Tuesday, May 26, 2009

All I have the energy for today

in light of the decision that is not a surprise:

At what point do the reactionaries notice that the couples who've been and continue to be married legally haven't destroyed the institution or sent the state sinking into the sea? Is there an exact number it needs to hit before the tipping point? Or was Traditional Marriage (tm) -already- destroyed during those few months and we just didn't notice? Is it -partly- destroyed, now? Did we turn straight marriages into a newt? Awful sorry.

"I got better."

Should be busy around this neck of the woods today.

More later, probably.

ETA: Oh, I lied, adrenaline's already going again, people are out in force and they're arresting, including clergy and a 19 year old trans kid...following it on Twitter, not even outside right now. #prop8protests, don't think you can link directly.

9 comments:

CrackerLilo said...

L'Ailee and I are so angry, and I can't even fathom how LGBT people out in California feel.

They're arresting? Wonderful. I have to see what's going on there. Not a surprise, though.

As for your very good question, you know that Jon & Kate Plus 8 couple? That's totally our fault.

Kristen said...

"people are out in force and they're arresting"

Brilliant. Even in my nyquil induced semi-coma I know that's a bad idea...Any org acting as a victim fund today?

Mandos said...

I'm sorry. The thought of turning marriages into newts makes me giggle.

Alon Levy said...

Are the HRC people protesting at all? Or are they just shrugging it off and promising to maybe fight again later?

Nick said...

I skimmed the verbose 185 opinion. The silver lining is that the judges still contend their earlier reasoning about equality, the right to privacy including the right to form a family, due process, and so on stands. They claimed it wasn't a revision because those principles weren't generally destroyed ~ only delimited in a specific linguistic context.

The reasoning could be used to establish civil unions that have all the state related benefits/rights attached to them ~ not that that is the desirable resolution.

Nick said...

"In sum, although Proposition 8 changes the state Constitution, as interpreted in the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th 757, to provide that restricting the family designation of “marriage” to opposite-sex couples only, and withholding that designation from same-sex couples, no longer
43
violates the state Constitution, in all other respects same-sex couples retain the same substantive protections embodied in the state constitutional rights of privacy and due process as those accorded to opposite-sex couples and the same broad protections under the state equal protection clause that are set forth in the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases, including the general principle that sexual orientation constitutes a suspect classification and that statutes according differential treatment on the basis of sexual orientation are constitutionally permissible only if they satisfy the strict scrutiny standard of review."

http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/lgbt/prop8/strauss_v_horton_decision.pdf

Naturally, I disagree with the majority opinion and share in the outrage. I just think the precedent set in the case prior to this is still a victory ~ and that the struggle in CA is far from over. If Obama would push for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, then that could really help ~ allowing the Feds more discretion to become involved

belledame222 said...

Oh, it's definitely not over. They're already gearing up for the next phase. Were before the decision was handed down. It's just, you know.

Nick said...

http://blog.aclu.org/2009/05/28/why-the-ballot-box-and-not-the-courts-should-be-the-next-step-on-marriage-in-california/

Looks like somebody is going for the Feds. The current Supreme Court is so inconsistent though ~ ruling liberally on sodomy laws and illiberally on medicinal marijuana.

Alon Levy said...

The current court's a waste of time. Roberts might plausibly rule for SSM, but Kennedy's a stretch, and Thomas, Scalia, and Alito are sure nos.