Denise Williams

Contributor

Blog Roundup - Prop 8 Decision

Posted:

05/26/09

Filed Under:Gay Rights, Ballot Measures

20 Comments +

Join the discussion »

TEXT SIZE:AAA
PRINT

Left and right and everywhere in between are weighing in on the California State Supreme Court's decision to uphold the November ballot proposition to define marriage as only between one man and one woman.

Daily Kos (Happy 7th Anniversary!): "Today's California Supreme Court decision did not concern gay marriage and equal protection directly; instead, the issue was self-governance itself. How can Californians amend their state Constitution?"

Michelle Malkin: "Translation: They'll be back. Will the anti-Prop. 8 mob restrain itself? Stay tuned. The blacklisters, tolerance bullies, vandals, and religion-bashers will not be forgotten."

Americablog: "Yes, the decision is disappointing, but it wasn't unexpected. What is now clear is that those 18,000 gay marriages will remain the law of the land in California. And those 18,000 gay couples should now be able to get California state benefits that straight married couples get. All of that will eventually, I believe, lead California courts to rule that the sky has not fallen - there is no valid reason for not protecting gay couples equally under the law."

Get the new
PD toolbar!
The Corner (William Duncan): "The bottom line is that the court was invited to hold that the people of California did not have the ability to change the Constitution - following legal procedures for doing so - to reject the result flowing from the court's creation of a new "right." To have done anything other than what they did would have been to repudiate a core principle of the rule of law: that California has "a government of laws and not of men." We can be grateful they stepped away from that precipice."

Daily Dish (Andrew Sullivan): "It has been upheld. The 18,000 same sex marriages performed in California are still valid. For my part, I will leave the fine legal analysis to those trained in these matters (and link to them). Politically, this seems to me the perfect decision. It would have been dreadful if voters were retroactively told their valid vote was somehow null and void - it would have felt like a bait and switch and provoked a horrible backlash."
Reason (Nick Gillespie): "There will always be a sizeable number of people against, but when you consider how far gay marriage has come since, say, the Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996, and when you consider that the logic behind gay marriage is totally traditionalist, it's only a matter of when, not if, it's fully legal. For those of us concerned with human happiness and voluntary action (rather than bizarre fears of man-on-dog sex), here's hoping that day comes sooner rather than later."

Hot Air (Ed Morrissey): "Confirming the marriages also appears to be the correct decision. When the couples got their licenses and had the ceremonies performed, the law in the state (as dictated by the court) allowed for those marriages. Proposition 8 changed the law, but it cannot apply ex post facto. Since those licenses were valid and backed by the state at the time they were issued, the court had little choice but to approve them - and their unanimous judgment speaks to the common sense conclusion."

This decision was not unexpected, and rather planned for. Most reasonable voices on both sides are saying the same thing - try again in 2010 and good for the 18,000. The civil unrest predicted by some has so far not materialized. Overturning the will of the voters by judicial fiat is never good. California's Courage Campaign gears up for the next round. Stay tuned.

Follow PoliticsDaily On Facebook and Twitter,
and download the new Politics Daily toolbar!

20 comments

+ add your own

Denise Williams

An unabashed news and political junkie, Denise has been blogging politics with a liberal bent since 2004... more

Contact Denise Williams

subscribe to: RSS email: Denise Williams

Testimony Ends in California Same-Sex Marriage Case
12 days ago
Testimony in the legal challenge to California's Proposition 8 ended Wednesday with attorneys for the gay couples who are plaintiffs in the case expressing confidence the judge will rule in their...
Supreme Court Keeps Cameras Out of California's Gay Marriage Trial
26 days ago
The U.S. Supreme Court has blocked video coverage of the trial challenging California's gay marriage ban. In a 5-4 decision late Wednesday the justices said U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker failed...
Gay Marriage Goes on Trial in California, Without Cameras Rolling
29 days ago
Just as California's trial on gay marriage got under way today, the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily overruled a federal judge in San Francisco and barred video coverage the proceedings. Without...

Comments (20)

- TURN COMMENTS OFF

ADD A COMMENT

THE STONE FORUM

5:54PM May 26th 2009

CALIFORNIA here I COME! What a great state! It lets the people vote count! Gay is a choice! I' like to thank all my Latino/as brothers and sisters for saying "Gay you choose to be gay accept the ramifications! What next marrying 3 spouses, marrying your sister? Marrying a cat? California is a state with guts! Girlie men go to the New England States

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(2)

WoodyBass-com

8:07PM May 26th 2009

Sure.. if you wanna live in a state where the rights of an individual are ignored. And you wanna live in a state that is not only morally bankrupt ... but fiscally.. which means youll be taxed all to hell. Annnd if you wanna live in a state with one of the highest rates of crime in the entire USA.

Sure... go ahead.

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(4)

PCL

9:56PM May 26th 2009

Trust me, we don't want you--California already has enough people who are ignorant of the fact that homosexuality is NOT a choice, never has been, never will be.

As for thanking your 'Latino' sisters and brothers, we will see when the next time rolls around and Obama is not a candidate being considered on the ballot--will that many people turn out to even vote? I doubt it.

This is far from over--it's only halftime, and this show was brought to you by the Church of Latter Day Saints.

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(1)

WADE....

6:36PM May 26th 2009

Well, I guess that 'BLOWS' Cube and Pundits plans....hahahaha

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(4)

Cube

8:02AM May 27th 2009

Your insight is remarkable. YO ALL CAPS WADE! WHY DID YOU STOP USING ALL CAPS! ALSO, WHERE ARE YOUR EXCELLENT CYBERDOODLES? ")!(." IF THERE IS ONE THING I AM PROUD OF IS THAT I MANAGED TO FORCE YOU TO STOP WRITING IN ALL CAPS. THE PROPER WAY TO WRITE.

THE CYBERDOODLE I CANNOT EMULATE IS THE ONE WHERE YOU DREW A GIANT PENIS. DO YOU REMEMBER DRAWING THAT DIGITAL PENIS? SURE THERE WERE CYBERDOODLES OF BOOBS YOU DRAW, BUT, I WONDER, HOW LONG DID IT TAKE YOU TO THINK OF HOW TO DRAW A COCK ON POLITICS DAILY? AS MOST KNOW, DREAMING UP WAYS TO DRAW A CYBER JONSON, BREASTS, AND SOME HOMO-EROTIC DRAWINGS MUST MEAN SOMETHING PSYCHOLOGICALLY.

LIKE, WHO THE FUCK TAKES THE TIME TO THINK... AHA! I THINK I'LL DRAW A BIG STIFFY ON THE BLOG?

IS IT ANY WONDER YOU TALK ABOUT DUDES BONING ONE ANOTHER? THAT'S YOUR INTELLECTUAL FALLBACK POSITION. LOOK MAN, I'M FOR GAY RIGHTS, BUT, YOU'VE GOTTA STOP BEATING UP ON YOURSELF ALREADY AND COME OUT OF THE CLOSET ALL CAPS WADE.

ALSO, GO BACK TO ALL CAPS. ALL CAPS WADE? I AM MAD I FORCED YOU TO SWITCH TO LOWERCASE LETTERS.

OCCASIONALLY, YOU OBJECTIFY THE FEMALE ANATOMY TOO. RARE. MOSTLY YOU'RE INTO WEINERS. BUT, I THINK OF A PARTICULAR PART COMMONLY USED AS A METAPHOR TO DESCRIBE COWARDICE. YOUR MOTHERS UTERUS.

HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU BEEN CHALLENGED TO DEBATE ANY ISSUE LIVE? YOU WON'T. WHY? YOU'RE ALL NON-TALK AND NON-ACTION. HERE IS YOUR BRAIN ACTIVITY ____________________________. . .___________________ I CAN DRAW ALLCAPS!

IT DOESN'T TAKE A PHD TO FIGURE OUT HOW LITTLE YOU GET AND WHAT YOU'RE REALLY LIKE.

IT BOTHERS YOU THAT I'M BETTER THAN YOU. MAKE MORE MONEY THAN YOU. HAVE A CAREER. AM SMARTER THAN YOU. DON'T HAVE TO RELY ON BITS OF DATA TO GET OFF AND CAN JUST CALL YOUR MOM ANYTIME. WADE... I AM YOUR FATHER.

LAST WEEK ON THE AIR (YOU CAN LISTEN IN THE ARCHIVES IF YOU'D LIKE) I LEFT A MESSAGE SPECIFICALLY FOR YOU. YOU SEE, I INTERVIEWED A PSYCHOLOGIST AND SENT OVER YOUR PICTURES OF THE PENISES YOU LIKE TO DRAW AND ASKED WHAT HE THOUGHT...

WADE IS GAY. ")!(" SHOW EVERYONE HOW TO DRAW THE PENIS WADE.

THE SEXUAL DRAWINGS OF THE FEMALE ANATOMY IS SADLY THE CLOSEST YOU GET TO THAT. ASIDE FROM MAMA ALLCAPS WADE. AND DADA.

GO BACK TO LOWER CASE.

Buddy, you're the biggest retard in cyberspace. Once in a while, I'll look at criminals in the courthouse and wonder, which one is you. How many times have you met Chris Hanson? I know you like LOL with little boys. Please stop.

________

Oh yeah, in lighter news, these opinions have little relevance until Justice Kennedy decides what to do. Read Lawrence v. Texas. A case where WADE got caught. It's actually called The Wade Case in legal circles now.

Here's WADE prevailing in The Supreme Court.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZO.html

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(-1)

Cube

8:13AM May 27th 2009

There are three people who write at Cube WADE. He thinks you're gay. I only think you're really gay. Which is fine. Carry on.

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(-1)

kathy

7:25PM May 26th 2009

I expected that the Supreme Court would uphold voters of California. I think it is fair. But maybe if they put it up for vote again next year that it might pass. And if the People vote for Gay Marriage or Civil Unions then let it be without anyone trying to interfere.

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(1)

Cube

8:21AM May 27th 2009

Why did you expect that Kathy? You must have known the legal issue ruled on was whether Prop 8 rose to the level of a "revision" under state law. Or was that an "amendment." What's the difference? Does that matter? It does. That's what the case was about which, unlike many, we understand. The case turned on the definition of an "amendment" versus a "revision."

http://cubicpolitics.wordpress.com/2009/05/26/the-policy-on-policy-gay-marriage-and-sotomayor/

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(0)

George

7:42PM May 26th 2009

boo! this is unconstitutional, everyone deserves equal rights, including gay people! People who hate, support prop 8.

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(-3)

Cube

8:23AM May 27th 2009

I wish this place was like the DOW. I'd be worth millions. SELL SELL SELL!

That comment was far too reasonable and normal for me to do anything but take away one star.

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(0)

SalthePlumber

8:29PM May 26th 2009

The Ca Supreme Court was boxed in and they punted on third down. The idea that some (18,000) can be legally married and the rest not, is fundamentally wrong. This issue will fill pages and waste everyones time, (Can you say Abortion?)and it's because of the God Squad people who "know better"... If Modern Religion is any kind of barometer of our civilation, the planet is in deep DOO DOO. LIVE AND LET LIVE Whats so hard about that??

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(1)

casey1943

9:09PM May 26th 2009

The court ruling was fair,prop 8 should never have been allowed in the first place the legal can of worms it would open up would be overwhelming.Every one that has a one night stand and or lives with someone would be entitled to all health care ,insurance settlements,pensions and half of what you own come on people get real! If you choose to be gay that is your choice live with it and get on with your life,When you get married it puts you in a whole new game now you make the lawyers rich you cant do anything without a legal paper, most gay people will jump from one affair to another once the dew is off the clover anyhow so why go thru the whole mess anyhow,live,love and go home!

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(0)

Cube

8:05AM May 27th 2009

casey1943
9:09PM May 26th 2009
The court ruling was fair,prop 8 should never have been allowed in the first place
_____

You must know WADE. Hook casey up with stars.

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(-2)

Pete

9:57PM May 26th 2009

What was there for the California Supreme Court to decide??

The people of California had the opportunity, with Prop 8, to vote on the issue. Californians voted OVERWHELMINGLY to define marriage as between a man and a women, period. Those who did not get their way pressured the political system and "yes" man politicians to overturn the will of the people.

We in Connecticut have PC politicians looking to expand their political base who voted for gay marriage. We in Connecticut DID NOT have the opportunity to vote on the issue as those in California did.

Thank God, even in California, a government by the people for the people still works.

Respectfully,
Pete

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(2)

PCL

10:56PM May 26th 2009

Hi Pete,

Surely you don't believe this is over? Like I said above, this is only the half-time show.

That 'government by the people for the people' was once, on a national level, against equal rights for women and for blacks. If History proves anything at all, it proves that sooner or later equal rights for all will truly have its day--or to phrase it in a more current way, 'change is gonna come'.

Most Respectfully,
PCL

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(-1)

Phil Edwards

5:24AM Sep 3rd 2009

Good, Bad and Ugly…

Good: In California, an estimated 18,000 gay couples tying the knot before the law took effect will stay wed.

Bad: The California Supreme Court on Tuesday 5.26.09 upheld the ban on same-sex marriage.

Ugly: California still Legislates Morality.

Thanks,

Phil Edwards
(pmespeak.com

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(0)

pamber00

6:49PM May 27th 2009

Our country's foundation was built on moral and biblical principles, and even though the church and state are separate, it would do a lot of people good to realize that. I would also much rather have a moral government (not that they are) than a socialist government.

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(2)

Steve Rogers

7:28PM May 28th 2009

Why is democracy a bad thing? Do we really want to get rid of good old fashion democracy? If you do- then go to another country.

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(2)

pamber00

4:53PM May 27th 2009

Homosexuals are not second class citizens, they have the same legal rights as married couples with the civil union. marriage is two parts, 1. a legal contract with the state, 2. a covenant before God. A civil union is a marriage minus the covenant before God. There cant be a marriage if God isn't included, & although God loves all his children, He is clear that Homosexual relationships are unholy. People need to get over the name given to the union of a same-sex couple & understand that the rights are the same. Another thing is if everyone who is so riled up about this issue, either for or against, would get together & tackle a much bigger & more important issue The Federal Reserve, the ending of it, or getting our congress people to support HR 1207 we would all have a lot more freedom. Visit opencongress.org or endthefed.us or research the Bilderberg meetings or read "The Creature from Jekyll Island" Then the importance of this issue about same sex marriage would pale in comparison.

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(1)

Emily

1:23PM Jan 18th 2010

Check out what some people in Wisconsin are saying about the positive economic impact same-sex marriage would have for them, isn't California broke?

http://www.wisconsingazette.com/national-gaze/matrimonial-bucks.html

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(0)

Add your comments

Your comments:

Remember me

E-Mail me when someone replies to this comment

Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.

When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.

To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.

Avoid hate speech, foul language or a disrespectful tone in your comments. Unwanted comments will be deleted at the discretion of the moderator.