Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Marriage Decision in CA – BAN OVERTURNED!

By

UPDATE:  MARRIAGE BAN OVERTURNED!  Read the decision here.  I can’t yet – I’m in tears.

UPDATE2:  An excellent synopsis of the decision can be found on Arthur Leonard’s blog.

The CA Supreme Court has announced that they will release their decision on the marriage equality case Thursday, May 15th at 10 AM.  More case history info here.

This fall, there will likely* be an anti-marriage constitutional amendment referrendum on the CA ballot.  Gov. Schwarzenegger says he will actively oppose passage of that amendment.  He famously vetoed marriage equality legislation twice, saying that the courts needed to rule first (the only republican I know who begged the “activist court” to decide!).  Did he get a tip off on the way the wind was blowing in the courthouse that compelled him to take an early and firm stand against the discriminatory amendment?

As far as I know, there is no MA-style prohibition against out-of-staters going to CA to wed.

So many facets to the CA situation – fasten your veil, it’s going to be a bumpy night!

*Enough qualifying signatures have been gathered, but have not yet been certified.

The celebration could turn out to be short-lived, however. The court’s decision could be overturned in November, when Californians are likely to vote on a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages. Conservative religious organizations have submitted more than 1.1 million signatures on initiative petitions, and officials are working to determine if at least 694,354 of them are valid.

If the measure qualifies for the ballot and voters approve it, it will supersede today’s ruling.

Fight the anti-equality constitutional amendment.  Donate today to

  • Equality California or
  • Equality For All
    Please share widely!
    fb-share-icon
    Tweet
    0

    • Comments

    1. It would have been nice for SSM to win one without resort to the courts.

      • not to mention that too often, the state supreme courts have chickened out in ways worse than arnold.  truly activist.

        • With respect to the courts, we prefer to say: “appropriately deferred to the legislature.”
          đŸ™‚

          <

          p>And the Cali legislature acted, but the governor was the ball-less one.  Perhaps they shriveled up on account of the roids.

          • if the court rules favorably, the legislature could pass the marriage equality law yet again, and he could finally sign.  it would be a token gesture after the fact, but a really, really huge one.  and it would put a spike in the coffin.

            • Turns out that the CA legislature cannot overturn a statute enacted by referendum; they can merely put the issue on another ballot.  A statute passed by the legislature and signed by the gov would have been void and ineffective.

              <

              p>They needed the 2000 initiative overturned first.  Hence his deferral to the courts.

              <

              p>So, no shrivelage.  Just an acknowledgment of the limit of his power, which ain’t such a bad thing.  

      • Arnold was also saying that the people have spoken in 2000 with Prop 22, and the court should rule on whether that initiative stands or not before the legislature goes around the people.  (as we know, legislatures don’t answer to the majority of people, only to the powerful interests that are capable of ruining a legislator’s career)

              • I will say i agree that pressure is a part of politics, but it’s not something we should feel proud of.  I’ll accept that you don’t.

            • You know- when guys in orange jumpsuits picket a candidate’s house or Howie Carr gives a legislator’s home phone number out over the air- that kind of stuff.

              • Tim Gill and HRC and ActBlue and MassEquality making life really difficult for any legislator that tried to represent his district and vote his professed values, pouring in money and volunteers to the point that kids barely out of college were taking out longtime well-connected well-liked reps like Ciampa.  They all saw that, even in California.  Tim Gill’s got a national strategy, based on replacing state reps.  To my knowledge, that’s never been done before, and it is really very anti-democratic.  

                <

                p>And there is also a tactic of intimidating constituents themselves so they were afraid to state their beliefs to neighbors, as art of the KnowThyNeighbor strategy.  That’s all laid out in After The Ball, about how to intimidate and shame people by associating them with irrational bigotry, drowning out and overwhelming rational reasons with indefensible ugly ones.

                • Bigotry never has “rational reasons.”

                  <

                  p>If you think raising money and recruiting volunteers to have like-minded candidates “take out” incumbents in elections is “anti-democratic” well, I guess that would explain the success of the Republican party in Mass.  Good luck with that.

                  • Putting tons of national single-interest money and resources in to targeted local rep races is not democratic.  Reps should represent their district, they shouldn’t be put in place by national interests who have never set foot in the district and don’t care about the district just to stand a certain way on same-sex marriage, or any national issue.  The Tim Gill strategy is undemocratic, and the After The Ball strategy is too.

                    <

                    p>And I described bigotry as irrational.  There are rational reasons to oppose same-sex marriage, which are by definition not bigoted.  Bigotry is defined by irrationality.

                  • There are rational reasons to oppose same-sex marriage, which are by definition not bigoted.

                    <

                    p>This oughta be good.  

                    <

                    p>Care to elaborate?  

                    <

                    p>Hint:  I caution you to check the OED on the definitions of definition and bigot  

                  • Care to elaborate?  

                    <

                    p>Usually bigotry is synonymous with irrational.  So I was being redundant, for emphasis.  Sorry if it was unclear.

                    <

                    p>That said, I hope you aren’t saying that every reason that anyone might have to oppose SSM and homosexuality is necessarily bigoted and irrational.  That just clearly shows, well, bigotry.  It indicates that you aren’t even listening in good faith.

                  • I was asking you to back up your assertion.  That’s what I was hoping for.  Your inferences aside, you made the comment, so it’s your reponsibility to provide the substantiation.  Your hopes about my question don’t matter.
                    Only your substantiation of your assertion matters.  

                  • i wonder if they agree that you should be telling them where they can’t or shouldn’t spend their money.

                    <

                    p>but i gotta tell ya, i’d be happy to only concentrate on my own little legislative district races.  it’s this pesky Focus on the Anus, and The Republican Party, etc. that pour sooo much cash into races nationwide, that i’m forced to try to push back in like kind.  if you get them to agree to stop, i’ll stop.  we got a deal?  i’ll wait by my fax for the contract.

                  • FoF should also not be allowed to bankroll state rep races either.  And I think parties should be limited also, national funds should only be spent on congressional and presidential races, and local funds only on local races.

                    <

                    p>But the Tim Gill strategy was a much more concerted effort on local races than FoF has ever done, though I have no data to prove that.  I’m just going by newspaper stories that implied he was doing something unique.  And there is no ActRed.  So the point stands: legislative victories on this issue should not be considered democratic, it is a fraudulent, propagandistic claim.

    2. through the grapevine that the court will probably decide to allow it, but that counts for about .02 cents… If California moves in this direction, though, that’ll be even more important than when Massachusetts did. I think that could be the kind of state that will bring other states with it.  

      • Though, of course that would mean the Democrat would have to explain their stance.  That could be interesting.

    3. Since most courts do not announce decisions on Friday, it would seem that tomorrow is the day closest to May 17th, the anniversary of the Goodridge decision (which itself was announced on the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board). Since the timing was key for the MA court, I wonder if this means that the CA court’s timing here is key as well because it will be pro-equality. I guess we’ll know in just a few hours anyway, but things look good.

      <

      p>If it does happen, Ryepower is right that this will be at least a big decision as Goodridge…California often takes the policy lead on numerous issue, so this is likely to be just the latest. Big decision tomorrow…

      • i’m not sure the date is too meaningful.  the court by their own rules had to pass down a decision by early june.  but it is a nice thought, and might help make the decision date easier for me to remember lol!

        <

        p>i also agree with ryan.  in one sense, no decision will ever surpass goodridge, because it was the first and it was a bold acknowledgment that implicit rights have been denied.  but a favorable california decision can be great in its own way, if not negated by the impending amendment.  mainly, i think, because cali is just so damn big and economically powerful.  and will allow out of staters to marry.  

        <

        p>i wonder if that last fact might take the pressure off the skittish mass legislature , and they’ll finally feel free to end the wedding business embargo by dumping the 1913 laws.  they’ll be so relieved not to have to trot out that pathetic old pandering excuse again (not good timing…an election coming up…) and just be able to point to cali as the culprit they now have to keep up with economically.

        • (not good timing…an election coming up…)

          <

          p>Exactly…because there is always an election coming up, especially in MA where all legislators are elected every two years.

          <

          p>It would be good to get the 1913 law off the books. I sort of understand why to this point the legislators would want to hold off (lay low for a little on this so it doesn’t rile up the antis again), but esp. after Cali tomorrow (hopefully), I really don’t see the political danger of getting rid of the law.

          • they’re overly concerned about. I think it’s more of a national thing. And I absolutely DO think the DNC has put pressure to bear on Beacon Hill to stop them from acting on this. Not that I’m exactly content to wait, but I guess I have patience to wait until after the ’08 primary. I don’t think 1913 would make one iota of difference to the national decision, but DC Democrats have been known to be paranoid. So, if it means waiting a few months… I can handle it, but come December or January, I’m expecting results by Beacon Hill… or I’ll really start to get vocal on 1913 and urge the progressive community to do so, as well.  

      • Just to clarify…May 17th isn’t the day that Goodridge came down.  It is the date that same-sex couples were allowed to legally marry in Massachusetts.  Goodridge actually came down the prior November but set out a 6 month period of time before actual marriages started for the state and towns to get prepared etc.  

        • i remember it well. đŸ™‚

          <

          p>i just hope taht the cali court doesn’t put a 6 month stay on marriages if they rule favorably.  that would allow the amendment vote to happen first.  i can’t imagine a better way to fend off that amendment than people seeing happy couples marrying, families crying with delight, kids thrilling that their parents are finally married, etc.  nothing like visions of true love to blow the haters’ depraved images out of the water.

        • Excellent point, I had forgotten! I had thought that there was something to the 50 years since Brown v. Board connection, but perhaps I had made that up in my own mind.

          • if it makes you feel better, Goodridge definitely had good synergy with Brown vs. the Board of Education… separate is rarely, if ever, equal, etc.  

    4. Looks like the decision just came down. I skimmed the decision, and the relief was immediate — the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples was stricken from the marriage statute…no delay in implementation.

      <

      p>Big news!

    6. Massachusetts now has 4 years of equal marriage experience, and it has worked just fine. Supporters of equal marriage will now have MA to point to to show that the sky will not fall. It seems like it would be a good idea for the groups that worked on equal marriage here to share the stories of 4-year couples here with advocates in CA to highlight to people.

      <

      p>As an aside, apparently all but one of the 7 members of the CA court are Republicans, so it is good to see that this result was reseached even with that partisan imbalance.

    7. This is so exciting.  And it’s so heartening to hear Obama support this decision, too, so openly.  

      <

      p>How the champagne must be flowing in California tonight.  Woo hoo!

      • It’s just the same old civil unions crap.

        Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as President. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage.

        We get MARRIAGE in CA, but he’ll keep fightin for the second-class crap that the CA supreme court just trashed.  By saying he supports states making their own marriage decisions, he’s saying that he’s ok with discrimination wherever it may occur.  I can’t say I’m terribly won over by such, um, effusive support for civil rights.

        • is that he opposes a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as Romney would have.

          <

          p>Sorry to interrupt your rant.

          • you’re happy with a boilerplate statement not spoken by obama (or clinton) but issued by the campaign endorsing discrimination wherever people wish to enshrine it.  no dude, it sucks.  what obama really said today wasn’t anything about a constitutional amendement (which we know he’s against).  no, what he said in so many words is he will not champion civil rights.  if you can get ’em yourself, good for you!  but otherwise he’s got better things to do.  so very sad.  

            <

            p>it was the 1947 decision this calif supreme court that started the end of the anti-miscagination laws that eventually made his parents’ marriage legal in all 50 states.  he could have had a lot to say from his heart.  he chose not to.  he could have talked about the indecency of putting the civil rights of minorities up for popular vote.  he chose not to.  rant?  damn right i’ll rant!

            • Please don’t try to paint me as a lesser being because I don’t get all jerked off over your pet issue.

              <

              p>You don’t know the path I have walked.

              • please NEVER confuse that for a judgment about your level of being.

                <

                p>in return, please don’t minimize other people’s concerns by dismissing them as “pet issues”.  that is quite insulting, especially when we’re talking basic civil rights.  i’m not getting angry over parking meters or some other banal crap.  you know?

                • that looked his state senator, Steve Pangiotakos, dead in the eye and told him that I didn’t support his vote on marriage protection.

                  <

                  p>It just so happened I was picking up my daughter at a party and her many gay and lesbian friends, that were chillin’ in the pool, thought I was the ‘shiznit’ for dissing the guy.

                  <

                  p>Now I don’t march in parades and all, but I get my shots in.

                  <

                  p>Ne Desit Virtus

                  • I thought you were /snarkin’ on me.

                    <

                    p>Sorry for the ‘Like you?’. Your “WAY” seemed like /snark.

                  • as i said above, i was snarking at what you said, not at you.   but it is true that snark sometimes strays unintentionally.  i’m sorry if it felt like that.

                  • i do what i can.  i have already concluded from your account of the conversation with panagio that you are a roll model to straight people.

                  • he holds the purse strings, so I guess he can vote “his conscience.”

                    <

                    p>Never mind the little details like separation of church and state. Man, that Constitution can be pesky sometimes!

                    <

                    p>Not if your conscience tells you different,…apparently.

                  • There have been more than a few of us in the Lowell area who have met w. Pangie on the marriage equality issue; I know Lynne has, as has my own wife.

                    <

                    p>As I understand it, while he’s listened very respectfully to differing opinions, he’s been absolutely intransigent in his sticking to his own prejudices. Extremely frustrating!

                    <

                    p>Anyhow, I’d be more than happy to see a Dem challenger for his seat, but I just don’t see it happening the way the machine works in our neck of the woods. The Lowell area is definitely one of the more politically conservative parts of the state — sort of the local equivalent of Mississippi or Alabama — and machine politics are alive and well, as much as some of us try to infiltrate it!

                    <

                    p>Anyhow, perhaps a good discussion to continue over at LiL?

                  • … the machine in Lowell seems to put a higher premium on ‘connectedness’ than even your average pol would.  Given Pangie’s position within the Senate, it’s hard to see that machine acting in any way other than to protect him.  Certainly can’t see the Sun going there.

        • You may not entirely agree with Obama on the issue – I guess I don’t either given that I support marriage equality.  

          <

          p>But, I really think it sucks to diss him on the issue when your beloved Hillary is all about civil unions too.  She said the same friggin thing.  

          <

          p>And, just the other day you posted about how Obama is not speaking to white working class voters and throwing the general.  I hate to tell ya, but those Ohioans and West Virginians that you want him to talk to are very much against equal rights for gays.  They banned it in Ohio and civil unions.

          <

          p>So here you are wanting him to come out for full marriage rights but also to go into West Virginia – when they already question his values and patriotism – and speak to these voters. Hypocrisy of the highest order that.

          <

          p>Hillary has played a lot of culture cards in this race – elitism and guns and religion and winning the hard working white vote – all of it.  What is next in the panoply of cultural issues – gay rights no?  She didn’t play that one thankfully – but believe me, when half of West Virginians say that Obama does not share their values, anti-gay sentiment is not far behind.

          <

          p>You can’t have it both ways – dissing Obama for being seen as out of touch with Appalachia and then also dissing him for not being totally in favor of full marriage rights – which would not play well with the very electorate you want him to speak to.

          • i aimed the comment at obama because i was answering a comment  praising ONLY obama.  for me, that computes.  i went the extra mile in the subject line to show that i also think clinton’s blurb sucked too.  sheesh.

        • This is where I think I differ from you on the strategy question. I understand where your (and others’) frustration is coming from given that we’re talking about a fundamental civil rights issue, but I disagree that Clinton and Obama’s statements were “crap”. I do think that they were apporpriate given where the country as a whole is on this.

          <

          p>This is a long-term hearts-and-minds battle (though maybe not so long-term, given younger people’s support for equal marriage). Securing equal marriage in a few states to show the sky won’t fall will act as a vanguard for the nation as a whole (sort of how I think MA set the stage for CA, and perhaps NY and CT as well).

          <

          p>Securing state-by-state victories at this point is a positive thing, because it allows more of a local discussion of these issues, which will involve neighbors talking to neighbors and such to change opinions on this – which has already happened with four years (tomorrow!) of equal marriage in Mass.

          <

          p>Not having equal marriage in (for example) Mississippi is, in my opinion, indeed a violation of civil rights, but ultimately to be secure a civil right needs to be based on something a lot more sturdy than a court decision. People in general need to support it as well by learning why it is a violation and why the sky won’t fall. This takes some time to change these opinions, and it is already being done on the state-by-state level.

          <

          p>So already Obama and Clinton’s statements, while not perfect, are a lot better than what would have been said 10 years ago and reflect the necessity of the state-by-state approach for now.

          • i just think that “new day” democrats like obama in particular need to do a little more leading, and a lot less following.  that can be done with something so small but positive as just releasing an actual quote and using the term “civil rights”.  by releasing third-person boilerplate, he’s telling hearts and minds it’s ok to not recognize great civil rights advances if and when they involve lgbt people.

    Archives