Prop 8 upheld 6 to 1 - 18,000 marriages still valid

[BR_Parkway]

Source: Pam's House Blend

no surprise really

No link yet.

[JerseygirlCT]

1. 6 to 1?

That's even worse than I hoped. Disgusting.

[tekisui]

2. Damn. Only one non-bigot on the bench?

[JerseygirlCT]

3. That's what I was thinking.

How truly sad.

[davidhilton1]

70. damn...

and i thought i lived in a progressive state...guess not...

[tekisui]

88. It was the one Democrat.

The other 6 judges are repukes.

[No Elephants]

104. Only one Democrat on that bench, I believe. I hope to God the Democrat was the holdout.

On edit. Yes, Moreno, a Davis appointee, was the one dissent. If the one Democrat on the Court had voted against gay marriage, I would spit nails. Then again, I am spitting nails anyway.

[Tesha]

6. Given the facts at hand, it's hard to see how they could have ruled otherwise.

Bigotry probably has very little to do with it.

Tesha

[GodlessBiker]

14. I disagree. The facts at hand compelled a different decision. It's bigotry...

or at least a presumption that our cause is not on par with the causes of others.

[cascadiance]

79. If not, could they have used the equal protection clause to outlaw hetero marriage too today?...

Saying that in order for them to comply with this new state ammendment and have it apply equally, they'd have to not allow heterosexual marriages after today either. THAT would generate a firestorm!

[Tesha]

102. That's an interesting idea, but it probably wasn't presented by any of the parties...

...as one of the proposed remedies.

Tesha

[sui generis]

93. Oh no - equal protection was the only fact that mattered

So some Californians have less of a right to determine who their family is and what they can do with their property than others based on whether they are married or not.

Thus, if you died and left property to your unmarried significant other, your cousin whom you have never in your life met has a greater right to your estate than your significant other, even with a will in place.

Your significant other can fully benefit from a life insurance policy, but has no inheritance exemption. Furthermore if your blood kin believes that you were manipulated into assigning a non-blood non-marriage beneficiary, they can hold up your annuity indefinitely with court challenges.

It's truly sick. If you are not married, your blood kin and the state has a greater say in what happens to your property than you do.

[Tesha]

103. Yes. That's exactly what the voters of California decided to enshrine in their constitution.

And it's that constitution that is binding upon the Court.

So now get out there and re-change the California Constitution!

Tesha

[No Elephants]

106. I think you are incorrect about leaving your property in your will. There is a difference

between dying with a valid will and dying without a valid will. In the first instance, you can benefit or disinherit anyone you please. In the latter instance, your SO is screwn.

[sui generis]

122. nope - if they're not legally recognized as family / next of kin

then they can inherit but have to pay income/inheritance taxes without any exemption. That's the nuance -

[No Elephants]

123. That is different from what you said in Reply #93. Paying a tax that family

would not have to pay is different from not being able to inherit the property at all.

However, this is a law that the legislature can readily change. Maybe that is worth pursuing while the big issue is fought.

[sui generis]

126. It depends on the state

technically, intestate or not if I will money to my partner my nephews can challenge that portion of my estate as next of kin. Certainly if I will real property to my partner, my next of kin can readily challenge that; in fact my partner can be evicted (read: locked out, including his possessions) from the property while the will is in probate.

It's ugly no matter which paint brush you use. Marriage allows us to define our "next of kin", since next of kin appear to have more rights in cases of inheritance, intestate or otherwise.

That's the central idea here.

[No Elephants]

105. They could have ruled that a majority cannot restrict the civil rights of a minority. They could

have ruled that so doing goes against about 150 years of equal protection decisions by the SCOTUS.

[Tesha]

118. Unfortunately, that's not the law in California.

According to the CA state constitution, a simple majority actually *CAN*
restrict the rights of a minority. It may be completely fucked up, but it
*IS* the law so the court was simply ruling in a way that upholds the law.

Tesha

[No Elephants]

124. Read Moreno's dissenting opinion.

[Tesha]

127. Remind me again: what force of law does a dissenting opinion carry? (NT)

[BR_Parkway]

7. As someone said earlier - the CA Supremes were for equal marriage

in their earlier, split decision. This question was mostly about the Constitutional process. So they've affirmed the right of the slim majority to strip the rights of the minority. Hopefully someone is filing today to strip Mormons and Catholics of their right to marry.

Congrats to the 18,000 first class gay and lesbian couple who remain validly recognized by the State - and I'm terribly sorry to the rest of my brothers and sisters who still have to fight for their basic rights to be recognized in their state. I'm still amazed that here in NC we've managed to keep this issue off of the ballot, or we'd certainly have an amended Constitution here by now.

[DKRC]

25. Not just marriage

strip the churches of their tax exempt status as well.

[SpookyCat]

81. Ab-so-lutely!

You wanna play politics? Pay your damn taxes.

[cascadiance]

83. Sounds like a candidate for another "majority" prop to change the constitution...

Perhaps if we go after them with these props, eventually they'll understand that war has its costs!

[NorthCarolina]

96. That is actually a Proposition that should be put forth to a simple majority vote n/t

[condoleeza]

117. Tax exempting churches has made many a millionaire. n/t

[demo dutch]

95. Yeah Virginia Foxx would spearheading that one

[Ian David]

82. This might be a GOOD thing in disguise. Might mean if a ballot question GRANTS Marriage Equality...

.. then the courts and the government must uphold it.

Same goes if they ban the Mormon Magic Underpants.

[flvegan]

4. Miserable bunch of fucking bigots.

Fuck every single hateful shithead that voted for it in the first place. Fuck the 6 judges that upheld it.

[Terran]

5. How the fuck

do the explain the continuing validity of those marriages then?

This is so fucked.

Oh BTW--US Supreme Court, here comes Prop 8. We could be seeing same sex marriage resolved at the federal level--finally.

[ismnotwasm]

8. Exactly

Legislative twilight zone. Fuck

[kestrel91316]

9. Those marriages occurred when gay marriage was actually legal in CA.

Between the court ruling making them legal and the passage of Prop 8. I thought this was obvious.

[Terran]

12. Perfectly obvious, thanks; however, it creates

an intolerable legal ambiguity which, IMO, can now only be resolved by the US Supreme Court.

[nichomachus]

17. So, will the state recognize "legal" same-sex marriages from other states?

This is a real problem for them. If they're arguing that the state will recognize marriages that were legal at the time they were entered into, why can't CA citizens go to MA and get married. Those marriages would be legal. According to this ruling, the state would have to recognize them.

[slackmaster]

61. You can't import to CA an AR-15 rifle in standard configuration that was legal in another state

So I believe the answer will be "No".

The situation is quite parallel. I own three such rifles that I acquired and/or built in California when it was legal to do so. But a person who desires to own one now cannot legally do so. I get to keep mine because of when I acquired them.

[slackmaster]

10. Same-sex marriage was legal for a while before it became illegal

It's not fair, but that's how things are done in California.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5720573&mesg_id=5721085

[joeybee12]

11. It is totally phucked...how can you say just because you were quick to get married

it's valid, but now it isn't...too much political posturing went into this decision.

[kestrel91316]

19. Certainly. But it is what it is. I find this preferably to a ruling that makes

those existing marriages invalid - that would be a true crime.

On to the ballot box - again, and again, and again. As long as it takes.

[joeybee12]

101. Yes,a nd that's what makes it a political decision...a compromise...

...granted, by doing this I think this makes this decision by them (banning gay marriage) pretty weak.

[ManiacJoe]

121. Actually the timeline is quite easy to follow.

[nyy1998]

Oh God I hope not

This will probably be upheld in the Supreme Court and become the left's Roe v. Wade

[Terran]

66. The SCOTUS has already upheld

equal treatment under the law for 'homosexuals' in Lawrence v. Texas (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html), aka the Texas Sodomy Law case.

Basically, if this issue never gets to the Supreme Court, all these state same-sex marriage laws are useless because they can't grant any of the numerous federal financial benefits available to married people.

[No Elephants]

109. I am sad and sorry to say that the Supremes could easily distinguish that case

from this case, if they so choose. I hope they choose to follow it, but nothing in Lawrence requires them to. And Lawrence was decided before Roberts and Alito were appointed.

[No Elephants]

108. Pray that Scalia, Roberts and Thomas are in a coma when the case hits the Supremes.

[underpants]

13. "gay marriage is still ILLEGAL in California"

Heard that on both Fox News and MSNBC

:puke:

[myrna minx]

15. Damn

:-(

[kpete]

16. sad

[pink-o]

18. Idiots trying to hedge their bets. this is worse than Don't ask Don't Tell!!

How is it possible that some gay couples can be legally married and others can't? If it's a "moral" issue, then isn't it all or nothing? No marriages unless it's between a man and woman?

But it's not a "Moral" issue. It's a civil rights issue. And how can some same-sex couples have that right when others don't????

I'm so pissed, I'm spitting nails!!! I've never seen any ruling as stupid as this!!! It's gonna cause a world of hurt to a lot of my friends WHO JUST WANT THE RIGHT TO LOVE SOMEONE!!!!

[Not Me]

20. Supreme Court (CA) upholds Prop 8

Source: KGO San Francisco

The California Supreme Court upheld proposition 8 by a 6-1 vote today.
Existing "Summer" marriages are recognized.

No link yet.

[jobycom]

21. Plessy v Ferguson: the California version.

[JerseygirlCT]

22. Exactly. nt

[handmade34]

23. outrageous!

[xxqqqzme]

24. Isn't this a dupe?

[FVZA_Colonel]

26. ABC News: California Supreme Court Upholding Proposition 8

Source: ABC

California Upholds Gay Marriage Ban
By SUSAN DONALDSON JAMES

The California Supreme Court has upheld Proposition 8 -- the controversial ballot question that banned same-sex marriage.

At the same time, the ruling has allowed about 18,000 same-sex couples already married, to retain the rights they attained during the brief six-month period that gay marriage was legal in the state.

Christian groups that applauded retention of the ban say that the ruling on those same-sex marriages could create a conflict -- not only in the marital rights of Californians, but in adoption and income tax laws.

"It's disappointing that the court will continue to uphold the legality of those who married during May to November of last year," said Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family in Action. "We don't know what the situation will be like, but it's likely to cause havoc in the courts as they try to deal with a class of individuals that look totally different."

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=7677819&page=1

[cecilfirefox]

27. I want to read the dissents. And see who dissented!! nt

[No Elephants]

110. 6-1 means only one dissent. Carlos Moreno, the only one of the California Supremes who was

appointed by a Democrat dissented. If you want to read the dissent, you probably can find it if you google.

[havocmom]

28. Then, NOBODY should be married!

:nuke: :grr:

[cascadiance]

29. California Supreme Court upholds Prop. 8; gay marriage remains banned in state

Source: LA Times

The California Supreme Court today upheld Proposition 8’s ban on same-sex marriage but also ruled that gay couples who wed before the election will continue to be married under state law.

The decision virtually ensures another fight at the ballot box over marriage rights for gays. Gay rights activists said they may ask voters to repeal the marriage ban as early as next year, and opponents have pledged to fight any such effort. Proposition 8 passed with 52% of the vote.

By a 52-48 margin, voters approved the measure reinstating a ban on same-sex marriage after the state Supreme Court, in a landmark ruling last May, approved such marriages. Left in limbo were about 18,000 couples who got married in California between May and November of last year.

The seven justices could uphold Proposition 8 and also allow the 18,000 marriages to remain valid; they could uphold the same-sex marriage ban and void the marriages; or they could throw out the measure and legalize gay marriage.

...

Read more: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/05/california-supreme-court-upholds-prop-8-gay-marriage-remains-banned-in-state.html

[joeybee12]

30. This is a political decision, not one based on law...

...how can some have the right because they were quick, while now others can't...totally phucked up, totall expected.

[Voice for Peace]

35. wtf?

this is nuts.

[cascadiance]

43. Does it say whether they still respect marriages in another state? Maybe a trip to Iowa?

And come back later? Or will they take the same weird standpoint that they would respect marriages before today in other states but not afterward? Or not respect them at all?

[Politicalboi]

47. That's a good question

I just can't believe in the 21st century we are still fighting this.

[No Elephants]

115. No, it says nothing about that.

[paulsby]

60. before people start deriding the ANALYSIS

it might behoove people to READ the decision.

i strongly disagree with the RESULT.

personally, i'm not going to disagree with the logic/law until i read the decision.

[Ian David]

31. Fuck! Time to go out and protest.

http://www.dayofdecision.com/

http://www.dayofdecision.com/

[TommyO]

32. BASTARDS! No civil right should every be up for a popular vote

[1776Forever]

53. I agree 100% - It is like rolling back ALL civil rights! This was wrong starting at "go"!

:argh:

[kestrel91316]

62. EXACTLY.

[fascisthunter]

112. the religious right is called fascist for a good reason

biggest suckers for the wealthy ever.

[kath]

116. Exactly - what would have happened if the people of Alabama, Arkansas, MS, etc had been allowed to

vote on desegregation in the '50s and 60s?!?!

The majority is not supposed to be allowed to discriminate against minorities -- that is the entire point behind the Bill of Rights.

Jeebus H. Christ on a trailer hitch.

[cascadiance]

33. San Diego Union Tribune story link up now...

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/may/26/california-courts-gay-marriage-decision/?california&zIndex=105646

California court upholds gay marriage ban
Existing same-sex marriages to stand
UNION-TRIBUNE

10:00 a.m. May 26, 2009



FILE - In this March 5, 2009 file photo, from left to right, California Supreme Court Justice Joyce Kennard, Chief Justice Ronald George, Justice Marvin Baxter, and Justice Ming Chin, walk into a courtroom in San Francisco before listening to arguments on the constitutionality of the state's voter-approved Proposition 8 that bans gay unions. The court will rule Tuesday, May 26, 2009, on the validity of a voter approved ban on same-sex marriage, a decision that will end months of speculation over whether gay couples can resume marrying in the state. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma, file) - AP

The California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 Tuesday morning, which means the state's ban on same-sex marriage will remain in place.

The court also declined to invalidate about 18,000 same-sex marriages that occurred during a five-month period last year when the marriages were legal.

The justices ruled in a lawsuit that Proposition 8 opponents filed. The opponents had argued that the proposition, which passed with 52 percent of the vote in November, was an improper revision of the state constitution that would have had to be approved by the Legislature before it went to a statewide vote.

Proposition backers said the initiative was an amendment to the state constitution and legislative action was not required.

[No Elephants]

111. So that's what unprincipled cowards look like.

[bullimiami]

34. what a pile of bs. some gay people can be married but more cannot?

capricious and arbitrary. just what a court decision should not be.

[shadowknows69]

36. Unconscionable. I would say I'm sorry to the GLBT community but that would be insufficient

I'm sorry instead for the whole human race that this can still go on in the 21st or any century. How can you ban love and expect yourself to be called a civilized being?

:cry: :cry: :cry:

[handmade34]

39. well said

so much for being 'civil'

[cascadiance]

37. San Jose Mercury News story link...

http://www.mercurynews.com/topstories/ci_12451435?nclick_check=1

California Supreme Court upholds same-sex marriage ban; lets stand existing gay unions

By Howard Mintz

Mercury News
Posted: 05/26/2009 10:06:30 AM PDT
Updated: 05/26/2009 10:12:27 AM PDT


People wait in line for a decision from the California State Supreme Court on the legality of a voter-approved ban on same-sex unions, Tuesday, May 26, 2009, in San Francisco. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma) ( Paul Sakuma )

The California Supreme Court today upheld Proposition 8, the voter-approved law restoring a ban on same-sex marriages in the state, but at the same time left intact the more than 18,000 marriages for gay and lesbian couples who wed last year before the ballot measure went into effect.

The Supreme Court's decision puts California in unusual territory for the time being, establishing a two-tiered system of marriage across the state for same-sex couples. Under the ruling, Proposition 8 will continue to outlaw same-sex marriage in the future, but those gay and lesbian couples who got their marriage licenses before last November's election will remain on equal legal footing with heterosexual couples.

The decision to uphold Prop 8 was widely expected by legal experts, as it was considered unlikely the justices would have the legal authority to overturn a voter-approved amendment to the California constitution.

The ruling is likely to shift the battleground over gay marriage back to the political arena, as gay rights advocates already are mobilizing to push another ballot measure to erase Prop 8, approved by voters by a 52 to 48 percent margin.

...

[Bunny]

38. Oh no. This is awful.

:grr:

[lies and propaganda]

40. Motherfuckers

In the most free thinking state in our union, we were submarined by fucking cultist Mormons from another fucking state.

Im so fucking disgusted

[AlbertCat]

78. In the most free thinking state in our union,

HAHAHAHAHAHA! What a laugh. Free-thinking only in pockets like LA and SF. Go out in the boonies and there are as many red necks as NC! Even in the cities, people are more concerned with what car they're driving or what music they listen to than anything else. Free-thinking my ass.

[Thothmes]

107. Not true, it was the voters of California that approved prop 8

not the voers in Utah.

[nichomachus]

41. This raises an interesting legal question

I haven't read the ruling -- still too angry to do it.

However, if the court will recognize marriages that exist because they were legal at the time they were entered into, will the state also recognize same-sex marriages from other states -- because those too were legal at the time they were entered into.

I would love to see a case on this come up. It's a natural consequence of this idiotic ruling.

[cascadiance]

44. Beat me to it... Maybe it means only support out of state marriages if they were before today?

I guess that would prevent people from moving the newer gay marriage business out of California to other states and shrinking the tax revenue for the very needy state of California...

[Manifestor_of_Light]

67. Ex post facto and full faith and credit clauses.

California can't retroactively annul the 18,000 previously contracted gay marriages.
That's the ex post facto clause.

Also, if someone gets married in MA and moves to CA or any other state, that state must recognize the marriage contracted in another state as valid -- that's the full faith and credit clause.

I wonder when a gay married couple will move from a state where it's valid to a state that does not recognize gay marriage, and sue the state for recognition if they are discriminated against.

Then there's the due process clause and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

:wtf:

[nichomachus]

72. Or -- and what would be easier

Is for a CA couple to travel to MA or somewhere to be married, where it's legal, and then come home to CA and demand to have the marriage recognized.

The court seems to indicate that the state will recognize same-sex marriages that were legal at the time they were contracted.

[cascadiance]

76. However, will they use the same rationale not to recognize out of state marriages after today?

That would be the fundamental question California GLBT folk should be asking. If no, then there really might be some violence that breaks out over this. If yes, then California's throwing away a potential huge industry that might have helped the state get some badly needed revenue, as many will be having their marriages out of state instead of here, giving other states that business instead.

[No Elephants]

113. A gay couple married in Massachusetts who is asking Texas for a divorce. So far, Texas says

no. In order to avoid recognizing the marriage, even for the purpose of granting a divorce, Texas is forcing a gay couple to stay married. Ironic, wot?

[ourbluenation]

42. Back to work. Put it to the voters a million times if need be. It will happen. n/t

[cascadiance]

49. First pass a prop to overturn prop 8! THEN pass a prop to reform ammendment props...

... to require a 2/3rds votes instead of a majority vote to pass an ammendment to the state constitution...

California's f'd up with that low a threshold...

Then again, California needs to make sure to get the bad state props already passed overturned before one changes the proposition process to require a 2/3rds vote.

[KamaAina]

58. And yet a 2/3 vote in the legislature is required for a budget

in effect giving the repukes veto power over any (gasp!) tax increase.

The result: The place that really was "the Golden State" in my youth is headed toward the poorhouse.

This cannot be good for other Western states (like Hawai'i), where even a small outmigration of fed-up Californians translates into a huge influx of "Californicating" newcomers.

Then again, to get back on topic, we're hardly ones to talk about equality; we blew our chance to be natioanl leaders over a decade ago, thanks largely to the same two large churches that funded Prop H8. :grr:

[cascadiance]

65. I just moved to Oregon, and California will be paying for my unemployment...

... and I'm guessing in this economy, there are a lot more like me than they'd care to admit. To qualify for receiving unemployment in many states, I think you have to be there something like a year before you moved there for that state to have to pay your claims. This could be a big sap on the state's budget.

Even though I'm not looking for a job in California. They will pay the price if I can't find one here in Oregon. And I'm guessing the more people leave now, will make this problem bigger for other people that get affected the same way after moving away.

[JerseygirlCT]

90. I think it needs to go further

civil rights ought never (whether 2/3, 3/4 or 7/8) be up for a vote. The majority should never be allowed to strip a minority of civil rights.

And didn't the USSC rule that marriage is a civil right in Loving?

The screwy proposition process in CA needs to be strongly amended.

[KTinaY2008]

52. This is very simple to me and I am not a very smart person...

It is very simple: should the majority decide civil rights for the minority? NO. Even if you are against gay marriage you should still be against Prop 8 for this reason in and of itself. I don't understand this decision at all. If someone like me gets this I don't understand why the judges don't get it. It makes me sick.

[imdjh]

45. I will not apologize for anything that the Californians do today.

[xxqqqzme]

46. This is so wrong, just sooooo wrong.

How can they reverse their own decision a year later. It is insane.

Hey, Jerry Brown, thanks for sending that bumbling idiot, last March, to argue before the court.

[nichomachus]

69. You are so right

That guy Brown sent up to argue was just about the worst lawyer I've ever seen appear in court -- and I've seen a lot of court cases. I was absolutely appalled at how inarticulate and unprepared he was. What a maroon!

[closeupready]

92. How can they reverse their own decision a year later? Cowardice.

Seems pretty simple to me.

[No Elephants]

114. Technically, that is not what happened. Their first decision interpreted the California

Constitution as it read at that time. Since then, Californians amended the Constitution. This decision says the amendment is vaild.

[livefreest]

48. here' s to hopping for

light in a time of darkness love in a time of hate and fear

[pup_ajax]

50. Let's put "outlawing religion" on the CA ballot

Time to vote to outlaw religion ...

I'm still married today, but my fellow LGBT citizens aren't allowed.
Welcome to the new "Seperate-But-Equal" clusterf**k created by religious bigots and the California State Supreme Court.

We are sad, disappointed, not really surprised, and so sick of this sh*t.

[24601]

119. As long as you oppose the 1st amendment, go ahead and

oppose freedoms of speech and peaceful assembly. You'll get just as far.

The difference is that the US Constitution says nothing about same sex marriage and no credible attorney one will argue that it ever was intended to. The path to change is a constitutional amendment and that starts at the ballot box, not the courts. What this country needs every 240 years is a Constitutional Convention.

[AngryAmish]

51. I, for one around here, think this is wrong

Equal porotection means anyone should marry who they want to, regardless of gender.

[SpookyCat]

54. Fuck.

Sorry CA LGBT.

I'm ashamed and disgusted with my state today. :cry:

[KamaAina]

55. I guess now all the fires and earthquakes and stuff will stop

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[aquart]

84. Or...California is about to get The Big One.

[supernova]

56. Truly sorry to see this

Was hoping for the opposite ruling.

:-(

[gorfle]

57. How many years?

How many years will it take before all the religious bigots are dead and this issue can go away?

[amb123]

64. Time to Burn your Marriage Certificates in Protest.

To those gay/lesbian couples whose marriages are still legal in CA should, in protest of the Supreme Courts Decision, either return their certificates to the agencies that issued them or burn them in public to show solidarity with gay/lesbian couples who now cannot get married.

:mad: :nuke: :mad:

[nichomachus]

74. How about

straight people burn their marriage certificates to show solidarity with us? That would be much more effective.

[glitch]

77. Why limit it to LGBT? How about EVERYBODY burn their marriage certificates in solidarity? nt

[izquierdista]

91. Why yes, concede defeat....

Why don't you post again after you have calmed down? Having 18,000 legally wed gay couples in the state, plus legally wed couples from other states who move in is a giant foot in the door. The Prop 8 forces may think they have slammed the door, however, it will bounce off of the steel-toed boot of reason. This is a minor setback at worst, creating a separate-but-equal category that will be a legal embarrassment until it can be adjudicated properly in some other case. Supreme Courts are known for handing down a few dizzy decisions :silly: :silly: every so often, it keeps them in business as more cases are brought to overturn them.

[Vehl]

59. Sad Sad day for california and the nation as a whole :(

Today is a day when the majority trampled yet again on the rights of the minority.

this is really saddening

[Kickin_Donkey]

63. Gutless decision ...

gutless "justices"

[John Kerry VonErich]

68. I just hope there won't be another "White Night Riot"

nt

[Strathos]

71. California gays should leave NOW and not spend another cent in that state

The only thing those people listen to is the almighty dollar.

[nichomachus]

73. Not everyone can just pack up and go

Not with the housing and job market the way it is. And, there are other ways to fight back.

[bullwinkle428]

75. EXCLUSIVE : Next week, California to declare GLBTers as 3/5 of a person!

:mad: :mad: :mad:

[KamaAina]

86. And no more of them may be imported into the state after 1808

:banghead: :argh: :nuke:

[defendandprotect]

80. Obviously, they feared homosexual reaction and growing power . . .GOOD!!!

BAD!!! on letting the Prop itself stand . . .

What of the interference of religion in this proposition -- $$$$$$$$$$$$$$?????

[xxqqqzme]

85. State Senator Mark Leno.

who wrote the two gay marriage bills passed by the legislature and vetoed by Arnold Schwarzenegger, has released a statement. (my emphasis)

"Today's decision is extremely disappointing for California and hurts thousands of caring couples who wish to make lifelong commitments to one another through marriage. Let today's decision be a rallying cry for all Californians who believe in equality and fairness, and encourage thousands more to stand up and fight the pervasive injustices LGBT people face in our community and our nation."

"The issue before this court was much greater than marriage equality. The question asked of our justices goes to the core of our society. Can a majority vote undermine a foundation stone of our constitutional democracy, equal protection under the law? Today our highest court ruled that minorities do not matter."

"Through our disappointment, we will still find hope and encouragement, including the 18,000 couples whose marriages in California remain secure and protected today. Through our sadness, our resolve to fight for justice and equality only grows stronger. Love is an unstoppable force, and equality is right around the corner."

http://www.calitics.com/diary/8969/prop-8-decision-web-address

Pelosi & Garamendi statements also at link

[demo dutch]

97. CA really need to amend their initiative process, it should not have been placed on the ballot

The decision should have stayed with the courts those who interpret the constitution.

[Libertas1776]

87. Well...

its official, Iowa (at least their Supreme Court anyways) is now more progressive than California.

[demo dutch]

98. It should never have gone on the ballot, had it stayed in the courts CA would have been ok, so

it's really time to change the initiative process in CA. It's only a matter of time before a case works it's way to the supreme court,and it will be interesting to see if they'll take it since marriage is within states rights or whether it will become a civil rights issue.

[PufPuf23]

89. I appologize to those that due not have full human civil rights

Our courts as well as our politicians are bought and are indifferent to individual lives.

[Xenotime]

94. So much for California being the progressive leaders.. Time to look elsewhere

[AsahinaKimi]

99. I can't stand to read the comments...

I can't stand to read the comments anymore at SFgate.com anymore. What has happened to our fair city? Once the bastion for liberal ideas... we have been infiltrated by right wingers, hell bent on turning all of California into their conservative paradise. Maybe its been slowly happening for a long time..*shakes head* I don't know, but I have been so saddened by this..ever since prop 8 passed. This is truly a sad, sad day.

[time_has_come]

100. Some good news....

...the existing marriages are still valid.

And when you look at the demographics of the prop 8 vote - 60 per cent of seniors voted for it, 60 per cent under 30 voted against it - it's inevitable that the law will change in the near future.

[TaxCollector]

120. The Only Way

To reverse this ruling, the constitution must be amended. Women were not allowed to vote until state and federal laws or constitutions were chanaged. They didn't get to vote because of a court decision.

[slackmaster]

125. The real gutless parties here are the members of our state legislature

They won't go against the will of the majority of voters, as Congress did for the Suffrage.