CA Senate President: Prop 8 may go back on the ballot.

[RandySF]

Will Senate leader Darrell Steinberg mention Proposition 8 at the Harry S. Truman Democratic Club luncheon he's headlining in downtown Sacramento today?

During a chat with The Bee's editorial board Wednesday, Steinberg said he could envision the Democrat-controlled Legislature using its new-found two-thirds majority power to put a gay-marriage referendum on a future statewide ballot.

"Depending upon what the Supreme Court might or might not do with Proposition 8, in coalition with stakeholders and the gay and lesbian leadership, if it were appropriate and necessary to put a repeal of Prop. 8 on the ballot with our two-thirds supermajority, I would be open to that," the Sacramento Democrat said.

The U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether to hear an appeal by groups that support the voter-approved 2008 ballot measure, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the law unconstitutional, prompting an appeal to the high court. The court will announce whether it will take the case by the end of this month, which would set it on a path for a final ruling next year.



http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/11/am-alert-is-proposition-8-referendum-in-the-cards-for-california.html#storylink=cpy

[dimbear]

1. I'm convinced it would pass handily. California needs to make up lost ground.

The Mormons aren't going to throw jillions against it again, IMHO.

[arcane1]

2. Can't they just pass a bill that legalizes same-sex marriage?

Is that not possible because the court is thinking about dealing with prop 8?

[dsc]

3. no prop 8 was a Constitutional amendment

so they need to pass another Constitutional amendment.

[David Zephyr]

4. Bad Idea. Prop 8 Will Be Overturned by the SCOTUS.

This serves the court case no good and clutters it up.

Prop 8 has already lost in every court room thus far and it will be overturned by the Supreme Court.

[brokechris]

5. why do they have to

do this in every state? wouldn't it be more efficient to just have something done at the Federal level? a constitutional amendment?

We should lobby Obama HARD to do this

[Science Geek]

8. Unfortunately...

...The President has said he believes marriage equality for gay people to be an issue of states rights. He has repeated that position numerous times and is very consistent.

What is interesting, though, is that the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. constitutions makes heterosexual marriages that could not be entered into in one state legal in that state if entered into in another. Say, for example, some states do not allow some cousins to marry, but others do. If I live in state A where it is legal, I can marry my cousin, then move to state B where it is illegal, but state B must accept and recognize that marriage for all legal purposes. I believe it will eventually all come down to the full faith and credit clause, and marriage equality for gay people will be recognized in all 50 states, just not performed in all of them. It is a capricious and antiquated system, we need more uniformity of laws between states. That will happen first, then we'll see even more stories of inequality where poor residents of some states can't marry, while the better off can go marry out of state, this will rapidly make the stark nature of inequality evident and precipitate nation wide change.

[dsc]

6. I don't know how the deadlines work but I presume that

the goal would be to have this on the 2014 ballot. If that is the case it seems to me that they can wait until the Court makes its ruling in June.

[cecilfirefox]

7. Actually, I would hold action on that and let the courts play out the lawsuit-

The SCOTUS is about a month away from announcing whether they are going to hear the federal Prop 8 lawsuit, if they don't hear it then the prior ruling stands and prop 8 will be struck down. Although I think that is somewhat unlikely it wouldn't be out of the ballpark- the unique situation in California is such that the narrow decision by the 9th circuit was the appropriate one. If the SCOTUS does hear the case they will either reverse the prior decision, or they will affirm the 9th circuit and the ruling will be narrow, to California only, and will overturn the amendment. I think that decision is the most likely one, especially considering the general make up of the court and Anthony Kennedy's previous opinions relating to gay individuals.