CALIFORNIA'S PROP 8 STRUCK DOWN

[filkertom]

Major victory for non-traditional marriage. There's a stay (pending appeals), so same-sex marriage does not immediately resume. The whole thing is almost certainly going to the SCOTUS.

Thoughts?

This entry was originally posted at http://filkertom.dreamwidth.org/1486610.html. You may comment there or here, although LJ tends to have a livelier

Comments

[mountain_hiker]

Great news! I like this graphic:

YEEEEEESSSSS!!!!!

[lizziecrowe]

*happy panda dance of joy*

I know it's going to the SCOTUS and it's going to be heard in about a YEAR most likely, but this is PROGRESS. Also, it shows that a judge being gay, just like a judge being black or Muslim or Jewish or anything else, CAN hear a case involving LGBTQ issues without fear of ruling overthrow due to STUPID PEOPLE.

Me likey.

[ladymondegreen]

Here's hoping that SCOTUS has the wisdom and foresight to make gay marriage legal.

[starmalachite]

Oh, frabjous day! Takei, Takei!

[netmouse]

<3

[chaosdancer]

This comment made my day. :)

Too narrow?

[ext_1030117]

I think that the SCOTUS will wiggle out by focusing on the unique part - that there are already gays married in California - rather than on the whole issue of gay marriage. That may be for the best, given that the SCOTUS has the crappy members that it has. Going for the whole enchilada might get a reactionary ruling. and a later court would have more trouble reversing that. Given the court's makeup, however, it's possible they'll decide to be jerks anyway. We can always hope that God will call a couple of them home, though...

Personally, I would rather make marriage a full civil contract, and a church marriage as a separate and *not* state-recognized activity. I don't care who's in the marriage, or how many, as long as they can properly contract to establish and care for a family and its members.

Re: Too narrow?

[catsittingstill]

Actually you give me some hope. I had assumed that the crappy members meant that SCOTUS would find some way to wiggle out of the obvious. But... maybe even *they* can't. That would be great.

I would be happy to have marriage as civil marriage. If you want to have a ceremony at a church, knock yourself out, but if you want to count as married for taxes and insurance, you go to a Justice of the Peace. Do both if you feel like it (and I bet most people will, at least at first.)

Re: Too narrow?

[emiofbrie]

If the SCOTUS uses that criteria, then will gay marriage be re-legalized in HI, ME, and MN, too?

(Yes, I said Minnesota. They performed one legal gay marriage in the early 1970s :) )