LA Times: Prop 8 Will Likely Be Upheld

Jim Burroway

March 4th, 2009

The California Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments over a lawsuit challenging Proposition 8 this Thursday. The court is then required to rule within ninety days. The Los Angeles Times is reporting that the Court may rule as early as Thursday to uphold the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage:

Reporting from San Francisco — The California Supreme Court may reveal Thursday whether it intends to uphold Proposition 8, and if so, whether an estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages will remain valid, during a high-stakes televised session that has sparked plans for demonstrations throughout the state.

By now, the court already has drafted a decision on the case, with an author and at least three other justices willing to sign it. Oral arguments sometimes result in changes to the draft, but rarely do they change the majority position. 

The Times reports that Chief Justice Ronald M. George is the one to watch on this. He wrote the May 15, 2008 majority opinion which originally granted same-sex marriage. That ruling was a narrow 4-3 decision. According to The Times, most analysis expect the court to have just votes to uphold Prop 8, since only one justice is needed to shift from the original decision. The three dissenting justices from the 2008 position already held that the votors should decide.

A large outdoor jumbo screen will be erected outside the San Francisco Civic Center, where large crowds are expected to gather to watch the live hearings taking place at the nearby Supreme Court headquarters.

occono

March 4th, 2009

That’s pretty much what I’ve been expecting too, the Marriages will stand (Odd as that will be from a legal perspective) but Prop 8. will be upheld. I’m amazed some people really think they’d overturn it, it’d cause hysteria.

Brian

March 4th, 2009

Yeah, but, where does this voter-fueled oppression wagon stop?

If Prop 8 is upheld, what’s going to stop the religious right or anybody else from placing other forms of marriage that already exist on a ballot? There’s people living today who STILL think interracial marriage should be outlawed, and these are many of the exact same people who did everything they could to pass Prop 8.

Sorry to kick a dead horse here, but it’s a valid concern, and stranger things have certainly happened.

AJD

March 4th, 2009

Since 2004, my attitude has come to be one of “Hope for the best, but prepare and expect for the worst.”

I really don’t think there will ever be justice for us in this country, not in my lifetime. I’ll be here until at least 2010, but for my next job, I’m seriously looking at Canada, and I don’t mean that in a “If Bush wins, I’m moving to Canada,” fickle sort of way — I mean it.

It’s not just because of the massive and well-funded forces we have arrayed against us, but because our side basically hasn’t done squat to try and fight these people off. It seems that the days of Stonewall/ACT-UP activism have died and been replaced with whiny, Oliver Twist meekness. There was a brief flash of the old school with Join the Impact, but even that soon fizzled and degenerated into the same old HRC-style crap. Now, we have people like Jonathan Rauch coming to a “compromise” with the religious right that would basically require us to cede equal treatment while requiring the other side to cede nothing. At 365gay.com, John Corvino talks about his friendships with Focus on the Family bigots while basically coming to the same conclusion as Rauch.

If we’re going to win anything in this country, we first have to recognize the following:

1. Equality is not inevitable, no matter what demographic data might tell you about young people — we have to fight for it

2. The religious right hates us with a burning passion and is our enemy; its ultimate goal is to eliminate us as a visible part of society and force us back into the closet — gay marriage bans are just a step in that direction

3. Nice guys finish last, as the cliche goes — we can’t keep being so polite to the religious right; that doesn’t mean we have to lie or do anything illegal, but we have no obligation to be nice to them

4. This is a classic predator/prey situation; the religious right feels so free to mess with us because they know they can get away with it, and we won’t really do anything

5. We have natural allies — these include atheists and other church-state separation advocates, much of the libertarian movement and the scientific community

6. We don’t have a very good media strategy — in all of our press releases, we need to make sure reporters know that from a scientific standpoint, our enemies don’t have a leg to stand on — but most stories I read on the subject make their views look completely reasonable; we also let them define the terms of debate far too often

7. We let the other side vilify us, but we don’t do the same — there’s no shame or even dishonesty in using nasty words in connection with our enemies, like “theocracy,” “tyranny of the majority” and “bigotry”

If we want to win, we have to stop being afraid of playing dirty.

The next TV commercial should look like this:

Dark music plays in the background as lines of text flash across the screen:

“Fourth Century AD: Byzantine Emperor Theodosius decrees that men should be burned alive just for being gay

“14th Century: 15-year-old Giovanni di Giovanni publicly castrated and killed just for being gay

“1930s-40s: Nazis kill 50,000(?) people just for being gay

“2008: California deprives an entire class of citizens of the right to marry the people they love just for being gay

That would make the people behind these marriage bans look bad and also point to an often ignored historical fact, that moves to ban same-sex marriage are part of an almost 2,000-year-old Western tradition of homophobia and oppression of gay people.

Timothy Kincaid

March 4th, 2009

Brian,

Perhaps a likelier argument is that marriage is a Christian institution and is the model of Christ and the Church. Consequently, it is reasonable to deny the term “marriage” to pagans and Jews and Hindus. All non-Christians can have Domestic Partnerships.

The argument for such a position is virtually identical to that against same-sex marriage and if protections for gay people are up to a popular vote, then what is to protect those of other religions?

Jason D

March 4th, 2009

Tim, then I would expect our Jewish bretheren to immediately push for a “Defense of Circumcision” law. This is a sacred rite that gentiles have stolen from the Hebrew people.

AJD

March 4th, 2009

Jason: Only SOME gentiles ;)

John

March 4th, 2009

If Prop 8 is upheld, I would really like to see a proposition banning Mormon marriages. If you can ban same sex marriages, I see no reason not to ban Mormon marriages in particular.

I also think that this would be a far better thing to put on the ballot than another proposition to legalize same sex marriage so soon after the Prop 8 loss.

Timothy Kincaid

March 4th, 2009

Jason,

Yes, and as with the Prop 8 argument, they should insist that it be made retroactive.

AJD

March 4th, 2009

John:

If Prop 8 is upheld, what I would like to see is the gay-rights movement finally growing a pair and actually fighting against the religious right. Some loud, angry, obnoxious demonstrations outside churches like the ones that followed Prop 8’s are a start. Barring illegal activities, I think just about anything would be fair, especially if it sends a clear message to the religious right that messing with the gays has repercussions. That’s what will make them think twice about these sorts of amendments in the future.

AJD

March 4th, 2009

Tim:

That might help us get out of the recession too, as sales of those foreskin restoration kits will likely be included in the federal government’s budget as part of a “stimulation package” (sorry, I couldn’t help it).

Timothy Kincaid

March 4th, 2009

An amendment to ban Mormon marriages in the state of California would not be able to get on the ballot. It is in violation of the first amendment of the US Constitution.

However, I wonder if an “oh, this isn’t targeting Mormons, it’s just upholding tradition” approach could be crafted.

Perhaps an amendment that bans all marriages that purport to extend beyond death. Clearly the state of California cannot dictate terms in the afterlife and so any marriage that intends to bind souls in another realm should not be allowed by the state.

It just so happens… that traditional Christian theology does not recognize eternal marriage. So this would, in a round about way, appeal to tradition and ban Mormon marriage.

I doubt it would work, but it would be fun to have the legislature propose it and bring it up for a vote. It might scare them a little about the consequences of bullying others.

Stefano A

March 4th, 2009

An amendment to ban Mormon marriages in the state of California would not be able to get on the ballot.

Well then, in keeping with the spirit of the thought…

Resolutions to recend “faith” as a protected class in anti-discrimination laws.

Resolutions to recend tax exempt status for all churches.

Resolutions for the state to no longer allow clergy to act as functionaries of the state by issuing marriage licenses.

Resolutions for the state to no longer recognize “church performed only” weddings as marriages. I.E., as in several European countries, you want state recognition, you must have a civil ceremony. Any religious ceremony being optional and unnecessary for state recognition.

Stefano A

March 4th, 2009

AJD

The next TV commercial should look like this:

Dark music plays in the background as lines of text flash across the screen:

“Fourth Century AD: Byzantine Emperor Theodosius decrees that men should be burned alive just for being gay”

“14th Century: 15-year-old Giovanni di Giovanni publicly castrated and killed just for being gay”

“1930s-40s: Nazis kill 50,000(?) people just for being gay”

“2008: California deprives an entire class of citizens of the right to marry the people they love just for being gay”

Personally, I’ve thought GLAAD and HRC should have been funding this type of PSA a long time ago. Similar to the “So Gay” campagin that was recently launched. Not necessarily with the focus being on marriage, but the persecution/denial of rights in general.

I also agree they need to more publicly and bluntly (take off the gloves) about confronting religious attacks, especially regarding “choice” arguments. I.E. reminding people that “religion” is a choice and still a protected anti-discrimination/hate-crime classification for instance.

I also think PSA’s need to be made to specifically target the junk science used enlisting the professionals conducting the science who have renounced the distortions and misuse, etc.

Duncan

March 5th, 2009

You could use the slogan “Marriage should be about love, not genitals”.
But the trouble with insisting on judicial power over majority rule is that it can be easily reversed: if the judges can override the voters on matters not explicitly mentioned in the law, where will they stop? There could well be grounds for legalising polygamy. And it detracts attention from the need to win over ordinary people, which is far more important than any judge’s whim. Consider that the emancipation of Negro slaves in the United States and the vote for women in most countries, where there were much better grounds for a judicial settling, were done by simple majority vote.
Ultimately, the best for all parties is to remove the civil institution of marriage from the laws. Just ask the Religious Right: do you want your sacred matrimony to be approved by a corrupt, godless state?

scotte

March 5th, 2009

Timothy,

Excellent points on what kind of marriage (a particular theologically defined Christian marriage) they are defending.
Given that several religious denominations (Unitarians and the MCC come to mind right off) perform marriages for same sex couples isn’t there an equal church/state argument that Proposition 8 impinges on their right to perform marriages? I haven’t seen much discussion on this side of the issue.
One way or another we need to separate civil and religious marriage so we can stop the efforts to enshrine someone’s particular sacramental theology in law.

Timothy Kincaid

March 5th, 2009

Duncan,

I agree that until one wins in the court of public opinion, one has not won.

However, you are incorrect in saying “Consider that the emancipation of Negro slaves in the United States and the vote for women in most countries, where there were much better grounds for a judicial settling, were done by simple majority vote.”

The emancipation of slaves was against the will of the states in which it was enacted (that was, after all, why they were fighting) and the right for women to vote was not enacted by a public vote of the male population.

Regan DuCasse

March 6th, 2009

Hi Gang!
I went to the Village public viewing of the court hearing.

And each and every person I ever heard objecting to marriage equality invokes reasons that are ILLEGAL for everyone!

And I might agree that if there is any assertion that because homosexuality is a choice, it’s therefore fair game to exclude gay people from Constitutional protection, then certainly religious choice should be the first to go out from that protection.
Particularly because our country isn’t supposed to favor one religion over another and doesn’t enforce how one comports their religious choice.

The court had much that was unique and unprecedented in the case of Prop. 8.
But one thing is clear and can’t be reiterated enough: that a minority like gay people are one of several in our history who have been BRUTALLY isolated, discriminated against and still face physical, mental and social threat and abuse from the very populace that voted on quality of life issues for gay people.

The vulnerability of gay people isn’t unique, but it has SIMILAR qualities to how the lives of blacks were decided on by the dominant culture.
THIS is unacceptable and should be the paramount concern of the courts and the Constitutional clause of protecting a minority, especially like gay people FROM the tyranny of the majority.

Gay people don’t have to be especially reserved anymore. Lives are on the line and there is a general public out there VERY ignorant of the fact that there are more laws that discriminate against gay people than include them. Even in CA.

Domestic partnerships are NOT enough, not even close. Neither are CU’s.
We need to be OUT with the public. Talking to them, giving them printed materials and the benefit of how life is REALLY lived as someone gay.

The MSM allows too much of the anti gay to hijack and distort information and convince everyone it’s gay people victimizing everyone instead of the other way around.
Even if you ask point blank, who was hurt by all those gay couples getting married and they bring up that class of second graders, you could still brace them with the fact that those kids weren’t HURT by witnessing such a wedding of a teacher they loved.

But they might question why our laws wanted to hurt their teacher.

I’m willing to go door to door, face to face, on foot and open up the conversation.
Gay people have to OWN this, and tell those who hijack the issue to step OFF. THEY are effected at all. And we can point off just how their scare tactics did more harm than good.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

Jubal

Another Temporary Hiatus

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1971: Minnesota Couple Stake Claim To First American Same-Sex Marriage

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1954: "Perverts Vanish" From Miami

Born On This Day, 1907: Evelyn Hooker

Born On This Day, 1925: Fr. John J. McNeill

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.