What I learned from the California State Supreme Court ruling on marriage equality ...

[ColbertWatcher]

... the are still too many GOPers in every level of our justice system and the GOP will not quit.

We have to clean up all the GOPers that have been "burrowed" in our courts if we ever want to be rid of their bigotry.

[armyowalgreens]

1. Please read the damn court decision before you post stuff like this...

Jesus christ people. Lets get a grip and read the damn decision.


They ruled on the legality of the initiative process, not the legality of banning gay marriage. Big difference. Apparently no one on the planet short of a few DUers read the damn thing.

[ColbertWatcher]

2. There were several lawsuits PRIOR to today's ruling.

One in particular challenged the legality of having voters decide to take away civil rights.

Oh, and just so you know, there is no "people". There is only one person posting this OP.

Welcome to DU.

[armyowalgreens]

3. No there are multiple people posting multiple threads just like this one.

The ruling you are referring to is only talking about the legality of the initiative process.


Here. Page 5 of decision

"Petitioners’ principal argument rests on the claim that Proposition 8 should be viewed as a constitutional revision rather than as a constitutional amendment, and that this change in the state Constitution therefore could not lawfully be adopted through the initiative process"

They were questioning the method of legalizing prop 8, not the actions taken because of prop 8.

[ColbertWatcher]

4. There are still too many GOPers in the courts.

And not just the one who allowed the damn thing to get on the ballot in the first place.

Now, these particular jurists took the cowardly way out.

If Prop 187 can be overturned, Prop 8 can be too.

[armyowalgreens]

5. I'm pretty sure it was the legislature of CA that let prop 8 get on the ballot.

Not a judge or justice.

The justices today took proper legal action based on the initiative process in California. It wasn't cowardly at all. It was proper and legal. You have to remember that this isn't a fix all process here. Each step address different aspects of prop 8. Legal procedure is extremely complicated and long.

[TommyO]

6. Yes, because it's much better to use "proper and legal" methods to strip rights

away from gay people. The end result is the same, gay people, except for around 36,000 of them, are second-class citizens, and that is wrong, no matter how much you defend the process, which is also flawed. Stop defending the indefensible.

[HamdenRice]

7. Speaking of prior lawsuits, here's what I don't understand about the anger at the Cal Supreme Court

They've been called bigots, cowards and lots of other bad names the last 24 hours.

But this is the same court that decided In re Marriage Cases, which ordered California to provide marriage equality in the first place. Moreover, they did so by extending stronger legal protections to GLBT community -- "strict scrutiny" -- than any court, state or federal, had ever extended.

Doesn't it stand to reason that their decision yesterday was dictated pretty much for the reasons they framed it -- that it was about the amendment process -- and was not about the substantive issue of marriage?

The simple principle is that a state constitution cannot itself be unconstitutional on state constitutional grounds. It's a contradiction in terms.

Ultimately, the state constitution may be unconstitutional on federal constitutional grounds, but that will be decided by the US Supreme Court.

[ColbertWatcher]

8. This is exactly why I called them cowards.

They're ignoring the real-life consequences of their decisions based on one interpretation of some legal mumbo-jumbo. Which they seem to be more than happy to hide behind.

Since the case came before the state Supreme Court, one can assume it did so after being argued in lower courts.

At some point along the way, someone had to notice that the idea of equality under the law was being used as a pawn in a political game. I guess the same can be said for the courts as well.

The way I see it, GOPers can't help but hate. So, if there's a way for the GOP to misinterpret the law to turn basic human rights into political footballs to either benefit their base/donors (or hurt , then a GOPer will find it.

Someone with more knowledge of the full and complete convoluted journey--and the law--will be able to figure this out because I can't. I just know we have to be smarter than they are.