First, let me preface this with a comment: The phrase "equality for all" is redundant. You cannot have equality if it is not for all. Now if you said equality for all ducks, that would not be redundant. Please fix your signs (For example: Equality for all unmarried people -see catagories 1&3 below, or Equality for all Gays and Lesbians-catagories 2&3)
The CA Supreme Court upheld the validity of Prop. 8 in a 6-1 decision yesterday...first, boo hiss!!!
However, it was not the content, it was the process (amendment vs. revision) that was being decided on. Therefore, I take back the hiss. I am a student of the law and understand the courts will avoid answering the "Is it constitutional?" question at any cost.
Further, they split the proverbial baby and refused to invalidate the 18,000 marriages that had taken place between their original ruling that the legislature cannot prevent same sex marriage (or as I like to call it, marriage), and the day that will live in infamy, Nov. 2, 2008 (or as I like to call it, the day CA jumped the shark).
So, obviously, the justices have some sense that Prop 8 sucks, and further Props (looking at you 13) suck in general and by doing this they have pointed it out and we will hopefully fix this (and by this, I mean the ability to amend the CA constitution with a bunch of signatures, money coming from Utah and Limbaugh, and 50.1% of the vote) on the next ballot with another Prop.
Also, we now have 3 distinct classes of citizens in the golden state:
1-straight (or deeply closeted/succesful gay cure camp grads) people who can get opposite married as many times as they want [and this is #1 only b/c the list goes from who has the most rights to who has the least rights]
2-gay couples who got married when it was legal (and better not get divorced cause then they get demoted to category 3)
3-gays and lesbians who missed the window
This is awesome. We are now the only state to have 3 distinct classes of people!
(I smell some bound to fail EPC claim being cooked up as I type!)
Also, try drawing a venn diagram...cause its kind of looks like 3 should be treated as unmarried 1's, but then you get prop 8 and it pops it back out into no rights land...
And this sucks, I mean really sucks...Iowa is more progressive than CA?! Did I fall in a wormhole/black hole/parallel universe? I always thought I was rather moderate for a Californian, but now I know I am a flaming liberal...left of our secret muslim democrat socialist party president.
Rights have been lost, equality has been kicked in the balls, and the freaking Proposition system is still intact!
But I find comfort in history, because theoretically, we learn from our mistakes and don't make them again. So, now we know CA voters need to vote on these things and not just assume CA is liberal, this can't happen. There is organization going on, and media being promoted, and most importantly, money is being given to ensure there is a chance for equality in the future.
Also, before Brown, there was Plessy. And although the analogy is not the same, b/c the CA ct. already decided that marriage was for everyone and this current decision had nothing to do with whether marriage was a right of all Californians, I like to think it is similar enough to give us hope.
And if all else fails:
I am starting a petition to put a proposition on the next ballot that limits marriage to 2 individuals each making at least $100,000 a year (after taxes) at the time of obtaining a marriage license. (Individuals may not allocate income over $100,000 to the prospective spouse, sorry ladies who lunch)
Policy reasoning: Marriage is there to ensure a family unit exists. And if you have a family, you need to support your own progeny, b/c high taxes that fund social welfare are bad for the economy. And the average cost of living in CA is exponentially higher than in every other state in the union. And a minimum income of $200,000 for a family of 3 is needed for them to be adequate consumers to stimulate the economy.
Also, b/c according to the CA S.Ct., I can!