Getting Close to the Prop (H)8 Wire

[furrbear]

Lots of chatter on the 'Nets about a possibility of the CA Supreme Court issuing the Prop 8 decision tomorrow. From the Court web site, http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/ :

Forthcoming Opinion Filings

May 20 2009 -- No opinions were announced for filing on Thursday, May 21, 2009.
There is no pending notice of forthcoming opinion filings. When opinions are expected to file, notices are generally posted the day before. Opinions are normally filed Mondays and Thursdays at 10:00 a.m.

That leaves next Thursday, May 28, and Monday, June 1, as the only remaining possibilities. (Well, they could release it this coming Monday on the Memorial Day holiday, but that seems a bit unlikely. [EDIT: Opinions for Monday, May 25, will be posted Tuesday, May 26, according to the Court's site.]) Most of the discussion I've seen focuses on just two possibilities:

• Prop 8 invalid. Gay marriage is allowed.
  
  
• Prop 8 valid. Gay marriage is prohibited.

There's a third option I've only briefly heard discussed that's strangely, no quintessentially, Californian and it's possibility makes me chuckle near maniacally to the Goddess of Irony. Here goes:

Prop 8 is legal; 'marriage' is between a man and a woman. Happy Happy Mormons, Cat'lics, and Fundagelicals.

BUT, since 'marriage' is now a discriminatory term which cannot equally be applied to all CA couples, it's use must be removed from all state laws, regulations, forms and other materials and a gender neutral alternative be used throughout.

Thus, Civil Unions FOR ALL couples - straight or same sex.

The fundies will have succeeded in keeping gays from getting 'married', but will, in so doing, lose the right to have their unions recognized by the state as 'marriages'. The state Supreme Court will take the state out of the marriage business.

[Update: Rumors on the 'Net are that SF Mayor Gavin Newsom requested the Court to delay announcing the Prop 8 opinion as tomorrow, Thursday, May 21, is the 30th Anniversary of the White Night Riots.]

(Reasoned and rational comments welcome.)

Comments

[winstonthriller.livejournal.com]

Option 3 is much too logical for the law.

[hidefbear.livejournal.com]

I suppose anything is possible, but Option 3 really goes beyond what's before the Supreme Court, which is to decide the validity of Prop 8.

[furrbear.livejournal.com]

Yes, but the court itself has said it has a duty to look harder when decisions involve 'suspect classes.'

[hidefbear.livejournal.com]

it has a duty to look harder

I certainly hope that's what happens here since Prop 8 adds discrimination to the state's constitution by "the people's will."

But the negative buzz — which includes talk that the court was asked to delay an announcement tomorrow because it's the anniversary of the White Night Riot — would seem to indicate that the court really will just affirm Prop 8 and nothing more. I can't imagine them postponing a positive announcement.

Sigh.

[furrbear.livejournal.com]

I don't get the benefit of the local buzz being out here in the Christianist Republic of Tejastan.

"I can't imagine them postponing a positive announcement."

In what light would telling millions of hetero couples that their 'marriage' will no longer be known as such by the state be viewed as a 'positive' announcement?

[hidefbear.livejournal.com]

In what light would telling millions of hetero couples that their 'marriage' will no longer be known as such by the state be viewed as a 'positive' announcement?

From the politicio's viewpoint, I think the hetero crowd would be much less likely to run riot in the streets than the queers and lesbians if the ruling goes against them.

[furrbear.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I've since seen posts about Newsom requesting the delay. Nothing like an anti-gay opinion coinciding with the 30th anniversary of the White Night Riots.

[badrobot68.livejournal.com]

I'm dying over this. Arrrgh.

[winstonthriller.livejournal.com]

I hadn't thought of the anniversary of the White Night Riot...oh well, you all can come to Vermont. We've plenty of room, and as of 1 September we allow same marriage and opposite marriage.

[hidefbear.livejournal.com]

and as of 1 September we allow same marriage and opposite marriage

So much for California being trendsettingly liberal!

[scottrossi.livejournal.com]

option 3 makes me soooooo happy inside in a devilish way.

[bearbarry.livejournal.com]

Two good friends of ours went to LA last July and were "legally" married. If this goes badly, and I suspect that it will, then I feel sick for them. Here in Redneckia (aka Florida) we are still dealing with the aftermath of Amendment 2. I hasn't been in the national press nearly as much.

[joebehrsandiego.livejournal.com]

Well, what happened here is what would still happen in most/all states, if their lawmaking/law-adjusting process was as friendly to mob rule as CA's is.

At some point this state has to come to grips that we elect folks to the Assembly, and have a judicial system for some reason other than window dressing. Until then governance as I was taught it in college and graduate school ... really doesn't exist.

[joebehrsandiego.livejournal.com]

I am hoping for Option 3 out of the sheer entertainment value it would have. Unlikely, though.

My more substantive comment is in the Paddbear thread above.