Comments on: Prop 8 Ruling Reaction: WTF

By: Everyman12

Everyman12 — Wed, 27 May 2009 15:42:11 +0000

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.

By: doctordawg

doctordawg — Wed, 27 May 2009 09:43:10 +0000

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.

By: Lisa Derrick

Lisa Derrick — Wed, 27 May 2009 06:40:05 +0000

I makes me kinda of embarrassed to be a californian…

By: esseff44

esseff44 — Wed, 27 May 2009 06:31:05 +0000

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.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/

By: Spence

Spence — Wed, 27 May 2009 04:26:09 +0000

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?

By: esseff44

esseff44 — Wed, 27 May 2009 00:10:44 +0000

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.

http://www.balkin.blogspot.com/

By: esseff44

esseff44 — Tue, 26 May 2009 23:55:18 +0000

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.

By: HIVANH

HIVANH — Tue, 26 May 2009 23:24:03 +0000

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.

By: Funnydiva2002

Funnydiva2002 — Tue, 26 May 2009 23:18:55 +0000

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

By: falloch

falloch — Tue, 26 May 2009 23:12:33 +0000

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.