Prop 8 Ruling Reaction: WTF

Proposition 8–the ban on a certain minority being allowed to marry–was upheld by the California Supreme Court. To which I say: WTF?  As a striaght Californian, as an American, I am so effing pissed. . . and hurt. . . and shocked–and can only imagine the utter pain and dismay that my LGBTQ friends and family must feel. Does this mean that any state can vote to have some se of rights removed from whatever minorities they don’t particularly like?

Because, if that’s the case, I’d like to start with douchey guys driving Trans Ams. Let’s just vote them off the road. And deny them the right to buy CK One. We’d be doing our freeways and our noses a favor.

I find it a travesty that two people of opposite sex can get married so one of them can stay in the country, or get better insurance benefits, or so the couple can get tax breaks–or for any other number of non-romantic reasons–but people who love each other are denied the basic civil rights that marriage allows. IANAL, but my considered opinion is: That’s bullshit.

Iowa, Maine and other states had better gird their loins for a battle at the ballot box.

Did I mention that I am pissed? WTF?!?

27 Responses to "Prop 8 Ruling Reaction: WTF"
lope78 | Tuesday May 26, 2009 12:58 pm 1

As a straight man and a minority, this is really sad. It hearkens back to the days when the exclusion acts were the rule of the day. I hope and pray that this Nazi piece of legislation gets overturned soon.

Jesterfox | Tuesday May 26, 2009 01:51 pm 2

Oh, we’re girded, all right. (Iowa)

Badwater | Tuesday May 26, 2009 01:51 pm 3

The Prop 8 battle may be over, but there’s nothing to stop anyone from pushing an anti-prop 8 proposition in the future.

ratfood | Tuesday May 26, 2009 01:55 pm 4

Seems like the CA Supremes employed sound reasoning, aka crass political calculations.

jayt | Tuesday May 26, 2009 01:55 pm 5
In response to Badwater @ 3

that’s what i was thinking…..

WarOnWarOff | Tuesday May 26, 2009 02:01 pm 6

Because, if that’s the case, I’d like to start with douchey guys driving Trans Ams.

I’d like to start with the friggin’ Mormons.

Millineryman | Tuesday May 26, 2009 02:03 pm 7

I’m really pissed.

Badwater | Tuesday May 26, 2009 02:08 pm 8
In response to WarOnWarOff @ 6

It is curious why Mormons are so determined to protect gays from divorce.

Margaret | Tuesday May 26, 2009 02:09 pm 9

Hmph! The partisans over at Kos and Adam B think it’s a reasonable decision that “makes sense”. That place has really turned into a site wholly dedicated to electing people who call themselves Democrats and seem to be far more concerned with terminology than they do actually acting in a liberal fashion. I think Markos is still in the liberal vein but most of his headliners are both overly partisan and unable to take criticism in even the mildest of forms.

ratfood | Tuesday May 26, 2009 02:13 pm 10
In response to Millineryman @ 7

For much of the 20th Century a majority of Americans probably favored racial segregation but that didn’t make it right.

A government which fails to protect the rights of the few from the prejudices of the many FAILS, period.

Millineryman | Tuesday May 26, 2009 02:13 pm 11
In response to Badwater @ 8

No Mormons have no desire to protect gays at all. They have fought hate crimes legislation because they felt if gays and lesbians got this form of civil rights protection, then this would lead to marriage equity rights.

They would rather see fellow human beings get pummeled, maimed and killed to protect the sanctity of marriage. I don’t think they care about divorce.

Petrocelli | Tuesday May 26, 2009 02:15 pm 12

Lisa, the last time we chatted about Prop 8, Margaret Cho was visiting.

As a Canuck, I find it shocking and appalling that a Court in a Democracy would deny human rights to its citizenry.

dmac | Tuesday May 26, 2009 02:17 pm 13

heyyy i like ckone……….on me. it’s a chemistry thing.

good things are—

well, more people are now talking about it, more people are ‘coming out’, more people are asking questions on how this can happen, more people are invested in it, more people are understanding what is at issue here and relating to it more, more people are seeing this as an inequity, more people are understanding gays and what they are being denied–a hopefully lifelong marriage with all of the rights by law which a marriage certificate grants.

Millineryman | Tuesday May 26, 2009 02:18 pm 14
In response to ratfood @ 10

I couldn’t agree more.

I hope the Democratic activists in CA take a look at there is only 1 Democrat elected to the Supreme Court in CA.

esseff44 | Tuesday May 26, 2009 02:50 pm 15

Actually, the court preserved all the rights that were outlined in their previous decision. The only thing they left to Prop 8 was the word ‘marriage.’ If an initiative were passed that substituted civil unions for what has been called marriage in the past, what difference would it make? Eliminate marriage in the civil code and leave that word for whoever wants it. Attach all the rights to civil unions and move on. The court gave a road map right in their decision. After all, it’s the attending rights that are important.

Here’s what the French have done. Their ‘civil pacts’ are gradually replacing ‘civil marriage’for all. What the California Supreme Court has done is to point to a shorter path to the same ends.….._in_France

Sharkbabe | Tuesday May 26, 2009 03:20 pm 16

Well of course this felt like a huge blow upon a bruise, but the more i think about it, it’s so legally ridiculous it’s stealthy.

But kicking obvious 14 am eq-protection to higher cts, or whole thing back to voters — srsly, why do these superfluous, pusillanimous pussies get paychecks at all?

American institutions 2009: Kick it down the road. I didn’t do it. Don’t know nuffin about it. Ask him over there.

Sharkbabe | Tuesday May 26, 2009 03:31 pm 17

In other words, our institutions are ossified. People energy is it. This thing is all a good people power lab, and not just for this issue.

Big win for us wherever this ends, hopefully sooner rather than later, and brainstem lobby in the dust.

falloch | Tuesday May 26, 2009 04:12 pm 18

The really optimistic part of me (which is really the littlest bit of my soul most of the time) really wanted Prop 8 to be trounced, and I was really pissed off when I read the ruling, but I can grudgingly admit that AmericaBlog had a point: that the Court was making a decision on a point/procedure of law. The fact that the 18,000 marriages are still valid is fantastic, because it so makes the case for validating the rights of ALL LGBTQ in a specific appeal, rather than just fighting off the Mormon moral scarey scum. If the marriages had been declared invalid, then all gloves would be off, and time to break lots of windows. But I agree w/ Sharkbabe, this is a postponement, not a dismissal – so I’m annoyed, enraged, but not in complete despair.

Funnydiva2002 | Tuesday May 26, 2009 04:18 pm 19

Hi, Lisa.
I feel for you! And for myself, and for everyone very directly affected.
And I’m APPALLED that the California State Constitution can be so easily and lightly AMENDED. It’s mind-blowing, really!
I’m so ashamed. Kansas, nothing, what’s wrong with California?
And I write that as a Cali Native who left 15+ years ago.

Funny Diva

HIVANH | Tuesday May 26, 2009 04:24 pm 20

CA has just proven that for all of their talk about being hip, svelt,thin, rich, chic, discriminating and astute, they are not very damn civil. I am baffled by this idiocy.

esseff44 | Tuesday May 26, 2009 04:55 pm 21
In response to falloch @ 18

It was an affirmation of their previous decision on the equality of rights no matter what the label that is applied to the relationship by the state. I expect the legislature to codify this somehow very soon. State Senator Leno has probably already drafted something and will have it introduced very soon. Arnold will have no reason not to sign as long as the unions are not called ‘marriage.’ If the state wants uniformity of certificates, they can all be called
‘civil unions.’ Informally, people can call them whatever they want just like they always have.

I wonder how common law marriages will be affected. That’s an interesting can of worms.

esseff44 | Tuesday May 26, 2009 05:10 pm 22

Here’s more from a legal angle. There will have to be a next step, but it’s not as big a step as it seems on first glance.

Spence | Tuesday May 26, 2009 09:26 pm 23

This debate reminds me of the debate that the Canadians had over the gay marriage issue.

When Paul Martin became Prime Minister he had made it known that he was opposed to gay marriage. There was a movemnt in Canada to place gay marriage on a referendum. The Canidian Supreme Court had already declared gay marriage constitutionsl. So it was not unlike the California situation.

Paul Martin surprised eveyone when in a nationwide address he said that he had been wrong in opposing gay marriage rights. Further, he opposed puting the issue up for a referendum. He boldly stated that “we do not put people’s rights up for a vote.”

I was hopeful that the California Court would rule in a like manner. What good is a human right guarnteed under a constitution if it can be reversed by a simple majority of the electorate?

The whole idea taught in our schools is that the rights guaranted under the constitution are to protect us from the will of the majority.

The California decision stands the whole idea of human rights guarantees on its head.

When the very concept of the rule of law is violated by the very court impowered to protect it what choice is left?

esseff44 | Tuesday May 26, 2009 11:31 pm 24
In response to Spence @ 23

The whole idea taught in our schools is that the rights guaranted under the constitution are to protect us from the will of the majority.

I think you would get some argument about that. The rights in the Constitution are to protect us from government abuses of power. Without majority rule, nothing much would get done in self-governing bodies. Super majorities are required for some things such as making significan changes in a constitution. It is required for passsing the California budget and it’s causing big problems which many people want to change to a simple majority. Only one other state requires a super majority for passing a budget. The same with state taxes….which require a super majority approval by the voters.

The California decision does not stand the whole idea of human rights guarantees on its head. If you read it carefully, equal rights are protected…just not the right to a particular word on a certificate. The gave a roadmap for getting beyond that and preserving the substance of their previous decision….and they did it 6-1. All the minority judges in the previous decision regarded those rights as being settled law. They were not trying to take anything back. Otherwise, you would not have seen 7-0 on leaving the 18,000 unrevoked.

Read some of the law blogs and see what they say about the decision. Some of them see some good news.

Lisa Derrick | Tuesday May 26, 2009 11:40 pm 25
In response to Petrocelli @ 12

I makes me kinda of embarrassed to be a californian…

doctordawg | Wednesday May 27, 2009 02:43 am 26

The saviors of marriage have now rendered my heterosexual marriage an institution of hatred, division and bigotry. If I say I am married, I am claiming to be morally and biologically superior to loving couples born with bookend genitalia. If there is a simple way, all heterosexual “married” couples should dissolve their marriage and opt instead for a “civil union”, as that is now the only untainted institution representing a loving, compassionate, life-long commitment devoid of hatred, self-superiority and religious political manipulations.

Everyman12 | Wednesday May 27, 2009 08:42 am 27

Please quit crying, you lost, the majority has spoken. Go back into the closet so the mainstream cannot see your perversions. The majority of Americans do not agree that being gay is a right that should be protected anymore than we should protect the rights for criminals to commit crimes. You people should get professional help.

Sorry but the comments are closed on this post