Another Disappointment Brought To You By The State Of California...

[smc]

As soon as the decision to challenge the Prop 8 vote in court was announced, I expected this outcome, because the court case was based exclusively on the "merits" of California's system of having citizen ballot propositions, and not on the "merits" of a civil rights issue. I'm sure the plaintiffs knew what they were up against, and in some ways I think it might have been better not to pursue remedy in the courts but rather to seek a referendum repeal of Prop 8.

I say this because the court ruling -- although it absolutely does not decide on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage -- will be seen as a feather in the cap of those who want to limit marriage rights. In the face of what is happening here in New England, where I live, those forces are looking for any positive news they can use to rally their hateful troops.

Had the anti-Prop 8 forces organized immediately to overturn Prop 8 via referendum, through a signature campaign that had them speaking with people all throughout California, it might well have been a better expenditure of energy and campaign funds.

According to newspaper reports I have read here in Boston, one of the things that convinced legislators in Maine to approve same-sex marriage was that they met lots of same-sex married couples from Massachusetts who, in their very "ordinariness," put to rest the notion in these legislators' heads that passing such a law would topple hetero marriage as an institution. This is a story that is repeated throughout the country. In Massachusetts, we have devout Catholic legislators who changed their mind on same-sex marriage because they met neighbor couples against whose civil rights they could then not bring themselves to vote. At the state level, legislators are typically just like regular people. Imagine the 18,000 same-sex married couples in California fanning out around the state to talk to people, calmly and rationally, while gathering signatures for a new proposition. In concert with other efforts, it could have quite an effect.

Just my two cents ... on a sad day when good friends of mine who live in California are feeling very, very low.

[megawatty101]

Anyone here from California? I'm surprised that this stuff passes.

[smc]

Many of you are probably already aware that in the wake of the California Supreme Court's ruling, two of the leading constitutional lawyers in the United States have filed a suit at the federal level to challenge the legal validity of Proposition 8. What's most noteworthy may well be that it is the duo of Ted Olsen and David Boies -- who represented Bush and Gore, respectively, before the Supreme Court in the 2000 presidential election debacle!

They are seeking an injunction, on behalf of two gay California couples, to stay the law while arguing it is a violation of the equal-protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Olson, who was the Solicitor General of the United States under George W. Bush, said at a press conference that the case "is not about liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. This case is about the equal rights guaranteed to every American under the United States Constitution."

This puts Olson ahead of Obama on this question. Obama has never publicly supported same-sex marriage.

And, without a doubt, this will push the case of same-sex marriage all the way to the Supreme Court.

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by megawatty101

Anyone here from California? I'm surprised that this stuff passes.

Unless you live here, people don't really understand how wacky California can be politically. For example, most people see California as a die-hard "blue state" and being ultra liberal...but don't realize that up until Clinton it voted Republican continually in all Presidential elections. It went for Obama heavily in this last election, but when it was Bush versus Kerry, for example, Kerry actually struggled here. And don't forget the long line of Republican governors we've had out here...from Ronald Reagan, Pete Wilson, and now Arnold.

The state basically breaks down this way...

The north, where you have San Francisco -- very liberal.
The south, where you have San Diego -- very conservative.
So those two offset.

In the middle, you have Los Angeles -- which leans Left, but is actually moderate in terms of other voting initiatives.
So it usually goes Left, but it could go Right depending on the issue.

So that's north, middle, south -- going top to bottom.
Then, going side to side...

The coastline is Left leaning, so think of those Democratic Malibu/Hollywood voters...but then as you move inland, it starts to shift to the hot housewives of Orange county and their business-minded hubbies, so it starts to turn moderate...and then as you head even more inland and towards the Nevada border, things become very Right leaning and Republican again.

So, when you ask how could something like Prop 8 pass, it really is because California is a mixed bag that often votes emotionally and spur of the moment, depending on the issue or person. Heck, I even know gay couples that voted FOR Prop 8 -- that's right, they voting AGAINST gay marriage themselves -- simply because the issue was so emotionally charged relative to "what" gay marriage was ultimately going to mean in the state. For example, could a gay couple now sue a church for discrimination if the church said it didn't want to perform the ceremony, etc.

Frankly, same-sex marriage advocates in California -- despite having things like the Hollywood community behind them, which should have given the issue plenty of air time and "friendly faces" that people could have gotten behind -- have continually done a TERRIBLE job of selling same-sex marriage out here. So it was no big shock to me that Prop 8 actually passed the way that it did...

[Bionca]

While I can agree with you that from a strategic perspective a state-by-state progression could work better. However, it fully complicates things from a contractual law point of view. States honor contracts made in a different state, otherwise interstate commerce could not happen for example. So you'd have a legally wed couple in one state suddenly not wed if they move.

There is also the issue that folks simply don't get to vote on the rights of other people. That is what "Tyranny of the Majority" is all about. Talk about breaking long-standing American Traditions.

I do agree 100% that the Anti-8 groups did an amazingly bad job of doing anything more than preach to the choir, blame blacks and Latin@s, and get (understandably) angry with Mormons.

[GRH]

It's funny that you mention interstate commerce Bionca, because I was contemplating the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. If (and only if) it could be shown that the diverse marital contracts in state to state somehow affected an interstate business' ability to successfully conduct commerce, I feel THAT would be a more effective way of attacking the marriage issue. The courts would be more prone to legislate on this cause than from an equal protection standpoint.

[smc]

All of those who doubt that the Supreme Court will see this as an Equal Protection and civil rights issue could well be right. I would simply point out a couple of things. One is that the Court could be a different one by the time the case gets there. Another is that to send it back to the states the Court would have to state explicitly that it is not a civil rights issue. Given how quickly public opinion seems to be shifting (Iowa being a good example, and leaving California aside, where the ballot proposition process was terribly manipulated by money), a Court ruling of this sort could help galvanize a new civil rights movement with wider appeal than we can imagine at present.

I can dream, right?