A marriage equality supporter, Sen. Barbara Boxer thought California’s Supreme Court got it right the first time. But the mess that we’re now in the middle of? Where 18,000 gay couples can stay married but new couples can’t wed? It’s back to the ballot box, she predicts. “I don’t know why they went this way.” But Sen. Boxer isn’t the only California politician who foresees the eventual overturning of Prop 8:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger knows it will happen too. Tonight on Leno: “This is not over, this decision. I think they will be back in a year or two, with another initiative … eventually it’ll be overturned, I’m sure.
The Lesbian Mafia
Key words “eventually” … maybe next life time gays … thanks Arnie …
timncguy
How DARE that idiot Arnold say anything about this issue. He’s out there now trying to act like he is a supporter of marriage equality whne he VETOED marriage equality that was passed by the legislature.
Steve
Some people jump to the conclusion that the court has gutted equal protection. But they have not. They only decided that an amendment was properly passed. Section 1 of the CA Constitution has not been amended, at all. It still reads, “SEC. 7. (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws;”
Equal protection works both ways. Any right or protection that is granted to anyone must be granted to everyone. And, any right or protection that is denied to anyone must be denied to everyone. The protection of “marriage” is now denied to some, so it must be equally denied to all.
We need some political leaders to say so. County clerks can refuse to sell marriage licenses until they can sell the equally to all couples. County and city governments can pass resolutions to that effect, and even order their clerks to do so.
If Arnold wants to say that he supports marriage equality, he should order the county clerks not to license any marriage, at all.
timncguy
@Steve: wouldn’t it be just as accurate to say that the court has decided that marriage is not a RIGHT, therefore gays not having access to marriage is not an equal protection issue?
Yes, the court decided BEFORE that marriage was a right. But, that was before the constitution was changed. If the court still thought marriage was a right, they would have never let prop 8 on the ballot in the first place or would have struck it down NOW based on equal protection.
Dick Mills
@Steve: The court pondered the question in oral arguments that eliminating same-sex marriage by amendment certainly is no more egregious than overturning the death penalty ban that the court had also put in place. The notion being that the death penalty only affected a suspect class as well (in that case condemned criminals).
I disagree with that assertion, but I don’t think that our side made the case very well. I think that we could/should have brought up the fact that no one is ever subjected to the death penalty with out a very significant exercise of due process. While it is true that the constitution was amended to allow the death penalty, it doesn’t apply the death penalty to every infraction. The death penalty is only ever used after extensive justification.
So there is no parallel between a blanket ban on same sex marriage with no due process considerations, and the re-institution of a penalty (only after extensive due process) for serious criminal behavior.
Had we made that argument, this stripping of rights might have been viewed as what it is, a much more sinister carving up of equal protection than reinstatement of the death penalty was.
atdleft
@timncguy: Arnold’s a hypocrite.
@Dick Mills: Yep. We’re getting less due process than convicted criminals. And who said we’re no longer being punished for “sodomy”?
Lex
No posts about homophobia in the white community and educating whites about homosexuality? Interesting.
Kevin
@timncguy: In all fairness to Arnold (and believe me, I have many reasons to be unhappy with him), he’s been consistent and forthright. When the legislature twice sent him marriage equality legislation, he vetoed it on the grounds that he did not believe the Legislature had the authority to overturn Prop 22. He felt that either the courts should overturn it or the people should repeal it. And while I wanted him to sign it, if only to force the courts to decide (something that was already in progress anyway), I understood his position.
When the California Supreme Court overturned Prop 22, he lept to the court’s defense and said he agreed with their decision. Was there another elected Republican official in the state that did that? I’m not aware of any. (Oh, except the Mayor of San Diego.) And when Prop 8 qualified for the ballot, he came out against it and campaigned against it.
So all along, he’s consistently said that only the courts or the voters have the authority to repeal Prop 22 — but moreover, he’s encouraged them to do it. I give him a lot of flack for a lot of things, but not this one.
Forrest
What a mess we have facing us now. Two classes of committed couples in CA. Domestic Partnerships and Marriage. Which are the same thing but different. The court’s says DP’s can’t be changed to M because that would be different when it’s all the same. Got it?
I have a migraine.
Brian
“Domestic Partnerships” or “Civil Unions” is very “back of the bus.” Very 1955-ish. Gays have a lot to do if we ever want equality. We are the most hated group in the world. Religion did that.
Gene in L.A.
Civil Unions only became “back of the bus” when they were applied to gay people. My parents were married 68 years ago by a justice of the peace, a civil union, and no one has ever suggested their marriage isn’t a real one. It’s not the terminology, it’s who the terminology applies to, in this case US.