California To Rule On Proposition 8 This Tuesday

By Kate Kotler

After months of anticipation, the California State high court is expected to rule on the controversial Proposition 8 this coming Tuesday, 26 May.

For those not familiar: Proposition 8 was a California ballot proposition passed in the November 4, 2008, general election. It changed the state Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples and eliminated same-sex couples' right to marry, thereby overriding portions of the ruling of In re Marriage Cases.     

In May 2008 the high court ruled in a 4-3 decision that marriage is a fundamental right and restricting marriage based on sexual orientation violates the constitutional rights of same sex couples. If Proposition 8 is upheld by the court it threatens to affect the 18,000 same sex marriages that occurred following this ruling and the passage of the ballot measure in the election this past November.  It is speculated, though, that if the proposition is upheld by the court that they may rule in such a way that those marriages will be upheld and recognized by California State law.

Both those contesting and supporting Proposition 8 are preparing to mobilize activists to return this issue to the ballot in the 2010 and 2012 elections.

There was a rumor this past Thursday that the court had been prepared to rule on this matter and San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom asked the court to delay the ruling so that it did not coincide with the 30th anniversary of the White Night riots.  The White Night riots were a series of violent events that occurred as a direct reaction to the lenient sentencing of former San Francisco Supervisor, Dan White, who was convicted of assassinating Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk on 25 November, 1978.

The Mayor's office has issued a statement that this is untrue and Newsom did not ask the courts to delay the ruling.  It has been further substantiated that the courts were not prepared or planning to announce their ruling this past Thursday.

Image via NYT

 

POSTED IN: NEWS
Sat, 23 May 2009 08:52 (GMT+00)
4 Responses
1.

One thing you neglected to mention is that the people of the state of California have twice voted no to same sex marriage and it is the court that overturned the popular vote of the people.

Leann Parker
Tue, 26-May-2009 14:24 GMT
2.

I'm sorry, Leann - a win by 4.2% hardly constitutes the "popular vote of the people." It's a pretty split, actually. IMHO were it not for lobbyists from states *coughUtahcough* and deliberately spread mis-information during the ramp up to the election, this ballot proposition would have not passed...

And further: There have been many many times throughout history when "the people" have supported political policies and platforms that are bigoted, hateful, unjust, unlawful and plain old WRONG. Sadly this is one of those times.

While today's decision by the high court affirmed that it is lawful for the people to change or amend the state constitution via the initiative process. While 8 being upheld is disappointing, this decision will work in our favor come 2010 when those in favor of equality vote to repeal this bigoted proposition.

/Rant.

Kate
Tue, 26-May-2009 21:51 GMT
3.

Wow, you sound like you're mad at me. Maybe you need to give some thought to the possibility that the people who voted no to same sex MARRIAGE actually have their own minds and beliefs. You don't really believe that we need those horrible mormans to come across the borders and corrupt us. Exactly what "misinformation" did they feed us? It really is a very simple belief. The majority, interresting number 4.2% you tossed out there, the majority of Californians voted a few years ago to say no to same sex marriage. The courts overturned the voice of the people of this state. Now we are amending the constitution? Seriously? The court amended the constitution when they overturned the vote of the people of this state. So here we go again, no conspiracy theories, no crazy morman involvement, we voted to uphold the belief that MARRIAGE is defined as a man and a woman. Read your 2nd paragraph. You do not know me. I am not a bigot or hateful toward gay men or women. Why is it that you are allowed your beliefs and I am not allowed mine? Why is it that you are allowed to call me names because of my beliefs? "While 8 being upheld is disappointing"??? Why do we vote?

Leann Parker
Thu, 28-May-2009 04:53 GMT
4.

Leann I'm not calling you names, I'm expressing my opinion that this is a time in history when "the majority" of people are supporting a philosophy "equal but separate" which is just as bigoted as it has been at every moment in the past when it's been utilized previous.

It is very Orwellian: some people are "more equal" than others and are "allowed" special rights by the "majority."

The margin of majority which passed Proposition 8 is 4.2%. That means that very little over half of the voters in the 2008 election were in favor of that proposition. Many were misinformed as to what it meant in order to swing their vote. It's a fact, not a theory - many minority voters were told lies that their pastors or religious officials would be "forced" to perform same-sex marriages and jailed if they refused, that their children would be taught about same-sex marriage in the public schools (since when is marriage taught in the schools AT ALL) among other half-truths about what equalizing marriage rights meant for the populace of California. Those are old, old scare tactics designed to prey on the fears of those less informed that homosexuality is somehow publicly transmitted. It was just enough to convince 4.2% of undecided voters to weigh in on the topic. Were it not for the intervention of lobbying groups FROM UTAH who sponsored that campaign, Prop 8 might have very well been shot down.

The margin is narrow as to who believes Prop 8 is just and those who believe it is wrong. You'll see a huge political shift in the next two elections... California legalizing same sex marriage is an inevitability, it is only a matter of time.

I'm not mad at you - I'm disappointed in those who are so narrow minded on this topic.

The bottom line is: believe what you want. Don't force your beliefs on me and I won't force mine on you.... The fact is that legalizing same-sex marriage in NO WAY denigrates marriages between a man and woman as something lessor. IT SIMPLY DOESN'T AFFECT ANYONE OTHER THAN THOSE BEING DENIED THE RIGHT TO MARRIAGE. Your life will not be worse if gay couples can marry - where as, theirs is worse when people prevent them from being able to marry.

Not to mention - when you allow someone else to be oppressed you're setting the stage and precedence for your own eventual oppression.

Bottom of the bottom line: Don't legislate my body, who I love and how I live.

Kate
Wed, 17-Jun-2009 19:22 GMT

Add Comment

Note: Your email address will be verified but will never be published on the site.

If you are a registered user, please Sign In.




The opinions expressed by the author and commenters are their own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BitchBuzz or any employer or organisation. The aforementioned are not responsible for the accuracy of content published.

social feed

@BitchBuzz: The [Digital] Revolution Will Be Gendered - from @katelaity on BitchBuzz Tech http://t.co/5bkxZo0x
09 Feb @ 10:46 GMT

search



buzz we love

Bitchin' Lifestyle
Vikki Chowney
Bangs and a Bun
Vintage Patisserie
Pop Justice
The Other Woman
Pamflet
Gala Darling
Red Velvet
Shape What's to Come
Bird's Eye View
Gala Darling
Bake & Destroy
Kris Atomic
Mark Johns
Garfunkel & Oates
India Knight
Kate Nash
Erin Gibson
Sarah Lacy
Vegansaurus
The Boss of You
Meantime Brewery
Make and Do with Perri