Prop 8 Struck Down by CA Supreme Court

[Jessica]

I admit I voted for Prop 8. I was totally fundie at the time and believed it was important, though I also knew it was a last chance effort and that eventually it would be overturned. In one sense, despite being embarrassed at myself when I look back, I'm not actually ashamed of myself for doing what I believed was right at the time.

Ditto to the bolded part, but not so much the second part. I still sometimes lay awake at night feeling sick to my stomach for voting for it. :oops:

[Alana Rickman]

If this goes to the Supreme Court and the court says that California can't ban same sex marriage will other states have to allow it?

Loving vs Virginia ended all bans against interracial marriage in the United States.

Not if SCOTUS applies the same reasoning the Ninth Circuit did today. The opinion was really, really narrowly tailored--it basically said that the problem with Prop 8 was that California, having once chosen to extend a right to gays and lesbians, could not then take that right back without a rational justification for doing so. The court specifically noted that it was NOT deciding the issue of whether same sex couples had a fundamental right to marry.

The Ninth Circuit's opinion did not mention Loving v. Virginia, but relied on a case called Romer v. Evans. Romer was a case where some Colorado cities had passed anti-discrimination laws protecting gays and lesbians. The voters of Colorado then passed a constitutional amendment that said the cities were not allowed to recognize gays and lesbians as a protected class. The US Supreme Court said that the constitutional amendment was invalid because it singled out a disfavored class without being rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

[Bookworm]

I get previously voting for something you now regret, but you seem to be patting yourself on the back for it. I'm sure the dying gay person who wasn't allowed to have their partner of 30+ years with them as they died is sooooooo proud you voted what you believed was right at the time.

Also, exactly how do you vote to deny an entire group of people a fundamental right like marriage while claiming to not have had any animosity towards them? To steal a line from comedian Aziz Ansary, "let’s be honest, if you’re against gay marriage, you just don’t like gay people and you want to stick it to ‘em"

I was more thinking aloud, probably not in the right place for it. I have since regretting voting for it many times, just as I have many other things I did while fundie. I have posted before about feeling cheated by how many lies I was told and believed growing up. When Prop 8 passed I was just barely old enough to vote and did not even think I knew any gay people. I really, really did not understand the issues and now that I am friends with and look up to several openly gay people it is at least it is a relief to look back now, as an ardent gay rights supporter, and realize I did not actually vote that way out of an "eff you," motive, but more as a "this is my duty" motive.

[Boogalou]

This is good news! Does this mean that same-sex marriage is now legal in California or just that it can become legal again if it is voted on?

[Rachel333]

Also, exactly how do you vote to deny an entire group of people a fundamental right like marriage while claiming to not have had any animosity towards them? To steal a line from comedian Aziz Ansary, "let’s be honest, if you’re against gay marriage, you just don’t like gay people and you want to stick it to ‘em"

I think a lot of people feel like that's what they have to do. I know I really never disliked gay people at all, but I thought I had to be against gay marriage. I think that most people who feel that way eventually change their position; I changed mine before I reached voting age.

In 2008 we voted on Proposition 1 in Arkansas, which I think may have been worse than Prop 8. It banned single people (by which they meant gay people) from fostering or adopting children. I really disagreed with it, but was too young to vote. My parents did vote for it, and afterwards my mom really regretted it. I could tell she felt really bad about it, but she felt like she had to vote for it. I don't think she'd vote the same way now. I know she's still somewhat anti-gay, but she feels really bad about it. She was telling me recently that she knows she has to talk to my younger siblings about gay people soon, and she's dreading it because she has to tell them that being gay is wrong, but she doesn't want them to learn to hate gay people like a lot of Christians do.

She feels bad about all of it, but in contrast my dad always seems really happy to talk about why homosexuality is wrong. I definitely think he has some animosity towards gay people, and I see him in Aziz Ansari's statement, but I just don't see that from my mom. Her attitudes towards gay people still really frustrate me, but she's already changed a lot for the better and I think she will eventually change completely.

I'm not saying this to excuse anyone--even if you feel bad about voting for things like Prop 8, your actions have exactly the same consequences as someone who does it gleefully. I think it's possible to vote for anti-gay measures without animosity, but I don't think you get a pass for it at all. It almost seems worse, really.

[marmalade]

A local article.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/02/07/150967/

And as OP noted, bring on the Supremes! Although based on his voting record on discrimination and GLBT issues, the "swing vote," Justice Kennedy, could actually go either way. He really IS a swinger. :dance: :dance: :dance: :dance:

A pity the conservative judges are still fairly young and will, in all likelihood, still be sitting on the court when this comes to the Bench. Kennedy is our only hope to uphold the 9th Circuit's decision. For the non-American posters, the 9th Circuit is considered the most liberal (surprise...it's based out of San Francisco, but represents the entire West Coast) and is fodder for idiots like Rush Limpballs, O'Lielly, et al., on talk radio/Faux "News."

[MadameX]

The Family Research Council released this statement:

The authors of the constitution agreed that you could own another person, and consider them 3/5 of a person to increase your own congressional representation. I dare them to release a statement about that.

The authors of the constitution didn't think women should vote. It wouldn't surprise me if they released a statement about that.

If the FRC released that statement, they didn't proof read it very well. Substitute's judicial tyranny = judicial tyranny belonging to the substitute.

Also, what the authors of the constitution agreed was that the constitution needed to be a flexible document that could be amended to reflect the inevitable changes in society. So...yeah.

[crazyforkate]

Yay! To all those crowing about "The Will of The People"- how would you like it if someone decided that whatever minority group you belong to was unable to marry? Nobody should be allowed to vote on another's rights.

[demgirl]

Not if SCOTUS applies the same reasoning the Ninth Circuit did today. The opinion was really, really narrowly tailored--it basically said that the problem with Prop 8 was that California, having once chosen to extend a right to gays and lesbians, could not then take that right back without a rational justification for doing so. The court specifically noted that it was NOT deciding the issue of whether same sex couples had a fundamental right to marry.

The Ninth Circuit's opinion did not mention Loving v. Virginia, but relied on a case called Romer v. Evans. Romer was a case where some Colorado cities had passed anti-discrimination laws protecting gays and lesbians. The voters of Colorado then passed a constitutional amendment that said the cities were not allowed to recognize gays and lesbians as a protected class. The US Supreme Court said that the constitutional amendment was invalid because it singled out a disfavored class without being rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

The 9th circuit am smart. Framing it in terms of Romer was the right call. Framing it in terms of Loving would have basically meant an up or down SCOTUS vote on gay marriage nationally and I don't know that we're there yet, much as I wish we were. But Justice Kennedy, IIRC, not only was the swing vote but he also authored the Romer decision, which essentially said, you can't give a minority population a right and then take it away because they are that minority. Seems to fit this case.

[emmiedahl]

It is a painful path, switching ideology, because it means changing your entire paradigm. A former bigot who had to reject all of their beliefs to become more accepting deserves applause for making a difficult change. It does not negate what damage they might have caused in the past, but it definitely affects the present and future of American politics.

I don't blame the people who voted for it so much as I blame a government that allows human rights to be dependent on a majority vote. That is fucked up about eighty different ways. People make mistakes, and the government needs to be set up in such a way that mistakes do not harm others.

[DistantStar]

Idaho? No way. If this goes state-by-state, I expect Idaho to be the second-to-last. Utah gets that "honor." But I suspect the Supreme Court will step in long before we get that far.

Please note that not everybody in Idaho is a bigot...but there's a lot of 'em. I look at the beautiful mountains and try not to think about them too hard, or my head would explode.

[elliesmash]

I'm a Marylander and hoping that the law doesn't stall again as it did last time. I'm really glad that our governor came out in favor of it!

I'm a Marylander too! Martin O'Malley love! I'm really excited about marriage equality getting passed over here, too. I will have a lot of weddings to go to.

[Alana Rickman]

The 9th circuit am smart. Framing it in terms of Romer was the right call. Framing it in terms of Loving would have basically meant an up or down SCOTUS vote on gay marriage nationally and I don't know that we're there yet, much as I wish we were. But Justice Kennedy, IIRC, not only was the swing vote but he also authored the Romer decision, which essentially said, you can't give a minority population a right and then take it away because they are that minority. Seems to fit this case.

Yeah, I totally agree with you. That opinion was definitely written with Justice Kennedy in mind. Here's hoping he agrees with himself and makes the right call when the Court gets this one.