Legal alternatives to prop 8

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Okay, so now Prop 8 has passed. What legal alternatives do we have? On what grounds can the State Supreme Court rule Prop 8 invalid or unconstitutional? I've been hearing conflicting information on this. In the infinite wisdom of the religious fucktards, they didn't specify anything in the amendment regarding existing marriages or the equality clause in the state constitution. And also, I could not find anything regarding the 66% figure of passing something that changes an amendment. Can anyone with legal expertise provide some additional insight?

[SirNitram]

A lawsuit to declare it unconstitutional by the State Constitution is the obvious method. And it worked before.

[apocolypse]

From what I understand (wrt the 66% bit) it goes something like this. A new amendment to the constitution can be passed with a simple majority. But if you're amending something that's already written into the constitution, it would require a supermajority. I believe the debate lies in whether or not the "marriage = man + woman" addition is going to be considered "brand new" or "amending existing wording". My familiarity is a bit cursory, so I could definitely be mistaken, but that's how I understand it.

I believe there's also an equality clause in the constitution, which this would (imo) run afoul of.

[Coyote]

You'll find most of the actual lawerly types on this board (indeed, lawyerly types anwhere) loath to give legal advice in such a manner. You have various problems with state laws and jurisdictions, inadequate review of the situation, as well as the caveats that surround the concept of giving what seems like professional advice to someone only to have it turn out to be wrong/ineffective.

What might be better to ask would be what sort of grassroots organizing you think people could do in general, leaving legalities to the lawyers in California to deal with.

I, for one, am surprised and shocked to see that Prop-8 passed; I didn't think it would. But now that it has, there are all sorts of things you can do as individuals to add momentum to the challenges that are sure to arise.

Find an opposition group that is looking for supporters to fund legal acion, and to do campaign-style door knocking. Join groups and contribute time, effort and money to deal with this, and hammer on what I felt was the Duchess's very astute observation in the election thread that it apperas that farm animals have more regard than human beings in this case.

Anything from anonymously joining an anti-Prop-8 web group for commiserating, up to and including legal civil disobedience, is available to you.

[SirNitram]

Speaking of legal challenges... SF City Attorney files..

SAN FRANCISCO—The San Francisco City Attorney's office says he plans to challenge the validity of a ballot measure that would change the state constitution to ban gay marriage.

Spokesman Matt Dorsey says City Attorney Dennis Herrera will file the legal challenge in the California Supreme Court if the measure passes.

With 95 percent of precincts reporting, Proposition 8 is leading with 52 percent of the vote. But there are still as many as 3 million ballots left to be counted.

The first lesbian couple to be married in Los Angeles County after the Supreme Court threw out the gay marriage ban also plans to announce a lawsuit against Proposition 8. Attorney Gloria Allred says that lawsuit will argue that the measure is unconstitutional.

And a couple are also filing.. Here

The first same-sex couple to wed in Los Angeles last summer struck the first blow from gay advocates against the new voter-approved ban on gay marriages Wednesday, announcing they were filing a lawsuit against the measure.

Robin Tyler and Diane Olson of North Hills said Los Angeles attorney Gloria Allred will file the new lawsuit containing a new and controversial legal argument as to why Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

Tyler, 66, and Olson, 54, married last June 16 in a traditional Jewish ceremony on the steps of the Beverly Hills courthouse, becoming one of the first two same-sex couples to marry in California under the new state nuptial laws they helped overturn.

The two couples were allowed to marry on the eve of when the state begins to issue marriage licenses to same-sex partners because of their unique roles in lawsuits from Los Angeles and San Francisco that led to last May's Supreme Court decision declaring the ban on gay marriage unconstitutional.

Moments after their wedding became official, a beaming Tyler and Olson stood on the steps of the courthouse with their attorney, Gloria Allred, with their arms raised in triumph.

Since 2001, the couple had applied for a marriage license at the Beverly Hills courthouse each Valentine's Day and been rejected each time. On Feb. 12, 2004, two days before their unsuccessful attempt that year, they filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the state's marriage laws banning same-sex marriage.

Similar lawsuits followed from couples in San Francisco, and last May the state Supreme Court ruled that the ban on same-sex-marriage was unconstitutional.

Guests at Tyler and Olson's wedding included County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky and City Councilman Bill Rosendahl, the only openly gay local elected city official.

Rosendahl was among those holding the chuppah, the canopy under which a Jewish wedding takes place.

"This is a historic event not only for gay people but for America," Rosendahl said in the minutes leading up to the wedding.

Tyler is a former comedienne and national gay rights activist who organized three national gay rights movement marches on Washington, D.C. Olson is the granddaughter of Culbert Levy Olson, governor of California from 1938 to 1942.

[CmdrWilkens]

Okay, so now Prop 8 has passed. What legal alternatives do we have? On what grounds can the State Supreme Court rule Prop 8 invalid or unconstitutional? I've been hearing conflicting information on this. In the infinite wisdom of the religious fucktards, they didn't specify anything in the amendment regarding existing marriages or the equality clause in the state constitution. And also, I could not find anything regarding the 66% figure of passing something that changes an amendment. Can anyone with legal expertise provide some additional insight?

The State Supreme Court has turned down any challenges regarding whether this is a revision or an amendment. What will likely happen is that someone will claim a valid marraige after the election is certified and the constitution formally published with changes. At that point there woudl be standing to challenge whether the vote was approed by the neccessary margin...as legal challenges go it would be dicey at best but it has the advantage of never reaching the Federal Bench. Because the matter is one of state law unless the petitioners claim 14th amendment protection then the Federal Judiciary is barred from ruling which means our current conservative tilted Supreme Court can't oveturn the California Supreme Court. Now I don't know how one would structure this petition but I figure it will happen.

Other than that I think trying to get a counter proposition out there to overturn Prop 8 would be the next step. With no Presidential race next cycle there is a bunch of money in donor circles waiting to be tapped.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

My guess is that they're going for the 14th Amendment petition as their best bet. I'm also unclear whether prop 8 or the constitution's equality clause takes precedence. I understand, from the prohibition example, that latter amendments take precedence. But prop 8 made no reference to the equality clause.

As for the 66% figure, I understand what people have been saying. I just haven't seen any actual sources cited for that.

[Alyrium Denryle]

My guess is that they're going for the 14th Amendment petition as their best bet. I'm also unclear whether prop 8 or the constitution's equality clause takes precedence. I understand, from the prohibition example, that latter amendments take precedence. But prop 8 made no reference to the equality clause.

As for the 66% figure, I understand what people have been saying. I just haven't seen any actual sources cited for that.

All it has the effect of doing is saying "Gay people cannot get married" it has no bearing on the equality clause, which means that the original ruling still applies. It just ALSO bans straight marriage. Good riddance

[Pint0 Xtreme]

My guess is that they're going for the 14th Amendment petition as their best bet. I'm also unclear whether prop 8 or the constitution's equality clause takes precedence. I understand, from the prohibition example, that latter amendments take precedence. But prop 8 made no reference to the equality clause.

As for the 66% figure, I understand what people have been saying. I just haven't seen any actual sources cited for that.

All it has the effect of doing is saying "Gay people cannot get married" it has no bearing on the equality clause, which means that the original ruling still applies. It just ALSO bans straight marriage. Good riddance

What court is going to rule that??

[The Duchess of Zeon]

What court is going to rule that??

The California Supreme Court, now, furious that it's been slapped by a bunch of retards and black people so hypocritical that they are proclaiming this the height of the civil rights movement while they kick us in the face and say we're less than pigs. Also because it's now the law. Under the California State Constitution, no marriage in California can exist. Good riddance to them.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Please, I'm trying to be realistic here. What are the chances that the Supreme Court of California is going to invalidate every single marriage in the entire state?

[SirNitram]

My guess is that they're going for the 14th Amendment petition as their best bet. I'm also unclear whether prop 8 or the constitution's equality clause takes precedence. I understand, from the prohibition example, that latter amendments take precedence. But prop 8 made no reference to the equality clause.

As for the 66% figure, I understand what people have been saying. I just haven't seen any actual sources cited for that.

All it has the effect of doing is saying "Gay people cannot get married" it has no bearing on the equality clause, which means that the original ruling still applies. It just ALSO bans straight marriage. Good riddance

What court is going to rule that??

The wording of the ruling guarantees the same rights to marriage to lesbians and gays as straights. Ergo, if you ban marriage for one, you ban the other.

On this, however, Aly, FUCK YOU TOO. 'Good Riddance'? Yea, fuck you. You go fight your own battle next time. If this is what I can expect for adding some money to the pot and doing what I could from where I am, I see no reason to help. I'll focus on the T's and you can go fuck yourself. At least they don't spit in my eye rhetorically when things don't quite go their way.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Do I need to remind everyone that the state supreme court justices are human and not unflinching justice machines? Supreme Court justices have ruled against better judgment countless times and I see no reason why they would rule that way for the mere fact that it would be such a major change for everyone involved. I can already foresee the justices citing multiple dangers as reasons for not invalidating every single marriage license in the state.

[Duckie]

I can't see the ultra-liberal commie-hippie 9th Court letting this stand. They'll find a way to defeat it. And we might see a prop next time, but I'm sure we can throw more money at it or something. Or just keep defeating it in court. Until the justices die, I guess.

[Alyrium Denryle]

On this, however, Aly, FUCK YOU TOO. 'Good Riddance'? Yea, fuck you. You go fight your own battle next time. If this is what I can expect for adding some money to the pot and doing what I could from where I am, I see no reason to help. I'll focus on the T's and you can go fuck yourself. At least they don't spit in my eye rhetorically when things don't quite go their way.

You are not in CA now are you Nitram? You are in WV where such a ruling would have no effect on you whatsoever.

"Good riddance" may not have been the best choice of words, but "Sweet Comeuppance" certainly is. They fucking deserve it. Maybe hurting straight couples and making them feel what it is like to be denied fundamental rights is enough to wake them up and stop swallowing the bullshit the religious right and LDS church spoon feeds them. I am sick and fucking tired of having "except for queers" written in as an addendum to the equal protection clauses of every state in the fucking union that brings one of these up for a vote.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Do I need to remind everyone that the state supreme court justices are human and not unflinching justice machines? Supreme Court justices have ruled against better judgment countless times and I see no reason why they would rule that way for the mere fact that it would be such a major change for everyone involved. I can already foresee the justices citing multiple dangers as reasons for not invalidating every single marriage license in the state.

You are probably right. Heaven forbid that the term "equal protection" has any real meaning...

[CaptainChewbacca]

I find it especially crushing that the 'super-safe-protection-for-farm-animals' proposition passed overwhelmingly (60%, I think) while the rights of homosexuals to marry lost out so narrowly.

[apocolypse]

You know, at the risk of some false hope, according to the No on Prop 8 website there's still something like 3-4 million uncounted absentee and provisional ballots out there.

[SirNitram]

On this, however, Aly, FUCK YOU TOO. 'Good Riddance'? Yea, fuck you. You go fight your own battle next time. If this is what I can expect for adding some money to the pot and doing what I could from where I am, I see no reason to help. I'll focus on the T's and you can go fuck yourself. At least they don't spit in my eye rhetorically when things don't quite go their way.

You are not in CA now are you Nitram? You are in WV where such a ruling would have no effect on you whatsoever.

And yet, and yet. I threw in what I could. Yes, it would have no benefit for me whatsoever if the thing I aided came to pass. You should consider that. You know, instead of celebrating 'comeuppance' against us straight married folks, you could consider that we threw in, knowing it would not change our lot save to deplete resources.

Instead, you're an angry little man, spitting in the faces of those who tried to help.

"Good riddance" may not have been the best choice of words, but "Sweet Comeuppance" certainly is. They fucking deserve it. Maybe hurting straight couples and making them feel what it is like to be denied fundamental rights is enough to wake them up and stop swallowing the bullshit the religious right and LDS church spoon feeds them. I am sick and fucking tired of having "except for queers" written in as an addendum to the equal protection clauses of every state in the fucking union that brings one of these up for a vote.

You have fun. Because you have just announced that you don't care that I, or others, tried to help. If we were straight and married, we deserve to lose marriage because it failed. You are an angry, bigoted little boy in this moment. Fuck. You. I helped. Was it huge? No, in case you haven't noticed, I'm dying, below the poverty line, and disabled. I still helped where I could.

And your response? 'Good Riddance'. Fuck you.

[CaptainChewbacca]

You know, at the risk of some false hope, according to the No on Prop 8 website there's still something like 3-4 million uncounted absentee and provisional ballots out there.

It may change it, but its unlikely those are going to be solidly or decisively against prop 8. Many of the absentee ballots are military, which tends to trend more conservative, as well as the elderly or shut-in who voted absentee rather than make it to a polling station.

[apocolypse]

No, in case you haven't noticed, I'm dying, below the poverty line, and disabled. I still helped where I could.

Holy hell Nitram, I had no idea. Thank you for your support.

[RedImperator]

On this, however, Aly, FUCK YOU TOO. 'Good Riddance'? Yea, fuck you. You go fight your own battle next time. If this is what I can expect for adding some money to the pot and doing what I could from where I am, I see no reason to help. I'll focus on the T's and you can go fuck yourself. At least they don't spit in my eye rhetorically when things don't quite go their way.

You are not in CA now are you Nitram? You are in WV where such a ruling would have no effect on you whatsoever.

"Good riddance" may not have been the best choice of words, but "Sweet Comeuppance" certainly is. They fucking deserve it. Maybe hurting straight couples and making them feel what it is like to be denied fundamental rights is enough to wake them up and stop swallowing the bullshit the religious right and LDS church spoon feeds them. I am sick and fucking tired of having "except for queers" written in as an addendum to the equal protection clauses of every state in the fucking union that brings one of these up for a vote.

4.8 million people voted against prop 8, and opponents contributed over twenty-six and a half million dollars to the no campaign. The odds of them being all gay are more or less exactly zero. So do they deserve their "sweet comeuppance" too?

[Knife]

4) Nothing in this subdivision supersedes or modifies any
provision of this Constitution, including the guarantees that a
person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law, or denied equal protection of the laws, as provided
in Section 7.


SEC. 7. (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the
laws; provided, that nothing contained herein or elsewhere in this
Constitution imposes upon the State of California or any public
entity, board, or official any obligations or responsibilities which
exceed those imposed by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th
Amendment to the United States Constitution with respect to the use
of pupil school assignment or pupil transportation. In enforcing
this subdivision or any other provision of this Constitution, no
court of this State may impose upon the State of California or any
public entity, board, or official any obligation or responsibility
with respect to the use of pupil school assignment or pupil
transportation, (1) except to remedy a specific violation by such
party that would also constitute a violation of the Equal Protection
Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, and
(2) unless a federal court would be permitted under federal
decisional law to impose that obligation or responsibility upon such
party to remedy the specific violation of the Equal Protection Clause
of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Looks like the 14th is the way to upend this.

edit; read a bit further down;

b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges
or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or
revoked.

Scorched earth policy on counter legislation may indeed get this without the 14th.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I'm dying, below the poverty line, and disabled. I still helped where I could.

And I fucking love you for it Nitram. I really do. But what the fuck else am I supposed to think right now? Ought I just accept it? Cry, wail, gnash my teeth a little bit like a good subdued little victim? Fuck that. I have never been a subdued little victim and never will be.

Moreover you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not saying that straight couples deserve to have their rights stripped. I am saying that the ones in California have made their choice. They have engaged in their collective decision making process, popular sovereignty and all that. The proverbial bed has been made, and if there is any justice in the world to be had, they will be forced by the courts to sleep in it. Individuals do not deserve it. Most assuredly not that is hideously cruel. But the state of california as an entity does. Maybe the pain inflicted by such a ruling will wake them up. More likely a new amendment will be offered that actually writes an exception to the equal protection clause.

[Alyrium Denryle]

No, in case you haven't noticed, I'm dying, below the poverty line, and disabled. I still helped where I could.

Holy hell Nitram, I had no idea. Thank you for your support.

I did not know the dying part...