Check in if you're mad as all hell.

[Bertha Venation]

Fucking California Supreme Court. Can't wait to read the opinions.

[Arugula Latte]

1. I'm so fucking pissed.

And I'm fucking pissed at my adopted state of Oregon, which voted against gay marriage in '04.

The west coast should be leading the way, not retreating into the dark ages.

[ZombieHorde]

2. It is so sad. nt

[dembotoz]

3. these have not been good days

on oh so many fronts

think a lot of people thought after the election it would be the land of milk and honey.

[Dogtown]

4. disgusted and angry

Very bad news, BV.

:cry:

[skygazer]

5. I am mad as hell

Shameful chapter in the annals of "justice." :(

[ghostsofgiants]

6. Yep.

x(

[DarkTirade]

7. Basic inequality. Written into law.

Damn right I'm pissed.

[Bunny]

8. Checking in.

I really can't believe this.

[JitterbugPerfume]

9. I am so sorry

it is inexcusable . No one is free until everyone is free---dammit

[Eyerish]

10. I've never been more ashamed of my home state...

than I am right now. Shame on anyone who votes to take away civil rights :cry: :grr:

[jobycom]

11. I'm mad as Hell, but in one respect, hesitantly hopeful.

As I understand it, this ruling will basically say that the Proposition process was followed and therefore this is a legal Prop. That's BS, because it discriminates, and the Court should have struck it down as unconstitutional even if the correct procedures were followed. They wouldn't--I hope--allow a law forbidding African Americans to vote, for instance, no matter how legally the law was crafted, because it would violate human rights. It is to their everlasting shame that the Cal Supreme Court did not find that gays and lesbians do not have such human rights.

The one minor hopeful point is allowing previous marriages to stand. Now there is a ruling on the state Supreme Court level that gay and lesbian marriages are valid. That can be used as a wedge, maybe, for future trials and challenges. They ruled that California can forbid gay marriages, but they did not rule that gay marriages in themselves were invalid.

There's a tiny amount of legal maneuverability there, in an otherwise shitty ruling.

[Richardo]

12. I am.

I'm sorry, everyone :hug:

[Midlodemocrat]

13. It's disgusting. Fucking disgusting.

[Deep13]

14. I'm disappointed, but not really mad.

If the constitution of CA now specifically prohibits gay marriage and there is no judicially recognized Federal right to it, there isn't much the court could do. They can't go against the same constitution that authorizes their authority in the first place. I was hoping they would find some flaw in the initiative process and through it out on a technicality, but apparantly they did not.

[no name no slogan]

15. I would call them a pack of morans

But even morans aren't that clueless. :grr:

[dembotoz]

16. so what are we going to do about it.........

[Bertha Venation]

36. I have no idea.

Demonstrations do no good. Writing your elected officials does no good. I don't know what does any good.

An appeal to the Supreme Court, Mrs. V. said, would be futile with the current court. I'm not so sure. But if the Supreme Court affirmed the CA Supreme Court, I don't know what I'd do.

I am too demoralized to think about it anymore.

[Kali]

17. oh No!

I didn't even look at the front page yet. No. Bastards. Ignorant, bigoted bastards.

[huskerlaw]

18. I am, Bertha.

Mad as hell, disgusted, sick to my stomach. Unfortunately, not surprised.

I'm reading the opinion now. 185 pages...ugh.

[skygazer]

21. Where did you find it?

I'd like to read it if you have a link.

[Inchworm]

27. Link to the Opinion

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S168047.PDF

x(

[Bertha Venation]

44. HL, I read the first few pages. . . .

I'm not legally minded. From what I read, it seems . . . well, it seems that what they ruled on was this question: is the Constitution now properly -- meaning, legally procedurally -- amended by Prop. 8. Am I getting that right?

[huskerlaw]

53. Basically, yes

The legal question was whether or not the citizens of California had the right to change or alter the Constitution in that fashion. It's basically a question of scope. I'm still only 40 pages in...I'm at work, so I keep getting distracted, but it's a complete mess, from a purely legal standpoint. Extremely contradictory in some places, actually makes a bit of sense (purely legally, mind you) in other places...ugh.

[AlCzervik]

19. fuck you yes on 8 voters and shame on CASC.

[CreekDog]

20. here

but the voters could have prevented this day. :eyes:

[Dappleganger]

23. Having voters decide on civil rights...

is dangerous, however. There has to be a better way than mob wanker rules.

[Dappleganger]

22. I'm angry but not surprised.

I am also not sure this is the best, most solid way to guarantee civil rights for ALL. I really want to see this argument settled for good by SCOTUS so that states will no longer be able to cherry-pick through the Constitution. It does make me feel sick, knowing that my friends have to wait even longer to have this settled. :(

[motely36]

24. i am at a loss for words

and trying not to cry at work

:cry:

I'm also mad as fucking hell!

[supernova]

25. I'm sad right now

will probably move on to anger later.

I was wondering if eventually, this decision might lead to the removal of ballot initiatives as a tool for lawmaking, or at least lead to some some major reforms of the process. Because it's so obviously fucked up in this case.

I'd really like to see what the court had to say, if someone else with a legal degree can summarize their thinking in the coming days.

[flvegan]

26. I hate that nothing shocks me anymore.

I'm so not surprised that once again, civil rights are denied. I know that my state sucks, but damn, California...you're supposed to be better than this.

Bigots and cowards voted for it and then upheld it.

[Swede]

28. "What's the Matter with California?" shoud be Thomas Frank's next book.

It's spiraling out of control,it seems.

[Orsino]

37. Kansans now have the perfect comeback. n/t

[dana_b]

54. 49% of Californians and most of our Supreme Court

You would be surprised how many bible belting attitudes their our where I live (30 miles from San Francisco). California is not the liberal haven a lot of people think it is. however the good news is that we're moving in the right direction. 47% voted against Prop 8. I do believe that it will change with the newer generation being able to have their say.

[malta blue]

29. Disgusted and disappointed

:mad::nuke::mad:

[KitchenWitch]

30. I am so fucking pissed.

[CrownPrinceBandar]

31. I'm pissed.............

However, I'm hopeful that the 18,000 marriages they let stand can be used as precedent to eventually over turn this POS ruling.

[LeftyMom]

32. Too pissed off to talk.

[Initech]

33. Motherfucking piece of shit CA Supreme Court.

:grr: :mad: :banghead: :argh:

[NJmaverick]

34. I am angry, sad and depressed

I am not sure how much of that is directed at the court, and how much it's directed at the assholes that rammed Prop 8 through.

[GreenPartyVoter]

48. Same here, on all counts. :^(

[rhett o rick]

63. I thought you hated the left? I am shocked you oppose prop 8.

You have never said which issues you disagree with the left. Health care? Torture? Free trade? Unions?

[NJmaverick]

67. You want to hijack a thread supporting gay marriage

to pursue your petty agenda. That would be a perfect example of the actions from the far left that I consider wrong and way too similar to the far right

[rhett o rick]

70. I am not hijacking anything. I just doubt your sincerity here.

I will be glad to take my "petty agenda" anywhere you like. You do nothing but bad mouth the left of the partY, But you never explain your agenda. What policies of the left do you disagree with?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

35. Yep.

:mad:

[deoxyribonuclease]

38. I moved to CA to escape this bullcrap

.. looks like it followed me from TX.

[TZ]

39. Sad day.

I'm more pissed at the voters who took away people's civil rights though. From what I read the court didn't have much choice legally.
Why can't people just mind their own business and not worry about other people's lives?

[WritingIsMyReligion]

40. If Maine overturns at the ballot boxes I'll flip shit.

Ugh California.

[fight4my3sons]

68. ayup

:hi:

getting ready for a fight here

[siligut]

41. The Mormons have a lot of pull.

I believe that there is a group of Mormons who influence the rest. Mormons range from good, healthy living people to neo nazis. The Posse Comitatus, a radical right wing group is a Mormon off shoot, and I know they threatened an attorney in my area. So I actually believe it is possible that some of the judges were threatened (a post in GLBT).

That said, I am so sorry.

[libnnc]

42. pissed. want to hit someone. hard. n/t

[ismnotwasm]

43. I'm sick

I'm reading from the link provided to the opinions upthread.

"In contrast, the California Constitution contains no comparable limitation. In the absence of such an express restriction on the initiative power, and in light of past California authorities, we conclude that the California Constitution cannot be interpreted as restricting the scope of the people’s right to amend their Constitution in the manner proposed by petitioners."

Am I reading this right? That what was upheld was the "people's right" to biogtry and hate?

[GoddessOfGuinness]

45. It's disgraceful!

It's degrading to same-sex couples and undermines marriage as a purely sexual institution.

This decision threatens the sanctity of all marriages. :grr:

[Shell Beau]

46. It is bull shit.

[bigwillq]

47. Mad.

:mad:

[GOPisEvil]

49. Angry, disappointed, sad...

That's a start.

[ScreamingMeemie]

50. Sick, sad and mad.

[LynneSin]

51. I've read some of those opinions and unfortunately their hands were tied

It's more than just what they think is right in their hearts. It was based on these ballot initiatives in California and the legalities of them. That's what is totally messed up with that state!

[Bertha Venation]

52. I've since realized that, Lynne

I am still disgusted, but more now at the ballot initiative thing. Since I was a girl of 12 I've hated it, but didn't know why: I was in the music program at elementary school when Proposition 13 killed the flow of property taxes to the schools. The following year there were no music or arts programs.

Propositions! :grr: It's bogus, but it'll never be stopped because Californians as a whole are too much in love with their ability to run roughshod over the minority.

Actually, I think it could be struck down by the Supreme Court. But god knows if anyone will ever get it there.

[LynneSin]

55. I keep wondering what might happen if this gets to the SCOTUS

First, I don't blame your anger at those judges (or anyone else here at DU who is pissed at them). This is just such a crappy process they have in California.

But if SCOTUS overturns Prop8 in California, wouldn't this be a judgement monumental along the lines of Roe V. Wade?

But then again I've read where if this does go to SCOTUS, it won't be about Gay Marriage rights but about the validity of Ballot Measures.

Honestly, I have no desire to ever live in California. Sure it's a lovely state and perhaps I might visit it again one day soon. But there is just something messed up with their entire political process that would just drive me bonkers. I could feasibly see that the GBLT will win their ballot initiative in 2010 only to see it overturned by the prop-8 supporters in 2012.

And the reality of it all is that 19% of California's total population got to decide what is right & wrong when it comes to the lives of the other 81% of the state (7million voters supported Prop8 and there are 36million people in the state. Yes that includes children and non-voters. But there are probably thousands of children of same-sex couples who are greatly impacted by this vote).

[huskerlaw]

59. It won't go to SCOTUS

It's a state court interpreting a state law, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction.

[huskerlaw]

56. That is *very* true.

In many ways, their hands were tied by not only the initiative process, but by the CA Constitution itself. I'm still shlogging my way through the opinion, and I have many issues with it, but I have a feeling my final analysis will be "this really sucks, but I don't really see what else they could have done".

The line I keep coming back to is "In a sense, petitioners' and the AG's complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California Constitution through the initiative process. But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it." (p 12-13)

Translation: if you don't like this outcome, you need to change the process.

[skygazer]

58. Which brings up the interesting question

How do you change the process? With a ballot initiative? It kind of makes my head hurt.

[huskerlaw]

60. I don't really know

I'm a CA transplant and honestly don't understand the initiative process that well. :shrug:

[LynneSin]

62. A ballot initiative that may very well be overturned by another one a few years later

mind boggling.

[Gormy Cuss]

57. I'm mad as hell that Prop. 8 is the law in this glorious backwater state.

:mad:

[kedrys]

61. Mad as hell doesn't begin to describe it

I'm glad I live in a country that explicitly extends rights and protections to citizens and residents of all stripes and colors (Canada), and I'm sickened and heartbroken that the country I called home for almost 30 years (the U.S.) can't get its collective shit together on a basic human rights issue. :nuke:

[Orsino]

64. How about a ballot initiative cutting the pay of Supreme Court Justices?

Or only the pay of the straight ones?

[lightningandsnow]

65. I'm pissed off.

[leftyclimber]

66. I'm goddamn angry.

I'd be even angrier, but I'm on medication.

:nuke:

[Tektonik]

69. ugh

[KamaAina]

71. A Day Without Marriage

Shut all the offices down for a day, or a week, like we just did in San Diego.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5732501&mesg_id=5732514

:grr: :banghead: :argh:

P.S. I must hereby sheepishly admit that I used to be one of those "why don't you just accept civil unions 'cause you're giving the religious wrong a wedge issue" people. I credit you, Bertha, with setting me straight (so to speak :P ) by pointing out the inherent unfairness of you and your 20-year partner having to watch \Britney Spears marry her friend for a joke. :yourock:

[santamargarita]

72. Damn, I came over here to cool off

:nuke: :banghead: :argh: :wtf: