If you have not been following the Proposition 8 process I will try to get you a little caught up.
- June 16th, 2008 - the California State Supreme Court ruled that banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional and gay marriage was allowed in California.
- November 2008 - Proposition 8 was a ballot measure in California that passed which amended the California State Constitution to define marriage as only to one man and one woman, overturning the State Supreme Court's ruling by Ballot Initiative.
- May 2009 - the dream team of Theodore Olsen, who represented President George Bush, and David Boise, who represented Al Gore, in the "Bush vs Gore" election fiasco in 2000, teamed up to appeal the validity of Proposition 8 in Perry vs Swarzenegger.
- May 26, 2009 California State Supreme Court upholds Prop 8
- ~January 6, 2010 - California Supreme Court Issues a stay on televising the court proceedings
- January 11, 2010 - the trial starts
- June 16, 20010 - closing arguments
- August 4, 2010 - Judge Walker issued his ruling overturning Proposition 8
It is a little more complicated than that, but that is "short" of it. =)
Thankfully Fire Dog Lake and the Proposition 8 Trial Tracker offered live blogging of the complete events as it unfolded so we had a daily transcript of everything that happened during the trial especially since the California State Supreme court disallowed televising proceedings. =( I was glued to Proposition 8 Trial Tracker for the entire proceedings of the Proposition 8 trial. If you have not been following this, you should be! This is one of the most important civil rights moments in our generation. It is on the scale of "Roe vs Wade" and "Brown vs. Board of Education" big.
In this trial and proceedings we were really discussing what exactly marriage is and what it "should" be. The Pro-Prop 8 side has a Christian Fundamentalist view - one man and one woman and everything else is an abomination. The anti-Prop 8 side just wants equal rights and protection for equal marital commitment.
If you have not read the transcripts of the trial please take the time to do so. You can find them on Fire Dog Lake or Prop 8 Trial Tracker (both linked below). The transcripts really say it all. I was hoping that the Prop 8 people would really have a somewhat valid or reasonable argument, but that showed embarrassing not true. I fully expected that to be the case, but was hoping for a respectable showing regardless. The anti-Prop 8 side pulled out all of the very important guns and even had the other side's witnesses testifying against Prop 8. The testimony was powerful and moving.
Yesterday Judge Vaughn Walker issued his ruling in the appeal of Proposition 8 and will shortly, most likely, issue a stay on his ruling pending its appeal. I was so happy to hear his ruling. I wanted to go out and celebrate, but my life is too busy for such things and, unfortunately, I do not have people in my life that really appreciate such things so I smiled and celebrated to myself. =)
In November 2008 I said in a BLog post that I fully expected this [Prop 8] to be beaten down like a red-headed step child.
and that is exactly what happened. Now this case will move to the California State Supreme Court for appeal. We wait for the next phase for a hopeful victory for social justice and civil rights. Linked below is an analysis of Judge Walkers decision and it bears reading, since it is no where near the page count of the actual decision (139 pags). Now we wait.
Read More
- Gay Marriage @ Arion's Home (my BLog)
- Proposition 8 @ Wikipedia
- Perry vs Schwarzenegger @ Wikipedia
- Same-Sex Marriage in California @ Wikipedia
- Proposition 8 Trial Tracker
- Fire Dog Lake Covers Prop 8
- The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage by Theodore Bois
- California High Court Upholds Gay Marriage Ban (New York Times)
- Justices Review Plan to Webcast of a Trial (New York Times)
- Two Ideological Foes Unite to Overturn Proposition 8 (New York Times)
- Theodore Olson @ Wikipedia
- David Bois @ Wikipedia
- Bush vs Gore @ Wikipedia
- Judge Vaughn Walker @ Wikipedia
- Judge Walker's full decision
- Analyzing the Prop 8 WIN: A Few Large Points
Comments
"Now this case will move to the California State Supreme Court for appeal."
No much up on your understanding of the courts are you? The case will now proceed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit which hears cases from California, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Alaska, Hawai'i, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. If the 9th Circuit upholds the decision (which it is highly likely to do) then same gender marriage would become legal in all of those states. Additionally,. it is unlikely that the US Supreme Court will accept this case for certiorari because there have been no "conflicting" rulings coming from other Circuit courts. The USSC rarely weighs in unless there is a conflict between the Circuit courts. This doesn't mean they cannot, it just means that it is unlikely here. In order for there to be a conflict, someone would need to challenge their state law in federal court in a state outside the jurisdiction of the 9th Cir.
This judge is gay.I think that he is biased.California is just turning into a place where I don't want to live anymore
It's all a slippery slope. If we are going to talk about civil rights, no rights have been violated. Civil Unions have been allowed and practiced. Marriage was simply defined as between a man and a woman by the voters of the state using their rightful process provided by the states constitution.
If this means rights and social justice then we will also need to provide for the rights of people who want to have multiple wives, men who want to marry underage girls, women who want to marry underage boys, people who want to marry a horse, goat or monkey. They will all call for and have the right to their personal rights.
The civil rights of homosexuals have most definitely been violated.
Loving vs Virginia validated that Marriage is a fundamental and inalienable right. Brown vs Board of eduction said that separate is not equal. There is a 3rd case which is also directly relevant which escapes me. By virtue of marriage being an inalienable right they have been denied equal protection and due process under the law by having their rights taken away by a referendum.
One of the primary duties of the judiciary is to protect the minorities from the majority. A majority's rights will never be under threat of loss, but a minority is always at the mercy of a majority who, as we have seen, are not kind. The state has no tcompelling interest, which is the only way their rights could betaken away, to support a gay marriage ban. A compelling interest is going to be required to be proven in order to uphold a ban, even though this should never have come up to a vote. The Prop 8 trial has more than taken this through the ringer.
A quote from James Madison
“In Republics, the great danger is, that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority”"
Civil unions, by virtue of being a separate institution, automatically define their relationships and their commitment and love as being inferior and of a second class status.
Slippery Slope arguments are not valid in my mind. If you are going t decide on Gay Marriage then decide on Gay Marriage. Do not deny gay marriage because you are afraid of polygamy. To deny gay marriage because you are afraid of polygamy is to not determine the Gay Marriage issue. You are deciding the polygamy issue and then penalizing homosexuals. This is a great injustice.
I suppose if a black judge ruled on the Brown vs. the Board of Education, he'd be biased too.
*shakes head*, you people are idiots. How can you not realize the irony of your statements?
@Mike, why would a straight judge be more capable on ruling on gay marriage. Would that judge be biased towards straight relationships? BTW, Judge Walker being gay is RUMOR not FACT.
@Martin, gays not being able to be "married" yes "married" is stripping them of their civil rights. It's the same as saying that an interracial couple can have a "civil union" but not "marry". That's ridiculous. I think that it's offensive to say that it's not violating gay men and womens civil rights. Wasn't seperate but equal a thing of the past.
@Benjamin, right on.
@Elsie, we'll just have to see what happens in the circuit court. I think the people pusing prop 8 (I hesitate to say the state because Schwazzenegger doesn't support prop 8 and neither does another rep of the state listed as a party in the suit) will appeal as far as they can go but we'll just have to see just how far that actually is.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!