A Threefold 'Thank You' to Los Angeles
Canter's & Ice Cream Sandwich Could Live in Perfect Harmony
Dear Los Angeles: I'm Thankful For...
-thumb-110x110-213475.jpg)
A Photo Gallery of the Things I am Grateful for This Year
I LOVE L.A.! My Thanksgiving Thanks
From left to right, California Supreme Court Justice Joyce Kennard, Chief Justice Ronald George, Justice Marvin Baxter, and Justice Ming Chin, walk into a courtroom on March 5 to hear Prop 8 arguments (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma)
UPDATE: The state's Supreme Court has announced their decision, you can read it here.
At 10 a.m., the California Supreme Court will announce their decision on Prop 8, a ballot initiative that banned gay marriage last November. Two questions will be answered: will Prop 8 be upheld or struck down and if the former, what is the fate of the 18,000 couples already married in the "Rainbow Window," between June of last year when gay marriage was legalized (by the same court) and November, when Prop 8 was passed by the voters.
Basically, we're looking at three outcomes:
- Prop 8 is upheld and the 18,000 marriages are invalidated.
- Prop 8 is upheld, but the 18,000 marriages performed during the "Rainbow Window" stay legal.
- Prop 8 is overturned, gay marriage would resume in California and the couples already married stay so.
That's the basis of it, but the crux of the decision should be based on technicalities, mainly if Prop 8 is a revision or amendment of the state constitution. Also, they will be deciding if marriage is an "inalienable" right that can't be taken away, a challenge put forth by Attorney General Jerry Brown.
For a very in depth analysis, Calitics posted a guide to the Prop 8 hearing in March and the LA Times has a nice Q & A.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
The pro Prop 8 groups are threatening to initiate recalls on any of the justices who vote to invalidate Prop 8 regardless of the outcome.
And there begins its own sticky path and societal debate...
Why aren't the anti-prop 8 groups trying this if things go poorly?
Oh, I'd like to think it's because we respect the law. Unlike the legislative and the executive branches who need to bow to pressure from their constituents die to re-election, the judicial branch has no such influence from the body politic. That's sort of the ENTIRE POINT. The only thing influencing their decision is their interpretation of the constitution - not political parties, not the electorate, not special interest groups or lobbyists. Ingenious, huh? If judges had to fear political repercussions, things would look a lot different, mainly to our detriment.
If the current judges can't see the inherent injustice of Prop 8, I say we toss them out.
That would be pretty much be tilting at a windmill. It would be hard enough to get enough signatures for a recall without a pretty large organization or database behind the effort.
The bible thumpers may have that, or they may not. They do have a lot of churches to preach from. Apparently the CASC justices took that threat seriously, all but one of them anyway.
I think we should concentrate on making sure that this one justice doesn't get recalled if these "moralists" attempt take him/her down.
Does anyone have the name of that one dissenting judge?
"Ingenious, huh?"
Yep pretty clever. I don't suppose these "biblical moralists" view it as blackmail though. That'd be a sin.
"Prop 8 is overturned, gay marriage will continue to California"
That should be: "gay marriage in California would RESUME", since it hasn't been happening since last year.
Though I guess your wording doesn't matter since this outcome won't be happening :-(
That's a valid point, torrmoz. I'll change, thanks!
Hoping for the best.
I really don't understand why the media think the second option is even possible.
Essentially, we'd be saying that gay marriage is illegal, except that it's legal in 18,000 cases.
Honestly, I think that's the worst possible outcome. I view it as a way for the state to implement bigotry but feel good about itself.
I hope we go with number 3. If it's #1, I hope the couples sue the state for billions, as Prop 8 could be considered a "taking" of property.
Last week's Economist has a great write up on how fucked California politics are, especially the propositions. Direct democracy was great when the state had less than 3 million people and everyone needed a way to stop the railroads from bullying the little man around. Now, with more than 10x that number, the system has become too unwieldy and cumbersome, with little or no clear path on how to reverse initiatives and propositions, or even slow down many of them. The legislature's 2/3rd majority, coupled with the political extremism born out of the central valley, Orange County, and the SF Bay area amounts to either stalemates or moments or accelerated political maneuvering.
Well, the processed is crap. Let's at least keep our fingers crossed for justice and intelligence as a whole.
Agreed. The initiative system is way too unwieldy. WHY must we have about 10 measures in every election? They just tie the hands of the people we elect to represent us in government (not to mention the budget). Plus now the voters apparently have a complex about being able to vote for everything. *sigh* There's a reason we elect people to make these decisions on a full-time basis - hopefully people who are smarter than the electorate. We live in a republic.