Prop 8 Upheld: Fearless Response
By Julia Rosen Tuesday May 26, 2009 4:00pm(full disclosure: I work for the Courage Campaign)
The California Supreme Court announced today its deeply disappointing decision to uphold Proposition 8.
It's wonderful that the court recognized the legal marriages of the 18,000 same-sex couples married in 2008, but this is a very sad day for California.
But we don't have time to mourn the failure of the state court to restore marriage equality to California.
It's time to go on offense. To be fearless in our fight for equality by building a grassroots army 1 million strong. Starting right now.
In response to the court's decision, the Courage Campaign will hit the California airwaves in the next 72 hours with a 60-second TV ad version of "Fidelity"—the heartbreaking online video viewed by more than 1.2 million people, making it the most-watched video ever in the history of California politics.
We are launching this provocative new TV ad in the spirit of Harvey Milk's call to "come out, come out wherever you are" and proudly tell the stories of the people most affected by the passage of Prop 8—in moving images set to the beat of Regina Spektor's beautiful song.
More than 700,000 Courage Campaign members are ready to restore marriage equality to California. Will you help us get to "1 Million for Marriage Equality"? Watch our powerful new 60-second "Fidelity" TV ad and sign the pledge.
If you like TV ad, please contribute to put it on the air in Bakersfield, Fresno, Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento and San Francisco.
Login or Register to post comments.
how can you say, "you, over there, you get to keep that right, but all you over there, you can never have the same right."
It's as if they revoked the Emancipation Proclamation 5 yrs after Lincoln wrote it and declared that anyone who didn't get their freedon in writing would have to be a slave again.
How is that equal protection under the law?
Is it possible that they know this won't stand an appeal to the Supremes? Are they passing the buck up? Is this deliberate because what the Supremes decide would be national, and if they can get the ban totally upheld in the Supreme Court, they'll win a big battle in their culture war?
I don't see how this can stand unchallenged.
Imagine, a straight person in California, like Mel Gibson, can screw around on his wife, knock up his girlfriend, dump his wife and get remarried as soon as the ink is dry on the divorce.
But if a married gay person gets divorced, they can never remarry?
This stinks to high heaven.
and death in another, I guess. And, why were God and Jesus bachelors? And why didn't the Holy Ghost marry Mary after He raped her? These are just mysterious things.
to the Courage Campaign to get that wonderful ad on TV where it belongs to counter NOM's ads, but I am fixed/low income, so I can't, for now anyway.
Thanks so much!
Jeff Bezos was gay . . . not that there's anything wrong with that. I guess he kindled some romance.
The bigots, the haters, the religious zealots and the narrow minded won this round. Tomorrow's another day.
just maybe, it's for the best. Let's see what the Right has to say about the will of the people when its back on the ballot and the people come to their senses and legalize gay marriage. A lot has changed in the last few months.
marriage fails, they don't go back to the church and deal with all of the fallout. They go to the state. Perhaps that is what should happen if the religious groups all want to have their cake...make them eat it. Shouldn't every religious performed marriage dissolution be kicked out of court and back to the original church to sort out? Let the church deal with pre-nuptual agreements and property issues and all of the endless quibbles and arguments. Now that would be justice of sorts.
Because of Catholicism's views on divorce, if one wants any possible second marriage to be recognized by the Church they have to go to the Church to nullify their previous union. Not that that replaces the civil process of dissolving a marriage or that all Catholics even bother with annulment, but there's that.
Not to undermine the guest's point though, as I do think it shows that marriage clearly has a clear civil status that's divorced from any religious or cultural ideas that may or may not exist for the couple in question. People might choose to see a priest/pastor/minister/rabbi/whatever to perform their marriage ceremony, but such that person can't issue a marriage license. They have to involve the state for that.
Shining beacon of freedom, my ass.
...the 18,000 already married gay couples were "grandfathered" only because they weren't specified in the case for retroactive dissolution.
I can imagine the Prop 8 supporters yelling "D'oh!"
Ex post facto changes are not legal. The 18,000 couples were legally married by the laws of the time.
I think that ex post facto applies only to offenses not contracts. I would think that if a state wants to do away with marriage tomorrow there would be nothing to stand in its way just like if they wanted to significantly modify other contractural things (e.g., incorporation, etc.).
Californians only? Or people from any state? Thanks!
can sign!
Thanks so much for the props on the video everyone.
When we go back to the ballot it will be with ads like this one and real on the ground organizing that has already started.
We have 24 Equality Teams canvassing in 15 counties already and have just hired a few more field organizers to expand our program. We've trained over 700 grassroots activists as part of our Camp Courage training program.
We, Courage are ready to go back to the ballot in 2010. We can win, but it will take everyone working together, from small dollar donors, to tens of thousands of grassroots volunteers.
I'll bet you DON'T
hope the christians and all those bs pro family types are happy
just cost the state and small biz millions of dollars
like our state can really afford it
and to everyone who wants to take to the streets....dont...it doesnt work
what will work is a grass roots movement to put another amendment on the ballot in 2012
and tell all the pols looking for votes to shut the eff up
let the people do the talking
get the youth vote out
bullying tactics. They routinely threaten politicians that they will have their proverbial heads on a platter if they don't go with the Religious Wrong's plans.
One member of one of the fucking school boards in Bakersfield sent the word out to local politicians that if they didn't support Prop 8 that the evangelicals of Bakersfield would make sure they (the politicians lost their jobs). (Another asshole from that same school board was caught physically assaulting a Prop 8 opponent on tape but wasn't charged by the Bako P.D.)
I know it's not our problem that the politicians are gutless cowardly bastards, but I think it would help if they didn't feel they had the evangelicals and other religious wrongs' ax hanging over their heads...
In California the term "marriage" now represents a holier-than-thou, political, divisive, hate-filled racist institution. Married heterosexuals, such as myself, should end our "marriages" and opt instead for a Civil Union state. This would insure true equality for all, and brand anyone claiming to be "married" as a pair of racist, bigoted, self-important gay-haters.
The California Supreme Court ruled that it's no big deal, anyway. In doing so, they have rendered the word "marriage" obsolete as a legal term, and an ethically undesirable, exclusionary state as a social term.
By claiming some God-given mandate to "save" marriage, Prop 8 supporters have killed it.
Before you judge quickly, consider this: What would happen if all the gay people in California who have money and power, took their money and power to, say, Iowa? I am thinking the loss of revenue would be the end of California as it became totally funded by methamphetamine.
Very do-able.
It's pretty inconsistent for the California Supreme Court to rule that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed by the California Constitution and then allow 50% + 1 votes to erase it. What other rights which the California Constitution provides over and above the Federal Constitution are ripe for erasure? It would be different if the basis for same-sex marriage had been a statute. It's too bad the court didn't have the courage of their convictions or perhaps the California initiative process is a rather bad business.
It isn't inconsistent. It's unfortunately the way the California constitution is set up and the ruling they made was really the only one they could under the circumstances.
The people attacking the court are wrong: it's not their fault. Their ruling makes it clear: they think the way the system works, that allows rights to be pulled by public vote, to be a dumbass one, but it's the system that they have to work in.
Start lobbying for a California version of Vermont's "civil union". Half a loaf is better than none.
Login or Register to post comments.