California Same Sex Marriage Ban struck down

[mommylamb]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/gay-marriage-prop-8s-ban-ruled-unconstitutional.html

:bighand: But I worry about a Supreme Court case on this issue.

[kijip]

It is passing up here in WA via the legislature and the governor will sign! There will be an initiative up here to reverse I am sure. I don't know if it will pass or not. I am excited that it is finally passing here though.

[BabyMine]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/gay-marriage-prop-8s-ban-ruled-unconstitutional.html

:bighand: But I worry about a Supreme Court case on this issue.
I do to. They seem to be putting politics ahead of what their real job is.
I am still glad it was struck down.

[AnnieW625]

It is great news overall and we have lesbian friends who were married in CA when they could get married, but then the other side of me thinks that it may not last long because unfortunately the people who voted for it now probably feel like they have no voice because their votes mean nothing and that can wreak havoc with the voting system here in CA, which is already in shambles; no one votes in CA and that is sad. Should be interesting to see what happens and I think the legal voting thing is probably the Supreme Court's strongest backing it for keeping prop. 8 in place.

[kijip]

It is great news overall and we have lesbian friends who were married in CA when they could get married, but then the other side of me thinks that it may not last long because unfortunately the people who voted for it now probably feel like they have no voice because their votes mean nothing. Should be interesting to see what happened. I think the legal voting thing is probably the Supreme Court's strongest backing it for keeping prop. 8 in place.

I don't think people deserve a vote on people's equal civil rights. I would hope SCOTUS would see it that way but it is so politicized we certainly can't be sure.

[sariana]

On a slightly related note, there is an article on Yahoo apparently about whether it even matters who is elected president, i.e. whether s/he even has any influence. I didn't read the article, but my response to the headline and synopsis consists of three words:

Supreme Court Nominees

Yay for California! I was so embarrassed to live here when Prop 8 passed (and years ealier when a similar one passed that eventually was struck down for its poor grammar, which made me laugh a little).

[niccig]

:bighand: But I worry about a Supreme Court case on this issue.

A friend is involved with a gay marriage advocacy group here in LA, he told me there trying to get it on the ballot this November, so don't have to worry about the Supreme Court deciding on the issue.

[wellyes]

I don't think people deserve a vote on people's equal civil rights. I would hope SCOTUS would see it that way but it is so politicized we certainly can't be sure.
Yes. It never should have been up for vote in the first place.

[Green_Tea]

Hallelujah! So happy!

[georgiegirl]

Yes. It never should have been up for vote in the first place.
That's right! If a law is unconstitutional, it doesn't matter how many people voted for it.

I'm super happy! I'm originally from California. I was also a law clerk for the Iowa supreme court when they decided in favor of gay marriage (and sadly my judge was voted out as a result.)

[Nu_mama]

That's right! If a law is unconstitutional, it doesn't matter how many people voted for it.

:bighand:Very happy with this decision.

[elektra]

It is great news overall and we have lesbian friends who were married in CA when they could get married, but then the other side of me thinks that it may not last long because unfortunately the people who voted for it now probably feel like they have no voice because their votes mean nothing and that can wreak havoc with the voting system here in CA, which is already in shambles; no one votes in CA and that is sad. Should be interesting to see what happens and I think the legal voting thing is probably the Supreme Court's strongest backing it for keeping prop. 8 in place.

I am definitely happy with the end result! Civil rights are not something we should be voting on in this manner.
But I do see your point Annie. I had conversations with my in-laws (also Californians) when prop 8 was passed, and their "official" support of prop 8 was that they felt like a group of officials should not have the right to overturn something that was voted on.
I'm sure that all the back and forth is not unheard of but it give a sense of powerlessness to the voters, and why even ask if the vote does not really matter.
I do understand that it's not some unbiased entity who is doing the "asking", but rather groups with agendas and money to support those agendas. It does give one a sense of getting jerked around a bit.

[AnnieW625]

I am definitely happy with the end result! Civil rights are not something we should be voting on in this manner.
But I do see your point Annie. I had conversations with my in-laws (also Californians) when prop 8 was passed, and their "official" support of prop 8 was that they felt like a group of officials should not have the right to overturn something that was voted on.
I'm sure that all the back and forth is not unheard of but it give a sense of powerlessness to the voters, and why even ask if the vote does not really matter.
I do understand that it's not some unbiased entity who is doing the "asking", but rather groups with agendas and money to support those agendas. It does give one a sense of getting jerked around a bit.

Completely agree with that which is why DH and I voted no on it. DH though really concerned about all of that fall out with the pro prop 8 people and their voting and such and that it could spread to other issues and such.

[ellies mom]

But I do see your point Annie. I had conversations with my in-laws (also Californians) when prop 8 was passed, and their "official" support of prop 8 was that they felt like a group of officials should not have the right to overturn something that was voted on.
I'm sure that all the back and forth is not unheard of but it give a sense of powerlessness to the voters, and why even ask if the vote does not really matter.
I do understand that it's not some unbiased entity who is doing the "asking", but rather groups with agendas and money to support those agendas. It does give one a sense of getting jerked around a bit.

My parents live in California and my response to their outraged complaining that the courts keep overturning their ballot initiatives was that maybe they should stop voting for unconstitutional crap. Maybe there needs to be a higher bar to the type of initiatives that can make the ballot. Maybe (definitely) people need to become more informed voters. In any case, if something is unconstitutional, it should be overturned. I don't care how many people voted for it. This is a prime example of why we have a judicial system.

[larig]

I don't think people deserve a vote on people's equal civil rights. I would hope SCOTUS would see it that way but it is so politicized we certainly can't be sure.

agreed.

[maestramommy]

I am cautiously elated. Am waiting to hear if the Supreme Court will agree to hear it.

[Beth24]

I am cautiously elated. Am waiting to hear if the Supreme Court will agree to hear it.

I believe that both parties to this case and most legal experts expected it eventually to be decided by the US Supreme Court...while I am so happy about the 9th Circuit decision I know it isn't over. And I am very nervous about the outcome.

[NCGrandma]

I wish things were as cautiously optimistic here in NC. Many of us are very concerned about the fate of a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot in the NC May primary. The original wording would have prohibited same-sex marriage (which a state law already does, so no need for a constitutional amendment anyway) but then some additional wording was added which is both vague and ominous. It could prohibit not only s-s marriage but also any form of domestic partnership benefits (which are offered by a handful of towns in NC as well as by private employers) and in an extreme interpretation would call into question such things as health care powers of attorney between s-s couples.

[swissair81]

Not expressing an opinion, but it looks like the Supreme Court may not hear this case. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/prop-8-supreme-court-may-not-hear-california-gay-marriage-case.html

[vludmilla]

I don't think people deserve a vote on people's equal civil rights.

:yeahthat:

[citymama]

Read this article from the American Prospect about Judge Reinhardt's ruling. He was thinking about the Supreme Court too - and writing his opinion for an audience of one: Anthony Kennedy.

http://prospect.org/article/prop-8-ruling-liberal-lion-coos