Proposition 8 to be overturned by California Supreme Court?!

I see this whole issue eventually making it to the US Supreme Court myself. If this is indeed a constitutional/civil right, it doesn't matter what people vote; or that 30 states have such laws already. So one way or another, I see it being pushed up that high? Or has it already, I don't really know?

Prop hate will be overturned.

I am glad that there is finally reason shining down into this abysmal slander against our own citizens. I hope things go in their favor.

I have my fingers crossed but I'm not sure about the outcome. I don't believe precedents are a good indicator of what's going to happen. Another worrisome thing is the position of Justice Kennard who was for same sex marriage in the decision that made it legal.

This will all pass, I believe. Even if Prop 8 stands, it will be an eye sore in decades to come, similar to the eye sore of polling taxes instituted to keep African Americans from voting.

Marriage has changed in the past forty years as well. In some states, it was once illegal to marry outside of your 'race'. What were we thinking!?

"Supporters have countered by claiming that the "will of the people must be upheld."

I'm not a complete believer in the will of the people. The "will of the people" has driven nations into war, people into servitude, and allowed the most heinous crimes to take place. This is why, nationally, we don't have a true democracy but representative government. Referendums are more akin to pure democracy, one-man-one-vote. But you get a lot of boneheaded ideas that way.

George, do you remember the bumper stickers that said "This is a republic, not a democracy" that the John Birch Society put out? Surely if you remember the Republican politics of the 1870s and 80s you remember the JBS.

I thought the concept of checks and balances was part of democracy. This should be checked and hopefully balance will be restored.

Hopefully this Porp h8te will be overturned, and the haters can just lump it!

The haters can get on with their own personal lives and trying to save their own marriages, and mind their own business!

Someone above said that they thought this would go to the Supreme Court.
Unfortunately, the court's current makeup is such that Prop8 is likely to be upheld: 5 "conservatives", and 4 liberals, although Kennedy occassionally sides with the left.

The future of the court isn't looking good either as far as progressive thinking: the two oldest members are both liberals, so there is less chance of getting rid of the dead wood...

I love to see Democrats being not democratic and acting like aristocrats...
The utter discrimination by the left on part of their voting block is Obvious.. Majority of Blacks voted Yes on Prop *..(I love you guys) and I am a conservative and not racist..
They discriminate and deficate on the mormon church..
Whatever happened to tolerance of other peoples belief and whatever happened to true Democracy, as True Democracy won here and you won't accept it.. WOW--what utter Blasphemy and Intolerance of the law and our Democratic Values.

I've never heard so much open hatred by the Left.. The breakdown of our society is happening because of the breakdown of the traditional family.. Look at statistics in the 60's until today and you will see the decline of the family in America.. Its really sad for me to watch our liberal educators pervert the mind of young students.

Thanks for the article. I have been wondering about the Prop 8 in California since it came after their state Supreme Courts decision to allow same sex marriages and then somehow a popular vote is put out there that would essentially overturn their ruling? Did not seem right to me.

If we had majority rules the worst president in the history or the US would never have been granted the presidency. I always thought that a constitutional change required more than a simple majority.

BTW This should never get to the SCOTUS because this is a states issue. Just like the first bush election decision should never have gone to the SCOTUS. What an abomination that was.

Bill - Just like the thugs from Tom Delay were able to change the outcome of the election in Ohio 2004 and the recount in Florida. Sad when a whiny little baby like Tom Delay can have a national reprocussion. Good thing he will eventually be in jail.

Ahh Kay.. Tom 'the enforcer' Delay has not been sentenced yet. But I do have a mug shot of him on my dart board.

I hope that the court DOES overturn Prop 8. The FACT of the matter is that not allowing same-sex couples to marry IS discrimination and is unconstitutional. There are supposed to be provisions AGAINST discrimination, not more laws passed to aid in discrimination. No matter what your religious or personal beliefs may be, it is clear that discrimination should NOT be allowed. I'm not gay, but this issue really has me fired up. I can't believe that in this day and age people would vote for discrimination and hatred. It wasn't that long ago that people of different races weren't allowed to marry either. I have to wonder if those who voted in favor of Prop 8 would have voted for segregation of blacks and whites as well.

And for those who think a Civil Union/Domestic Partnership offers the same rights as marriage, you are wrong. In California the Civil Union/Domestic Partnership does NOT offer the same legal rights, especially regarding property rights, custody, and in terms of inheritance and estates.

"So much for democracy "

It's ALWAYS the job of the courts to be a check on democracy when that democracy is really a tyranny of the majority.

Kay - I do not believe that to be the case. Civil Unions are defined differently in each state. Many of these definitions do not include property rights, personal rights or custody abilities. It is really no problem for me to have gays marry.

The religeous issue wrt to gay marriage is totally bogus. I think that if they really wanted family values they, the opponents of gay marriage, would be looking to eliminate divorce. That provides much more detriment to children and marriage than does same sex marriage.

Ohh yeah and adultery. But if the republicans had to live by that most of them would be out of work.

Prop 8 should not be overturned. It is not about people not wanting gays to be able to marry it is about not wanting to redefine the definition of marriage. That is why it passed and previously passed when voted on when it was prop 24 ( or whatever number it was). The people of California have voted more then once and the answer was the same each time. They want the definition of marriage to be between a man and a woman. I bet many of those same people who voted would have no problem with voting to allow gays to have a civil union and giving them the same rights as a married couple though. Its all in the wording.

Hopefully nasty bigots who want to define things the way they want won't get the last say.

i hope it is overturned, it is discrimination.

Kay, you are normally a thoughtful woman. I'm surprised that you exhibit such contempt for the well-being of the Nations Children. I'm equally perplexed that you haven't thought this through enough to understand the damaging impact that this belief system would have upon them, and the Family.

I fear nothing of the kind, Kay.

Perhaps you might try to understand what I've said before replying.

2 thoughts. While marriage itself may not be a right, marriage confers a series of rights, responsibilities, and benefits on the two individuals involved. There are over 1000 of these at the federal level as counted by the govermental accountability office. States may offer additional rights to married individuals. It is part of what they do to incentivize these partnerships. As society has changed, the ways in which these legal contracts give benefits to those in them have also changed. This is another evolution.

2. Civil unions used to be something that I was all about. Who cares about the word, leave that to religion and just say that everyone, if they want their marriage or partnership acknowledged by the state, will also have to get a civil union as well. That way a church can decide to offer 'marriages' which then can be codified by the state. However, in places that have tried that approach (to varying degrees), it has not worked. Governmental agencies in NJ and VT, for example. have found that those (gay) couples in civil unions (which are offered and legal there) are still consistently being denied the privledges of marriage by companies as well as governmental agencies who cling like barnacles to the word "marriage," using the fact that those in civil unions are not "married" as an excuse not to offer them insurance or educational benefits, for example. Both states have found that civil unions do not have the effect intended by their creation: an equal status with a different name. Regardless, gay couples still wouldn't even in MA or CA or CT have all the same rights with a marriage, the DOMA prevents federal rights from being conferred anyway.

Ok, another thought. There are thousands of kids already in families headed by gay parents. If marriage is so good for kids, why should these kids not be allowed to benefit from it as well? If you want to protect children keep them away from religious zealots who seem to have done a lot more harm to innocents than the gays have.

ANd one more. The historical argument is a tricky line to walk. African-Americans in this country couldn't marry when they were first brought here. Historically, they weren't people, they were property. And to allow them to marry would have been the equivalent of letting your chair marry your stove. The definition of personhood changed legally to extend to this group. If we can alter the historical ideas of who was human (which many claimed was biblically based) then certainly marriage is a smaller deal than that.

Oh and my (cursory) understanding of the argument against 8 as it stands is a technical one, not a moral one. The process was not correct for the type of change this proposition represented within the state.

Anybody else think that the black vote that the democrats so avidly tried to turn out was just the thing that got prop 8 passed? Talk about the law of unintended consequences.

Anywho, I really couldn't give a rats ass who marries who, but we need to make a way to make decisions in government. We can't have laws passed and then the other side just find another way to block it. Either let the people decide or the courts decide. You shouldn't be able to have it both ways.

The "slavery comment" was not about slavery per se, but about the changing definition of marriage and of personhood. If something as fundamental as personhood could be incompelte at one time, then certainly marriage could as well. There is no need to talk about the history of slavery to strengthen my point.

"Fab, why don't you work toward getting that 15% that you say civil unions lack passed instead of challenging the entire institution of marrage? I would be with you on that 100% And it would seem a better fight to pick to get the last 15% passed. "

I'd posit that the last 15% is tied to the word marriage.

Why should the courts worry about the will of the people? They seldom do.

In my humle opinion, marriage is between a man and a woman and is the foundation for a family. Of course there are those who want to twist the definition of marriage and family.

Regardless of what the courts say, I will never recognize this as a legitimate marriage, but rather a mockery of what marriage really is.

... and I do know that the will of the people is not the courts' concern. It just seems that often times they're on a mission to defy the will of the people.

This comment is to let you know that this content has reached at least ten comments, and as such has been removed from Comment Speedway! Congratulations!

Fab ... I'm not saying that all heteros are perfect. Far from it. We're all humans. Divorce is a big problem for another thread. And you're right, these people have also perverted the meaning of marriage.

That doesn't make your definition any less perverted.

Just wanted to

It's a matter of definition, Fab. I define marriage as between a man and a woman.

By the way, thanks for enlightening me. I never realized that gays were so much more monogamous than heteros and never split up. Amazing!

Too many people go into marriage with the attitude that, if it doesn't work out, we'll just split up. That is another twisted definition of marriage.

Fab, if you don't like my opinion, you have every right to disagree with me, but you better come back with something more than a profane insult. Tha'ts the last resort of someone losing the argument.

Fab, you're wrong, you're an idiot. Have a great day!

Prop Eight should have never been on the ballot. Government needs to get the hell out of the marriage business. ALL marriage licenses should be "CIVIL UNION" licenses! Leave marriage to the churches and temples. One could easily make a case that Prop Eight is a Human Rights Violation!

I agree with spartan