Breaking: SF Mayor Newsom asks CA Supreme Court to delay Prop 8 ruling

[keepCAblue]

Source: Towleroad.com

Exclusive: SF Mayor Gavin Newsom Asked Court to Delay Prop 8 Ruling

Confidential sources close to San Francisco City Hall told Towleroad's Corey Johnson that the California Supreme Court was prepared to release its opinion on Proposition 8 tomorrow, but decided to delay the ruling after a call from Mayor Gavin Newsom.

Newsom reached out to the Supreme Court and asked them to hold off releasing their decision so it did not coincide with the White Night riots," said our source.

As mentioned earlier, a ruling Thursday would have fallen on the 30th anniversary of the San Francisco riots, which were set off when the court handed down the most lenient decision possible (voluntary manslaughter) against Dan White for the murders of supervisor Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone. The ensuing riots in San Francisco on May 21, 1979 caused hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage.



Read more: http://www.towleroad.com/2009/05/exclusive-sf-mayor-gavin-newsom-asked-court-to-delay-prop-8-ruling.html

[ccharles000]

1. k/r

[Grown2Hate]

2. Is there a good idea about what the decision will be?

Or am I just obtuse? :shrug:

[slackmaster]

3. Based on how the justices acted during oral arguments...

...They are probably going to uphold Prop. 8.

It's going to be ugly.

[Grown2Hate]

6. Fuck.

:(

[Tempest]

7. It's only temporary

It's just a matter of time (a few short years) before Prop 8 will be thrown out by the voters.

[nichomachus]

11. I think they will uphold PropH8, but let the current marriages stand

I hope I'm wrong, but they did everything but offer Ken Starr cookies and a cold beverage during the oral arguments.

Undoing the current marriages would be a nightmare, as there are property issues and other legal matters involved that would have to be resolved case by case. It would be a legal nightmare. You can't just declare a marriage over without addressing those issues. The lawsuits would be staggering.

[Rockholm]

15. That would be illegal.

That was one of the reasons why Massachusetts succeeded in keeping marriage equality. The legislators could not figure out what to do with all of the marriages that had taken place. To set up a "well, you are married" but "you can't be" scenario would have been a nightmare.
Maybe this is the plan. If that happens, then there will be a new lawsuit and this will be revisited again.

[nichomachus]

21. Illegal and a nightmare

Every one of the 18,000 dissolved marriages would need to go through a legal proceeding -- especially if there were children or property issues involved.

In fact, if each of the 18,000 couples decided to force their marriage in front of a judge, it would overwhelm the courts -- especially as people could drag their feet and work all the angles.

It also raises serious constitutional issues of ex post facto laws. In other words, when we got married, it was legal. You can't pass a law later saying what I did in the past wasn't legal when I did it. That would get the matter in front of the 9th Circuit in about five minutes.

[Rockholm]

24. Maybe it is a beautiful set-up...right to the US Supreme Court?

[Soylent Brice]

4. K&R

[onehandle]

5. Sounds like it's going to be bad news. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

8. A wise choice from Mayor Newsom...

[nichomachus]

10. Why is that?

White night is ancient history. A lot of people don't even remember it. Many of the people who were involved in it are dead or have moved away. If there was going to be any commemoration, it was probably going to be low key.

Newsom may have actually made the situation worse. By delaying it, he will be pushing the decision closer to Gay Pride -- at which there will be hundreds of thousands of people -- maybe close to a million -- many from out of town, and if there are raw nerves lingering over Prop H8, which there will be, then it could get ugly -- especially since it's the 40th anniversary of Stonewall.

[Pab Sungenis]

9. Announce it tomorrow

And let the gays riot. It's long past time we started actually fighting for our rights if the courts aren't going to protect them.

[Bluebear]

20. +1

[Newsjock]

12. Newsom's office says this story is not true

http://sfist.com/2009/05/20/newsom_asks_court_to_delay_prop_8_r.php

Towleroad might have gotten it wrong, or so says Newsom spokesman Nathan Ballard.

Today a website posted an item that quoted a false allegation from an unnamed source: "Mayor Newsom reached out to the Supreme Court and asked them to hold off releasing their decision so it did not coincide with the White Night riots."
This allegation is not true. We have asked the website to correct the item immediately.

[keepCAblue]

13. Towleroad.com standing behind their source. Not taking post down.

Comment from towleroad.com blogger:

Franko -- it doesn't surprise me that Newsom's office is denying it. Why would they admit to it?

I stand by source who gave this to Towleroad.

Onward,

Corey

Posted by: Corey Johnson | May 20, 2009 5:39:52 PM

[EFerrari]

22. I tend to believe towleroad. Newsom's office has misled before. n/t

[bemildred]

14. Sounds like political drivel to me.

if the CaSC upholds it, we're just going to have to go back and fix it.

[Rockholm]

16. I have read on Americablog that they are setting up barriers in the Castro.

What that means? Who knows.

[Downtown Hound]

18. Who's setting up barriers?

The police or protesters?

[Downtown Hound]

17. If, in fact, he did ask the Court to hold off its ruling

It has nothing to do with the White Night riots, and everything to do with today. I'm currently involved with a group that is planning massive civil disobedience in the city when the decision is announced. I'll probably be going to jail. That's fine, been there, done that before. But if there was a request, which I'm skeptical of, then I think it has more to do with what they know is being planned right now than with what happened years ago. And they should be afraid.

[keepCAblue]

19. You go! We need more heroes lie you who aren't afraid to stand up for their rights. n/t

[Downtown Hound]

23. Well thanks.

They're not even my rights, but I appreciate the sentiment. I'm straight. But throughout my life, I have known too many wonderful gay people that have enriched my life for the better. I wouldn't be much of a friend if I wouldn't be willing to spend a little time in the slammer for them, now would I?