Well, but there IS hope on the federal horizon since Obama (and his transition team) have stated that they will try to accomplish equal rights on a federal basis for LGBT people (civil unions, with state’s deciding what to NAME those unions), and that means repealing “DOMA” and “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”. Gobama!

As far as demanding a lower tax rate, that would be hard to pull off without some sort of registry for us to sign up on, and even then it would be nearly impossible for us to actually prove we’re members of the GLBT community. You have to realize that plenty of opportunistic straights would try to fake their way into that. Nice thought, but not practical.

In addition to punitive actions, we also need to get Prop 8 repealed before any further restrictions on the process go through. I think a two-pronged approach (punishment/repeal) would sufficiently divide the enemy’s resources so as to get one or both passed.

It’s a nasty chess game, trying to get those passed and then strengthen the protections as far as introducing new initiatives go before our work can be undone. It’s hardly impossible, but it’s something that will take a lot of work, a lot of money, and better organization and leadership than we have at present. I’d imagine we could build some solid coalitions with other interest groups in order to accomplish some of this. Work with supportive organizations on the Prop 8 repeal, and work with groups interested in the separation of church and state on the tax issue.

We flank them, surround them, and annihilate them. There is a certain beauty that only manifests itself on the battlefield. This is certainly a beautiful strategy, in my opinion.

Also, need to demand that we be taxed at a lower rate than the more priviledged married types. If we are second class citizens, we should pay lower taxes of all types. Need to start researching how to present this.

Re-read the May opinion. The CASC held that gays and lesbians are a suspect class.

That is perfect!! I totally agree. That would work. And at the same time we can get an iniative to reverse prop 8 on the ballot asap.

@Mike: There wouldn’t be a problem if the Constitution was altered such that any amendment that would remove rights from any suspect class (which LGBTs now are in CA) require both a supermajority vote in both houses of the CA legislature before being placed on the ballot, and a supermajority ballot vote to pass.

Here’s a Wiki edit I just made to Corrigan’s page. If you want details on the RealQuest real estate data, let me know…I’m trying to post this info EVERYWHERE in hopes someone will pick it up and fly with it. Maybe we can SHAME Corrigan into voting her conscience instead of her fear (of outing). The mainstream media is purposefully ignoring this aspect of the case so it is up to the blogosphere to do what it does best: Tell the world the G.D. truth.

———————————–

“A rumored lesbian, Corrigan’s sexual orientation stirred controversy on both sides of the gay rights divide. Anti-gay conservatives and Christians opposed her 2006 appointment to the Supreme Court of California, while gay rights activists remained relatively silent on the issue. That silence broke, however, in May 2008 after Corrigan cast one of the three dissenting votes in the landmark decision which granted full marriage equality to same-sex couples.

Gay rights bloggers, such as Michael Petrelis of the Petrelis Files blogsite, reported widely on Justice Corrigan’s sexual orientation, charging Corrigan with hypocrisy and betrayal of the LGBT community. Indeed, Corrigan’s relationship with Corinne Mohrmann, Executive Director of St. Vincent’s Day Home in Oakland, CA (Corrigan chairs the Day Home’s board of directors), has every appearance of a long-term, committed same-sex partnership; the two, in fact, purchased a home together in 1997 in an upscale Oakland hills neighborhood (source: RealQuest.com) and share the same residential address and telephone listing in WhitePages.com, all but confirming the rumors of Corrigan’s sexual orientation.

Neither the mainstream media nor Corrigan herself have publicly addressed the conundrum of why an intelligent, educated and personally-vested lesbian would rule against the best interests of either herself or that of her common-law spouse, Corinne Mohrmann. There is reasonable speculation, however, that Corrigan’s decision to remain closeted, along with her lack of empathy with the LGBT community, are most likely due to her indebtedness to California’s Republican Party (which, through numerous gubernatorial appointments, has been solely responsible for Corrigan’s high-rising success within the state judiciary) and to her deep and lifelong involvement with the Roman Catholic church — two highly conservative, anti-gay organizations which have expressed zero tolerance for outspoken, unapologetic homosexuals, especially among their own ranks.”

As a Californian, I’ve always been disappointed that we need a 2/3rds vote to build a new road, but that we needed a simple majority to alter the constitution; however, at this point it will not serve our community well to make the changes that would have made it nearly impossible for Yes on 8 to pass in the first place. In fact, I have great fear that such an advisement might be made, or that the social conservatives will begin a movement to see this done.

Corrigan, a self-proclaimed “centrist” Republican has benefited in her career through numerous appointments to state commissions and judgeships, all made by Republicans (former California governors Ronald Reagan, George Deukmejian and Pete Wilson.) Corrigan is also a devout Catholic and heavily involved in the church, one of the most powerful and active religious opponents of LGBTQI rights. Here is an excerpt on Justice Corrigan from “The Catholic Voice” website (the online publication of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Oakland):

“As a young woman, she taught catechism to children of migrant workers in the Central Valley and tutored inner-city students while studying in St. Louis. Since 1992 she has served as chair of the board of directors of St. Vincent’s Day Home in Oakland (which is run by her same-sex partner, Corinne Mohrmann). She is also chair of the board of trustees at Holy Names University, a post she has held since 1994. She has served on the board of advisors for Providence Hospital and St. Mary’s Senior Center in Oakland.”

However, ultimately I think prop 8 stands 5-2 while the marriages stay valid 7-0.

And Jon, I don’t know what you are talking about specifically when you say “take a stand,” but it better be more than that weak protests following the passing of Prop. 8 if we want it to actually do anything. You don’t get anything by standing on a corner and whining while your opponents walk by and laugh at you.

First, the Court has already made very clear that marriage is a fundamental right (at least under the old constitution). What they seemed to be agreeing with yesterday was the second thing you said, that fundamental rights can be taken away. To listen to Ken Starr speak yesterday, it should scare every person in the US. Ken Starr did NOT describe the US that I learned about in school, where the majority is free to make “unwise mistakes” with minority rights, and then turn around years later and say “oops, sorry minority. We know we didn’t suffer at all from your oppression, but…our bad.” It’s disgusting to listen to.

As I think I said earlier, I was disappointed that there was not more made of the fact that upholding Prop. 8 allows for fundamental rights to change back and forth every two years indefinitely. It makes “fundamental rights” a joke that we tell ourselves to make ourselves feel good about our country, and I can only wish four of those justices realize that.

Unless we take a stand and refuse to allow their will to subjugate us, I think he’s probably right.

In getting out of the marriage business what the government needs to do is quit conferring both penalties and benefits based upon marital status–and start treating unmarried (or un-unioned) individuals the same as married (or unioned) individuals.

And then all this can end, and Judge Starr can get back to his real mission in life–I am sure somewhere there is politician getting a bj without benefit of marriage or a civil union.

Wouldn’t it be a fabulous outcome if 1) the Court tells the legislature it has to fix the California constitution so that basic rights can’t be voted away; 2) and the Court rips the ability to confer marriage’s civil rights away from churches, thereby requiring all couples to be united civilly. So there, Mr. Starr and your religious right backers, you rip our marriages away from us, and we rip your civic relevance away from you!

Thass the way it oughta be anyway.

The only basis for my hope right now is that Corrigan and Baxter did not speak that much. I’m concocting conspiracy theories right now whereby the justices agreed, because this is such a different issue and it makes sense that positions would change, that George and Kennard would change positions and be VERY VOCAL about it at oral arguments, and that Corrigan and Baxter would keep fairly quiet and then decide to also switch sides and join the majority, keeping it 4-3 in our favor. That outcome would make it less likely that any of the justices would face recall or ouster in their retention elections. Think about it, who would the people recall? Corrigan and Baxter? They voted with the right-wing the first time. George and Kennard? They wouldn’t have been the ones that struck down Prop. 8. Moreno and Werdegar and sort of lower profile here. There would just be a confusion about targets when it came to recall, and I think it would be enough to foil recall plans. And think about it, no one really knows what goes on when justices make their decisions. It’s just not discussed. For all we know, stuff like this goes on all the time.

Anyway, just my last glimmer of hope.

I thought Therese Stewart was EXCELLENT. She had a great answer for every question and assumption the justices (especially Kennard) made. I wish Shannon Minter would have been better. He and the second guy seemed to let the justices trample them. There were good answers to most of the justices questions, but it seemed like they avoided directly taking those questions on in a way that showed how wrong the justices assumptions were. Case in point, and I don’t remember which attorney this question was posed to (might have even been Stewart): Kennard says something like, “well, taking the word ‘marriage’ away isn’t really that bad. Equal protection has not been destroyed here. Gays are still a protected class under the Marriage Cases decision.” BULLSHIT that equal protection isn’t destroyed! I’m remembering now, I think it was Stewart, and she had a decent answer. I would have liked to hear, “what good is there in being a protected class? Well, this Court can subject laws that discriminate based upon sexual orientation to strict scrutiny– and then the people can vote by a simple majority to overturn that decision, regardless of the specific issue. If Prop. 8 stands, the people can do whatever they want. So, again, what’s the use of being a protected class if there is no protection? ANY SINGLE EXCEPTION TO EQUAL PROTECTION DESTROYS IT.”

They also needed to drive home the fact that this is not asking the Court to do “whatever it wants” as more than one justice put it. There is a distinction between amendment and revision, and I don’t think enough emphasis was put on the delivery in most cases. THERE IS A CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR A RULING STRIKING DOWN PROP. 8! The justices just kept repeating the crap about will of the people over and over again, and one of the attorneys needed to say, “ok, now this is very important. WE ARE NOT ASKING YOU TO DO WHAT YOU WANT ON A WHIM! There is a basis for this in the constitution. We are not saying that the people cannot change their constitution, but only that when it comes to fundamental rights, THE MOST RESTRICTIVE PROCESS LAID OUT IN THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF BE REQUIRED! How could it be any other way? There is a lot of talk about what ‘inalienable’ and ‘fundamental’ mean; well, what could they mean except AT LEAST inalienable unless the strictest procedure is used to ‘alienate’ them?”

Finally, I was VERY disappointed not to hear the argument that this was a 52% vote. “If it comes up again in two years, maybe it’s a 52% vote the other way. Then maybe two years from then, it’s 51% banning gay marriage again, then 53% reinstating it. Fundamental rights? If this is how the state of California deals with “fundamental” rights, then “fundamental rights” are a “fundamental” joke. I would have loved to see that quote given directly to the justices.”

I was very interested to see Justice Chin, a dissenter in the first case, bring up the option of getting the state out of the marriage business. I actually would LOVE to see that be the result here (maybe almost as much, if not more, than just striking down Prop. 8). It would allow those straight people who casually voted to restrict gay rights thinking it would not adversely affect them to get a taste of what it feels like. And you KNOW those right-wingers will not settle for anything less than government recognition of their “sacred” marriages.

I’m so burnt out on this emotionally. I wish they would just have announced their decision yesterday to get it over with. We all pretty much know what’s coming, and to tease us with this tiny bit of hope that I can’t help but keep alive is torturous.

I don’t know what the court will decide and can’t get a sense of where we’re at. Despite all the media reports declaring “Prop H8 will stand!”, I think they’re being too premature. Remember that we weren’t looking too good after oral arguments in the Prop 22 case last year… And look what happened.

Still, I’m wondering more about this “Third Way” option that Japhy’s talked about here and several justices mentioned yesterday. Is it a real possibility? Could H8 AND last May’s ruling be left intact? Can we have no more civil marriages and domestic partnerships for everyone? I wasn’t seriously considering it before yesterday, but I’m thinking there’s a chance we’ll see that in the final ruling.

This is gonna get so messy, look how silly it was when Arnold got elected governor.