vote back in 2000, and next time a vote is taken it is likely that the pro-SSM side can win.

Tue, 2009-05-26 14:08

josh

I tend to agree, although I'm sure others will take issue. There's been a change in the mood in the U.S. just in the last few months. Maybe with people losing their jobs and homes, they don't give a shit who marries who.

Tue, 2009-05-26 14:10

Noise

Does the Judges ruling imply exact same rights except for the 'title' of marriage, or is there something else in here? If all it is is a 'title' formality, is the ruling any more than a placation of homphobes?

Quote:
I support SSM and have campaigned for it, but this may actually be a good ruling in the sense that if Prop 8 had been overturned, the opponents of SSM would say it was judicial activism and illegitimate.

It's good because if it was successful people would have complained it was successful? How does that make sense?

Tue, 2009-05-26 14:14

Michelle

I heard on the news this morning that this was an "expected" decision. What I'm confused about is how the media knew (or "expected") what the decision was before it was released.

Anyhow...well, someday the US will leave the dark ages. It's interesting to watch the US go through this from here, after having had such a huge uproar over the issue a few years ago. Now that we've had same sex marriage in Canada for a few years, and the world hasn't ended, you don't hear anything about it anymore, really. And so it's weird to hear all this hoopla from down there now that it's so resolved here and even the hateful Conservative Party can't be bothered to try and change things now.

Speaking of Prop 8, I was on the bus the day before yesterday on the way home from work when a couple of Mormon "elders" got on the bus. There's a Mormon church in my neighbourhood and we've always got these 18 to 20-something missionary "elders" wandering about, travelling on buses, knocking on doors, etc. And I keep HOPING a couple of those little boy scouts will knock on my door or try to engage me in conversation on the bus. Because boy, do I have an earful planned for them if they do try and talk to me about their misogynist, homophobic hate cult, after what they did in California.

Tue, 2009-05-26 14:16

josh

"I heard on the news this morning that this was an "expected" decision. What I'm confused about is how the media knew (or "expected") what the decision was before it was released."

The Court had announced that it would issue its decision at 10:00 Pacific time.

Tue, 2009-05-26 14:18

Michelle

No no.

What I mean is, on the news this morning, they reported that the Supreme Court decision was due today, and that it is widely expected that they will uphold the vote on Prop 8, but that they will exempt the same sex marriages that had already been performed.

How would the media know that?

Tue, 2009-05-26 14:19

Debater

Noise wrote:

It's good because if it was successful people would have complained it was successful? How does that make sense?

Well, I suppose it depends upon how you look at it. So far, not a single U.S. state has had SSM supported by the voters. That could change soon. Up until now it was only courts that had ruled in favor of it, although that has now changed too since legislatures in several states have now voted for SSM.

As a result, the opponents of SSM like Tony Perkins have had to go after both courts and legislatures for being activist. The final blow to them will be when the voters vote in favour of SSM because they won't be able to deny it was the will of the people. Once a state's population finally votes in favour of it, it may inspire more states to do the same.

From what I have heard, supporters of SSM in California are already making plans to get it on the ballot next time and are going to be better-organized in getting it passed when the next vote comes around. If that happens it would be a devastating blow to the opponents of SSM.

Tue, 2009-05-26 14:22

josh

Michelle wrote:

No no.

What I mean is, on the news this morning, they reported that the Supreme Court decision was due today, and that it is widely expected that they will uphold the vote on Prop 8, but that they will exempt the same sex marriages that had already been performed.

How would the media know that?

From the tenor of the oral argument. The decision was not a surprise.

Tue, 2009-05-26 14:24

#10

Michelle

If they do get it on the ballot next year, they'd better start playing hardball and put out more ads like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_VSi0NHWjY

Tue, 2009-05-26 14:25

#11

Debater

Michelle wrote:

No no.

What I mean is, on the news this morning, they reported that the Supreme Court decision was due today, and that it is widely expected that they will uphold the vote on Prop 8, but that they will exempt the same sex marriages that had already been performed.

How would the media know that?

Well it's not necessarily "the media" that knew, but more precisely it was legal analysts, law professors and lawyers who were suggesting it could go that way. As with any other legal issue, one can get a consensus from the legal community as to how they think a court will rule. That then gets reported in the media.

I remember watching CNN a couple months ago and even then, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin (former prosecutor, author of "The Nine" [book on the U.S. Supreme Court]) predicting that this was the likely outcome. It was suspected that even though the court ruled in favour of SSM, it might be forced to uphold Prop 8.

It was also theorized that they would also probably uphold the existing marriages because the law allowed it during the time period when they were performed. I think even Judge Judy predicted that would happen when she was on Larry King earlier this year.

Tue, 2009-05-26 14:30

#12

ocsi

Michelle wrote:

No no.

What I mean is, on the news this morning, they reported that the Supreme Court decision was due today, and that it is widely expected that they will uphold the vote on Prop 8, but that they will exempt the same sex marriages that had already been performed.

How would the media know that?

Expecting something to happen is not the same as knowing something will happen. I think they expected the vote to be upheld because that's what the majority voted for. Voting on Propositions is a form of direct democracy. And if often scares the shit out of me because there's nothing to stop a tyranny of the majority.

Edited to add: Human rights should never be voted on.

Tue, 2009-05-26 15:19

#13

Star Spangled C...

Michelle wrote:

If they do get it on the ballot next year, they'd better start playing hardball and put out more ads like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_VSi0NHWjY

How many Mormons ARE there in California? hardly enough to swing it, I'd imagine.. It's a pretty offensive ad trotting out a particular religious group as the bogeyman out to take everyone's rights away.

Tue, 2009-05-26 15:21

#14

josh

Yes, but the Church provided a great deal of financing for the initiative.

Tue, 2009-05-26 15:27

#15

Michelle

That's exactly what that church did. They campaigned HARD, and got their members to donate a HUGE percentage of the No to 8 campaign funding, in contrast to their relatively small population numbers. Their leaders demanded that their members actively participate and donate to the campaign, and huge, huge numbers of them complied.

No, not all Mormons were involved in this despicable campaign, but the church as an institution supported it COMPLETELY and encouraged their members to be involved, and the response within their membership was huge. The church as an institution is a hate cult. Does that mean all Mormons are hateful, homophobic, misogynists, etc.? No, of course not. But the church they belong to certainly is all of those things!

Why single out the Mormons?

Because this tiny percentage of the population provided the most funding for this campaign of anyone. And I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want some hate cult dictating their religious law in my country. Such a pity they've succeeded at doing it in yours.

Tue, 2009-05-26 15:38

#16

Star Spangled C...

See, if someone were to call Islam a "hate cult", I think most progressive people would be all over them for bigotry. Similarly, if there were an ad in which two black men went to a lesbian couple's house and took their rings, tore up their marriage license, etc., that too would be unacceptable. The majority of black voters DID vote against prop 8 and I think there was a lot of bigotry directed their way as a result, which is really unfortunate that any group - whether because of race, religion or sexual orientation needs to be singled out as the enemy.

Tue, 2009-05-26 15:42

#17

josh

Again, the church provided a lot of the financing for the initiative. By so doing, it left itself open for attack. You can't expect to enter the political arena and be immune from criticism.

Tue, 2009-05-26 15:44

#18

Michelle

Is all of "Islam" run as one, single organization in a hierarchical, top-down fashion by a council of a handful of men who demand that everyone believe exactly the same thing and who mobilize their membership to campaign politically against human rights?

Because if so, then your comparison might be apt.

But the fact is, you're just doing the "reverse discrimination" thing - oh, that poor persecuted church, you're hating it because it promotes hate! You're intolerant of Mormon hatred! Persecution, persecution! O!

Tue, 2009-05-26 15:47

#19

Michelle

Are "black people" a top-down, hierarchical organization where the leaders of the organization have spiritual authority over all other members of it, and did the Black People Organization demand that members of the Black People Organization donate and campaign against Prop 8?

Because if so, then your analogy might be apt.

Tue, 2009-05-26 15:49

#20

Noise

Debater:

Quote:
Well, I suppose it depends upon how you look at it.

Heh, I guess you can go for the silver lining like that if you wish ;)

Quote:
As a result, the opponents of SSM like Tony Perkins have had to go after both courts and legislatures for being activist. The final blow to them will be when the voters vote in favour of SSM because they won't be able to deny it was the will of the people. Once a state's population finally votes in favour of it, it may inspire more states to do the same

Aren't the courts supposed to protect the rights of a minority from being trampled on by the will of the majority? Meh, I guess we know Human Rights in the US are completely circumstantial and can be revoked had the need (or perceived need) arises, I guess this shouldn't be too surprising. If the will of the majority included slavery again, think the courts will prop that up too?

Tue, 2009-05-26 15:52

#21

Star Spangled C...

Mormons have as much right as Muslims, Jews, gays, blacks, unions, environmentalists, gun owners, doctors, ec. to participate in the democratic process by mobilizing supporters and/or giving money. In this case, I disagree with them (and I can show my wife's and my tax returns that show that we gave money to groups in support of SSM - which is OUR right). In this case, my side lost. But I don't find it necessary to demonize entire groups for disagreign with me. We should just give more money, get more organized and recognize that this i likely to come up again 4 years from now.

Tue, 2009-05-26 16:02

#22

Michelle

Oh, so it's okay for Mormons to demonize gays because that's just "participating in the democratic process". But it's not okay for supporters of gay rights to go after Mormons for their hatred and homophobia, because that's something much more sinister.

Have I got this just about right?

Lordy, this brings back memories of several years back on babble when the SSM debate was raging in Canada. And we had so many people going on about "intolerance of the intolerant". Oh, the poor haters, they're so persecuted by those big bad nasty gays and their supporters who are intolerant of their hate!"

Sorry. It just feels like a debate from the dark ages now that we're through this mess in Canada. I guess you guys'll get over it eventually down there.

Tue, 2009-05-26 17:50

#23

Catchfire

Well pwned, Michelle.

But I also take issue with the assumption that minority rights are beholden to the will of the majority, who, according to SSC, a monogamous heterosexual with evidently no direct stake in the matter, was on the 'side that won'. To me, the idea that human rights can be divided into 'sides' that 'lose' and 'win' is grotesque. We all 'lost' because the powers of division, hatred, ignorance and fear won. Justice is not 'activist' or 'majority', it is democracy. Its role was to look at the Constitution of the United States, one of the most important documents drafted in the last 250 years, and include the rights of gays and lesbians as full persons. And it failed, choosing instead to relgate the importnace of law, fairness and justice to the tyranny of the majority, who are ill equipped to make such judgements.

Tue, 2009-05-26 17:52

#24

Max Bialystock

I'm cancelling my trip to California.