If prop 8 is overturned

[Clintonista2]

Is that the end of it? Or can the RWers appeal it somehow?

[JDPriestly]

1. Not sure, but I think it might depend on whether it is overturned based on state or federal

law. I'm not an appellate lawyer, but I vaguely recall something like that. Of course, the right-wingers could try to appeal just about anything on any basis, but whether they will get anywhere is another question. Regardless. If the right-wingers decide to appeal, the chance the USSC will hear their appeal is not that great. The USSC rejects most appeals, and I think that would be the next step.

[Clintonista2]

3. And to put this in reverse...

If prop 8 is upheld, is there any hope for our side?

[t0dd]

4. Definitely

The next step if that were to happen is go back to the voters in 2010 to repeal prop 8.

[NYC_SKP]

2. Others may differ, but I see no constitutional basis for a run to the USSC.

As it stands, prop 8 was an end run around the CA constitution using the ballot process to revise the state constitution.

I'm hoping that the CASC will not look kindly on that effort, I hope, I hope.

[bluestateguy]

5. States are allowed to legalize gay marriage

The argument the other side (the bigoted side) would have at the federal level would be over the process, not the substance.

[Q3JR4]

6. Since marriage is a state issue

I would say that the CSC's ruling would be the end.

That being said I'm pretty sure the CSC will uphold prop. 8, but I'm confident that it will be overturned in the next election.

That assumes that whomever was in charge in the last election isn't in the next.

Q3JR4.
Mumbles incoherently about incompetent anti-prop 8 leadership in the 2008 California election.

[davidinalameda]

7. it's not a state issue

ever heard of DOMA?

[Pacifist Patriot]

10. I had hoped to see a successful constitutional challenge in the last 13 years.

In my opinion, the section of DOMA that supposedly affirms the federalism principles under the authority granted by Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution does no such thing. By saying that contracts in one state do not have to be recognized in another, the law is so wildly unconstitutional it makes my teeth hurt.

U.S. Constitution
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."

Except when it comes to same gender marriage in which case you now have Congress' permission to flatly ignore a contract entered into in another state. GGGRrrrr!!!

[davidinalameda]

13. it's blatantly unconstitutional

still waiting for a test case though

face it, the so-called LGBT leadership in this country don't have the backbone to actually do anything

if African Americans had this kind of leadership, they'd still be in the back of the bus!

[mtnester]

14. "the law is so wildly unconstitutional it makes my teeth hurt"

yes yes yes...perfect description

[Q3JR4]

15. Each state administers it's own marriage laws,

thus making this a state issue. That is why no one appealed state supreme court rulings in Vermont (before civil unions), Massachusetts, California (before prop. 8), or Connecticut. Once the highest state court addresses the issue that is it. Thus state issue.

DOMA comes into force when individuals who have been legally married in other states attempt to move to states with constitutional amendments limiting their marriages, or when individuals want the federal benefits of marriage. The constitutionality of DOMA has never been ascertained by the Supreme Court, so right now it governs what federal benefits are given to same-sex couples who are married.

Aside from the issue of DOMA and/or the full faith and credit clause of the constitution, states set their own rules in regards to marriage. No federal court will rule on the issue of state marriages, unless or until DOMA is brought before the Supreme Court. Is it fair? No. Is that the way things should work? No. When will it change? After DOMA is overruled or repealed.

So what's happening in California? The issue that will be brought before the court deals with the constitutionality of DOMA, as well as whether California is doing something unconstitutional by denying benefits to same-sex couples who before could legally be married in California.

So I guess you would say there are federal issues that come into play with DOMA and the Full Faith and Credit Clause, but the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on the issue of state benefits because it technically has no say. State rights and all that.

Q3JR4.
Is pretty sure that the justice system in the U.S. is screwed.

[TheWraith]

8. It's almost certainly not going to be overturned. Don't get your hopes up. nt

[t0dd]

9. Yay! We really need this negativity right now..

:eyes:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

11. Oh look, Little Miss Sunshine has come by to shit on the GLBT forum again

Right on schedule!

[TheWraith]

12. Pardon me for being realistic.

The chances of prop 8 being overturned by the CA Supremes was ALWAYS an extreme long shot. Anyone expecting differently is setting themselves up for another disappointment.