Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Love Honor Cherish starts process for 2012 ballot repeal of Prop 8

Prop 8

By Jacob Combs

As the San Jose Mercury News reports, the Los Angeles-based marriage equality organization Love Honor Cherish received clearance yesterday to begin gathering signatures in an effort to place a repeal of Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California, on the 2012 ballot.  The organization will have to collect 807,615 signatures by May 14 in order to qualify.

Earlier this fall, Equality California, another marriage equality organization, announced in an email to members that it would not be seeking to place Prop 8 back on the ballot in 2012.  EQCA cited the fact that public support for marriage equality in California has not significantly increased since the 2008 election and the difficulty of mounting a repeal campaign in a tough economy.  At $83 million, the Prop 8 battle was the most expensive political race regarding a social issue in the history of the U.S.

Love Honor Cherish’s decision underscores the disagreement in the California LGBT community (which many have spoken quite convincingly about in the comments here on P8TT) surrounding the best options for bringing marriage equality back to the state.  While a win at the ballot would certainly be one of the quickest ways to repeal Prop 8, a loss could be costly both financially and emotionally.  When EQCA decided not to seek Prop 8 repeal in 2012, it cited the ongoing Perry v. Brown trial as a slower but more definitive win for marriage equality in the Golden State that would set an important legal precedent protecting the rights of LGBT couples.

123 Comments

  • 1. jpmassar  |  December 17, 2011 at 6:18 pm

    Well

    it cited the ongoing Perry v. Brown trial as a slower but more definitive win for marriage equality in the Golden State

    Anyone who thinks that the probability of the Supreme Court ruling in favor of marriage equality is GREATER than the probability that, had we gone all out, we would have won at the ballot in November, is, in my opinion, simply deluding themselves. (But I have been known to be wrong).

  • 2. Thark  |  December 17, 2011 at 6:23 pm

    One way or another, these "laws" (designed to harm gays people and ONLY gay people – while leaving all other citizens 100% unaffected, "law" or no "law") will not see the 2020's and Flop 8 may well not see 2012!

    The DarkSide preys to protect marriage…

    AND *DO*!

    (the irony is lost on NO ONE…!)

  • 3. Steve  |  December 17, 2011 at 6:35 pm

    This is a dumb election cycle to try and repeal prop 8.

    When prop 8 passed, Obama was on the ballot and black voter registration was at an all time high. While black voters tend to vote democrat, they are by and large against gay marriage.

    Now we’re going to try and repeal prop 8 when Obama is on the ballot again.

    Not the best time to do this if you ask me.

  • 4. Dude  |  December 17, 2011 at 6:37 pm

    Tell you what, put the repeal on the ballot, and then spend no money supporting it via ads. Let the haters spend millions on opposing it. Repeat every election. Then, when they feel it is viable, support it.

  • 5. Thark  |  December 17, 2011 at 6:39 pm

    jpmasser: the only language in any VALID constitution tha protects marriage for ANYONE is found in the DUE PROCESS CLAUSES and the 14th Amendment that was designed to make sure no singled-out class of law-abiding citizens is ever again treated as "less than".

    The language required to outlaw equality is no where anywhere; AT LEAST, not until some hapless group of antigays conjure up one of these failing ways to edit the language with these incessant unconstitutional attacks on the constitution itself.

    Turns out, doing so, is 100% illegal, The creepiest members of the USSC would rather skip hearing these cases, than be forced to explain TO THE NATION iN ONE FELL SWOOP how truly illegal these antigay "laws" are and always WERE…

    Every marriage ban they will ever get to hear in the USSC will likely arrive brutalized by Constitutional scrutiny, so they will have Carte Blanche to refuse to hear any Antigay appeal (and clearly, it WILL be the Antigays appealing their losses, because it is THEIR side that has no case…

  • 6. Thark  |  December 17, 2011 at 6:39 pm

    jpmasser:

    Watch the USSC ges off scott-free; and marriage equality will be recognized state by state…starting once again, with CA. Worry not, jpmasser. It's all over for these illegal "laws", but the scene…

  • 7. NancyH  |  December 17, 2011 at 6:42 pm

    Serious question for the lawyers here: if the repeal passes (and I hope it does), is it going to be held up in courts for years like prop 8 but actually have an injunction put on it?

    Usually when a proposition is being challenged after passing, isn’t there is an injunction preventing its implementation? Why isn’t there an injunction against prop 8?

    Will this proposition (if challenged) have an injunction against it? If so that’s totally not fair.

  • 8. Lee Stewart  |  December 17, 2011 at 6:47 pm

    I think the idea to put it on and don’t spend any money to back it. Until the time is right, is great. MAKES SENSE TO ME.

  • 9. Bill  |  December 17, 2011 at 6:49 pm

    I can't believe they're wasting money on this at this pint in time.

    This should be allowed to play out fully in the courts. Otherwise, a year or two from now, we'll be having yet ANOTHER referendum on our rights. Only the courts can put an end to this. The group responsible for trying to repeal is acting in a jack-in-the-box, un-thinking manner. I wish they'd quit it.

    Haven't we been saying since 2008 that people have no business voting on our rights???

    This kind of pisses me off. More than kind of if I am being honest.

  • 10. Shanta'  |  December 17, 2011 at 7:49 pm

    This is a terrible idea! Allowing people to vote for my right to marry is like allowing people to vote on my rights as an African American woman. This just makes me sad.

  • 11. Shanta'  |  December 17, 2011 at 7:56 pm

    Putting this issue back on the ballot would be a trouble idea! My right to marry should have never been put up for a vote! To have a gay rights group now head up such a violation of our constitutional rights, basically prices that people have the right to vote on the legality of my family. This ballot initiative must be stopped immediately in its tracks!

  • 12. Monroe94102  |  December 17, 2011 at 8:57 pm

    Have fun begging the California voters for their permission to get married. They didn't deserve the opportunity 3 years ago, and they double down don't deserve it now.

  • 13. Sagesse  |  December 17, 2011 at 9:00 pm

    @

  • 14. BradK  |  December 17, 2011 at 9:15 pm

    I'm with you on this, though I can't be pissed off at others who are working towards the same goal.

    If we go to the ballot box and win next year what does that say about the whole fetid process? It legitimizes it. No one person's or group's civil rights should ever be put to a popular vote — especially to the pathologically uninformed and self-serving denizens, er, voters of California.

  • 15. gayathomemom  |  December 17, 2011 at 9:34 pm

    I totally agree that our rights should not be up for a vote. But until they change our shitty laws that make it too easy to put tyrannic propositions on the ballot, perhaps we can use it to our advantage.

    Imagine if we'd win at the ballot box. Not an impossibility, if you look at how far we came from Prop 22 in 2000. To go from 60% voting against equality to 51% voting against equality in 8 years is no small feat. Our support grows by 1% each year. 2012 we'd be looking at 55% voting in favor of equality.

    Having the largest population in our country vote in favor of equality would finally shut those bigots up too. And give a lot of ammunition to those fighting to get our rights recognized federally.

    What do we have to lose, really?

  • 16. grod  |  December 17, 2011 at 9:44 pm

    An analysis of the Maine 2009 vote noted that 66% of 7.5 million spent was on the Equality side. That is three times as much as was spent per capita by the No campaign in California. Results: “The [2009] gay‐marriage campaign has been sucking up resources like a massive sponge… leaving little sustenance for other queer groups doing critical work in our communities.”

  • 17. Sheryl_Carver  |  December 17, 2011 at 10:00 pm

    What we have to lose has been pointed out here more than once: "defeating" Prop 8 via the ballot box would render the whole legal process (which we are WINNING! so far) moot. Just like what happened to LCR's suit re: DADT. We could not have a better legal team, and to see all that end up in the trash can because this splinter group has decided to do their own thing would be horrible. And what one ballot initiative giveth, another can taketh away.

    Wish there was a good, legal way to derail this before it can make it onto the ballot.

  • 18. Larry  |  December 17, 2011 at 10:07 pm

    And if we win the ballot in 2012, what stops them the Prop 8 supporters to put it back on the ballot again in 2013 or 2014? They're not going to just give up. The expected timeframe is for the Supreme Court to decide to accept the Perry case for the Fall 2012 / Spring 2013 term. That's around the same time as the proposed ballot election, so even if we win at the ballot, the supreme court could just make Walker's decision moot and erase it (same thing that happened to the DADT decision by the 9th circuit). So this could be the timeframe:

    Early 2012- we win at the 9th circuit
    November 2012 – we win at the ballot level
    December 2012 – Supreme Court completely erases our court victory as being moot
    2013 – We lose at the ballot level, all our work since 2008 is erased
    And then we have to start all over again with a brand new trial at the district level!

  • 19. Mike  |  December 17, 2011 at 10:55 pm

    would it hurt the prop 8 case if went to the 2012 ballot and LOST? Just reaffirming to the supreme court that majority is in favor of prop 8… i dont know how much weight that would put in with the case.

    But I disagree with Courage Campaign. Since 2008 they have campaigned alot, raised alot of awareness, and I have read testimonies of people regretting their vote for Prop 8 because they didn't quite understand then how it affected people. In 2008, the difference was literally only 307,000 ish votes. Thats like one county… my bet is we will win more than 307,000 votes if we go to the ballet in 2012. It is worth the risk.

  • 20. Mike85  |  December 17, 2011 at 11:02 pm

    What bothers me the most about this (besides the money that will be spent on this issue) is that if prop 8 is overturned in California (if, right?) then, could the Prop 8 case in court suffer the same as did LogCabin Republican's case against DADT after it legislatively overturned?

  • 21. Renecito  |  December 17, 2011 at 11:05 pm

    For a moment I thought this group is driven by the other side…

  • 22. Mike85  |  December 17, 2011 at 11:12 pm

    Ha! Sorry didn't check all the comments and missed the ones that talked about this.

  • 23. Johan  |  December 17, 2011 at 11:26 pm

    sub

  • 24. _BK_  |  December 17, 2011 at 11:59 pm

    Haha. That sounds like a great idea, but there's one major problem… Their "spending money" would entail hateful, hurtful, and misleading advertisements about the LGBT community.

  • 25. _BK_  |  December 18, 2011 at 12:00 am

    "But see, those gays have political power! They won at the ballot box!"

    Not to mention the case could be thrown out as void. :\

  • 26. _BK_  |  December 18, 2011 at 12:01 am

    Cue the nightmares.

  • 27. Bob Barnes  |  December 18, 2011 at 2:02 am

    Nothing validates "voting on civil rights" more when those who are hurt by it agree to the rules of the game.

  • 28. Str8Grandmother  |  December 18, 2011 at 5:41 am

    Oh my it looks there is a power struggle going on here that the rest of us are not aware of. If you go the the http://www.LoveHonorCherish.org website it says that LHC is headed by the *former* director of Equality California (EQCA). EQCA is the one who earlier this fall put out the statement that they would not go back to the ballot box in 2012. This is turning out to be what Fiona64 observed, and I never forgot her saying this, in the struggle for civil rights the LGBT civil rights organizations eat their young. I did not see a forum over at LHC, or a contact us form.

    I can't believe that after everything I have been thorugh that Equal Rights for Civil Marriage of sexual minorities for ALL could be derailed by a sexual minority organization. And I come to the party late, for those of you in California you have a worse experience having fought the good fight in 2008 and lost. This is the worst Christmas Present ever.

  • 29. Str8Grandmother  |  December 18, 2011 at 5:42 am

    Suggest a change of headline to "Worst Christmas Present Ever"

  • 30. James Sweet  |  December 18, 2011 at 6:55 am

    OT: More news on NOM's continuing financial woes. Woo hoo!

  • 31. mtswall  |  December 18, 2011 at 6:55 am

    I don't see how, hypothetically, after "we win at the ballot", the "Supreme Court completely erases our court victory as being moot" How would that work?

    If we win at the ballot and:

    we win the appeal, and the proponents appeal to USSC, and they don't hear the case, the original ruling will stand. Certainly would be really hard to put it back on the ballot and win if that precedent is on the books.

    we lose the appeal, and the plaintiffs appeal to USSC, and they don't hear the case, and it later goes on the ballot…..well, seems like an unlikely risk. At that point, the court case history (and transcripts, if not video), and the ballot history will be a part of that later campaign.

    It is beyond my imagination that anyone on the right side of history would actually vote against a repeal initiative based on a hope on the possibility of a better national outcome from the supreme court.

    Withhold donations, don't volunteer, don't comment, fine.

    Vote against? No way that should happen.

  • 32. Larry  |  December 18, 2011 at 7:29 am

    That's exactly what happened with the DADT case. A district court ruled DADT unconstitutional. Then Congress repealed it. The 9th circuit found that since DADT no longer existed on the books, the lawsuit was meaningless (moot in legal speak). They didn't just let the original decision stand, they erased it completely (vacate in legal speak) so it no precedential value. Any tangential lawsuits like about separation benefits can't rely on DADTs unconstitutionality or cite the original decision.. And if DADT somehow came back, any lawsuits would have to start over from scratch and recreate the record of discrimination through a whole new trial..

    If in November 2012, a ballot initiative amends the CA constitution to provide marriage equality, "Prop 8" will effectively cease to exist. Regardless of how the 9th circuit rules, the Supreme Court could easily take the case and decide that since Prop 8 doesn't exist, there is nothing for them or the 9th circuit or Judge Walker to rule on. So they could erase Judge Walker's decision from the record completely. There would be no precedent on the books. And any lawsuits in California or other states would have to start over from scratch.

  • 33. Sheryl_Carver  |  December 18, 2011 at 7:33 am

    Perhaps I misunderstand you, but if we "win at the ballot," unless there has been an ending to the case (proponents cease their appeals (right!), or SCOTUS denies cert or renders a decision), EVERYTHING that has happened on the Prop 8 trial STOPS! No more appeals, no nothing. The case is rendered moot. Which leaves us in one very important way right back where we all started – having our civil rights considered to be a vote-able commodity.

    Yes, under those circumstances & at that cost, I'll hold my nose & vote against it.

  • 34. Sheryl_Carver  |  December 18, 2011 at 7:48 am

    Would it do any good at all if we all email LHC and ask them to stop? Listing the main reason, that it derails any hope of getting denial of civil marriage rights ruled unConstitutional within the next year or 2.

  • 35. John_B_in_DC  |  December 18, 2011 at 7:52 am

    I agree that we should not be pursuing our rights by popular vote, but when our opponents are allowed to frame the question, that is a huge handicap for our side. Poll after poll has shown that support for same-sex marriage depends very much on the wording of the question. The good news is that public sentiment has changed immensely in just the last couple of years, and we are already at or even past the tipping point of majority support in several states (possibly including California). That certainly doesn't mean we should be complacent, but I don't think there are going to be many more victories like Prop. 8 for our opponents. (Let's face it, even their victories in California and Maine were won by VERY slim margins.) Having discrimination written into a state constitution by popular vote is one thing, but a public smackdown of such an attempt would be awfully sweet!

    The advantage for us, if we pursue it effectively, is that our opponents don't want us to have ANY rights, whether it's marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships. When the issue is framed that way–forcing an all-or-nothing choice–support for same-sex marriage goes way up because a VERY strong majority of Americans think gay couples should have some kind of legal recognition and rights; the only sticking point is whether or not to call it "marriage". The challenge for us, in places like North Carolina where we are forced into a popular vote, is getting across to the voters that the anti-marriage amendments would ban ALL such rights or recognition.

  • 36. Mark  |  December 18, 2011 at 8:03 am

    My thoughts exactly.

  • 37. Str8Grandmother  |  December 18, 2011 at 10:17 am

    James, I totally ENJOYED reading that link. Thanks for sharing.

  • 38. Str8Grandmother  |  December 18, 2011 at 10:18 am

    I would be happy to so that Sheryl, do you have an e-mail address for them?

  • 39. MJFargo  |  December 18, 2011 at 10:33 am

    …and they have money to burn.

  • 40. TiredofWaiting  |  December 18, 2011 at 10:43 am

    I don't get what you all are talking about. There's nothing wrong with voting to GIVE people (or a group of people) MORE rights. That's how women got suffrage in many states. And when folks were trying to pass the ERA there were advisory referenda. Right now, gay couples have no right to marry even to vote on. By contrast, it's wrong to take away rights by a vote. But that's not what may happen here.

    And about the court case, what planet are you living on? You really think the Supreme Court is going to make marriage legal everywhere anytime soon? That's insane. Don't you want gay couples to be able to marry?

  • 41. Sheryl_Carver  |  December 18, 2011 at 11:09 am

    TiredofWaiting:

    Please reread Larry's comments – he explains the consequences of this ballot initiative very well.

    It is entirely possible that SCOTUS will deny cert (won't accept the case), which (depending on how the 9th Circuit rules) could still give us marriage equality in a way that cannot be overturned by a vote. It is also possible they WILL take the case & decide in favor of equal rights.

    We've waited this long, & don't want to throw out all the incredible work that has been done to get us this far when waiting a little longer can get us so much.

  • 42. Steven  |  December 18, 2011 at 11:24 am

    Like Everybody said, this is VERY BAD move by LHC They decided this within a week after EQCA dropped 2012. LHC didn't reached out to LGBT community to discuss about going back to the ballot in 2012. They decided it on their own. That's a bad idea. Also, I heard that LHC has no faith in Prop 8 case whatsoever, especially by USSC.. They have no idea how this signature collection will hurt the case IF it gets on the ballot because I feel that some to most LGBT community feels that Prop 8 case will be successful than voting ON OUR RIGHTS. I have been reading all comments on LHC and most say its a bad idea….

    NOBODY HAS A RIGHT TO VOTE ON OTHER PEOPLE'S CIVIL RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!

  • 43. Sheryl_Carver  |  December 18, 2011 at 11:47 am

    For anyone who thinks contacting LHC might possibly convince them to wait, here's their contact page:
    http://www.lovehonorcherish.org/index.php?option=

  • 44. Bob  |  December 18, 2011 at 12:04 pm

    great catch Str8Grandmother,,,,,,,, does anyone see the benefit in working towards one national organization to push for human rights federally,,,,, I know it still has to be done state by state,, but that could work, too many organizations working from different angles,,, cost too much,,, financially,,, and also in division among us,,,,,
    if all that money, expertise and energy was funneled into one organziation with one goal,, they could delegate,, and have branches in each state,,,

  • 45. Bob  |  December 18, 2011 at 12:12 pm

    Yes finally,,,,, (STOP FEEDING THE BIGOTS) it is good news,,,,

    I'd like to think all the discussions going on around the country have educated some of the sheeple about the fact that the money donated is going to support bigotry, instead of charity,,,,,

    And hopefully the big donors,, are a little leary of those pending court challenges to reveal the source of funding…

    STOP FEEDING THE BIGOTS,,,,,,

    that's why Mags has already started another organization,,, cause we're onto NOM thanks Courage Campaign!!!!!!!!!!!

  • 46. DaveP  |  December 18, 2011 at 12:40 pm

    Not just 'could', the Prop 8 trial absolutely would be stopped dead in its tracks with no final ruling. Just like the Log Cabin DADT trial was when DADT was repealed before that trial concluded. When these things happen, they automatically render all pending legal proceedings moot. The result is that these decisions made at the ballot box or by the legislature can easily be undone and redone and undone again, over and over again – until the courts say "NO, THAT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, WE CANNOT DO THIS TO OUR CITIZENS". We MUST assure that the Prop 8 trial reaches its conclusion!

  • 47. DaveP  |  December 18, 2011 at 12:46 pm

    I think you are assuming that pro-marriage equality folks have another $40,000,000 to spend on another campaign. We do not. Putting it on the ballot again will result i another round of horrible lies spewing out of televisions all over California, doing more harm to the LGBT community, and whether we 'win' or 'lose', we LOSE.

  • 48. jpmassar  |  December 18, 2011 at 1:31 pm

    I would be interested in everyone picturing the hypothetical scenario of having all those who keep saying

    "Nobody has a right to vote on other people's rights"

    to travel to Maine and stand in front of the thousands of volunteers who went out in the wet and cold week after week and obtained the signatures to put on the ballot an initiative that would make marriage equality the law in Maine that they were wrong and they should not have done what they did.

  • 49. Jamie  |  December 18, 2011 at 1:40 pm

    Yeah, but I think it's a changed world since 2008, especially in California. I don't see businesses or individuals motivated to give to the anti-equality crowd. There are more people willing to speak up for equality and less willing to support discrimination. Remember after Prop 8 when Tom Hanks said the supporters of the initiative were "un-american" and ended up recanting? Since that time I've seen numerous public figures call Prop 8 "un-american" and no one bats an eyelash.

    Further, despite what EQCA is feeding you, The ballot language that is proposed polled at 60% support in 2009. I haven't seen anyone do a poll lately, but I suspect it's greater than that today.

  • 50. Sheryl_Carver  |  December 18, 2011 at 1:43 pm

    The situation in Maine is different than it is here in California. We have a very good chance at achieving a court-ordered victory within a year or 2 at the most. Maine citizens do not. All of the volunteers for equality in Maine are awesome & should be praised & recognized for their commitment and courage.

  • 51. Lymis  |  December 18, 2011 at 2:20 pm

    The point is that according to the Constitution, in the 14th amendment, if nowhere else (and the fact that the majority of the objections to gay rights are explicitly Christian or explicity religious makes the 1st amendment a big player too) as well as in a number of court decisions regarding both miniority rights and marriage specifically, we are already entitled to those rights.

    A court decision reaffirming that gay people are equal citizens and that no matter what the majority says, we get equal rights because they aren't allowed to take them away in the first place is far more significant than a group of voters deciding that just this once, they'll allow us to have a right – because the next batch of voters can just take them away again.

    So, yes, there IS something wrong with voting to give people more rights – because it lets people think that rights are up for a vote in the first place.

  • 52. jpmassar  |  December 18, 2011 at 2:43 pm

    Indeed it is different. But if "nobody has a right to vote on other people's rights" as some are asserting then what those committed and courageous volunteers did in Maine was very, very wrong, because they are the enablers who will have allowed people to vote on other people's rights.

    You can't have it both ways.

  • 53. yael  |  December 18, 2011 at 3:03 pm

    i just have one thing to say. don't put all your eggs in one basket !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • 54. Chrys  |  December 18, 2011 at 3:18 pm

    Actually, it is a very different issue. I think that we all have a right (and a duty) to vote on *giving* more equal rights. I think no one has the right to vote to take civil rights away.

  • 55. Kevin  |  December 18, 2011 at 5:22 pm

    This is terrible. I just can't go through this again.

  • 56. Steven  |  December 18, 2011 at 5:28 pm

    Maine and California are totally different because California LGBT citizens had a right under state's Constitution to get married from May to Nov 4, 2008. I had a problem with other attorneys who said Prop 8 was a revision to the state's constitution after Prop 8 was passed. and CA Supreme Court had no choice to uphold Prop 8. However, if it was argued that Prop 8 WAS VIOLATION of the state and US Constitution in front of CA Supreme Court in March 2009 I believe that they would have throw Prop 8 out, and they were looking for that in oral arguments.. Also, they could have stopped it before the election based on the same arguments.
    I believe if Prop 8 case reaches USSC the justices might have a problem that we had a constitution right to get married, but voters have a right to take that way without Due Process…..

  • 57. grod  |  December 18, 2011 at 8:45 pm

    Strikes me it is only the Courts who can guarantee rights. Voter initiatives and even legislative initiatives can be reversed as is threatened in NH.

  • 58. jpmassar  |  December 18, 2011 at 9:07 pm

    We're talking about whether it is okay to have a vote in California to give more equal rights. It is exactly the same issue as in Maine. A ballot initiative to ask the voters to pass marriage equality.

  • 59. JonT  |  December 18, 2011 at 11:48 pm

    Which, even if we win, can be overturned in the next election…

    No more voting on whether I am an equal citizen please.

  • 60. Kalbo  |  December 19, 2011 at 12:53 am

    Here's what I told LHC:
    —–
    Given all of the victories we've had in the courts, I fear your efforts will only undermine our progress in the long run.

    By going forward with a referendum on Proposition 8, you're again putting our rights to a vote and legitimizing the notion that that's acceptable. Taking this issue back to the ballot box should be a last resort should we ultimately fail in the courts, which we will know soon enough. Any potential gain will be limited and much more tenuous than a federal court ruling. The timing of a referendum doesn't even allow for the Perry case to run its course — a case I'm optimistic we will win, but one that your efforts could defeat before even knowing the final outcome (recall that the DADT case was vacated after Congress repealed that statute). We couldn't ask for a better case (and brilliant legal team) than this one, and I'm eager to see how far it goes. I'm only 31, and I want full equality in all states and at the federal level immediately, but it must be lasting.

    In short: We finally have full equality within our reach once and for all, but you'd risk that for a quick fix that leaves our rights up to the whims of a fickle electorate.

    Even though I am gay and in a long-term relationship waiting to be married, I oppose your decision to move forward with a repeal at this time, and I will do everything in my power to defeat your initiative.

  • 61. Lymis  |  December 19, 2011 at 3:58 am

    Oh please.

    That's no different than saying that because I firmly believe that we all have the right to be safe in our own homes, I am somehow spitting in the face of all the wonderful people who run battered women's shelters and homes and halfway houses for abused kids.

    The fact that people – hardworking, dedicated, inspiring and everything else that is true about them – have to put in a huge amount of effort to overcome the powerful social inertia on this issue is a whole different question from whether or not they should have to, and you know it.

    When the only game in town, right or wrong, is in fact that people ARE voting on our rights, then of course the best choice is to get out and make sure the vote goes the right way. But we can't lose sight of the fact that part of the goal is making sure we don't constantly HAVE to keep putting up that fight, and the way to do that is to get a clear and definitive Court ruling. Prop 8 has every sign of being a huge piece of that puzzle, and short-circuiting it may well be a major setback.

    It isn't just putting in hard work that matters. It's putting in hard work in the right places.

  • 62. Lymis  |  December 19, 2011 at 4:00 am

    No, it isn't. Because the context in which that vote is being taken is extremely different.

    You've simplified the situation to the point that you can claim "they are exactly the same" but they aren't, not in a lot of very important ways.

  • 63. mtswall  |  December 19, 2011 at 5:14 am

    "NOBODY HAS A RIGHT TO VOTE ON OTHER PEOPLE'S CIVIL RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!! "

    Of course "we the people" have the right to vote on the definition of civil rights. Even the courts system is ultimately democratic, it is just indirect – we elect the folks that appoint the folks who make the decisions. It is still the voters right and responsibility to make sure we get the right "deciders" in place to make the decisions.

  • 64. James Sweet  |  December 19, 2011 at 5:16 am

    My nerdiness is proven: When people started using the acronym LHC to refer to Love Honor Cherish in this thread, my reaction was, "Wait, what does the Large Hadron Collider have to do with marriage equality?"

  • 65. mtswall  |  December 19, 2011 at 5:40 am

    The real question isn't of moral correctness, but of political strategy – what venue (courts or ballots) is best to pursue change. IMHO, it isn't an either/or choice.

    It also is, apparently, one of political cohesion. No one will accuse proponents of LGBT rights of being a monolithic whole. As I recall at the onset of the Prop 8 case, that AFER had some critics who felt that it was not the right strategy to pursue a federal case to overturn a state initiative.

    The movement (good a word as any) can and will survive schism.

    Some wish LHC would not pursue an initiative in 2012 for strategic reasons. Fair enough.

    To me it seems that you can either look at the Prop 8 case in a narrow, literal sense – what the case is arguing – that the application of Prop 8 is unconstitutional and should be set aside.

    Or you can look at it strategically in the magnitude of the impact of a successful ruling in a federal court – a broader application (more than CA), more durable (resistant to ballot change) and of greater precedence.

    IN MY OPINION, If the exact, narrow, relief the plaintiffs are seeking – a reversal of Prop 8 – can be achieved via an ballot initiative sooner than a resolution in the federal court system, THAT IS A GOOD THING!

    I understand the argument that an ultimate favorable USSC decision is a better thing, but it delays relief, and is by no means a sure thing.

  • 66. Sam_Handwich  |  December 19, 2011 at 5:46 am

    We could stuff Maggie Gallagher and Rick Santorum into the collider and see what results

  • 67. Johan  |  December 19, 2011 at 5:56 am

    a lot of anti gay matter, I would think.

  • 68. Juli  |  December 19, 2011 at 6:08 am

    Tom Hanks recanted his statement because he said MORMONS were un-American. He was referring to their involvement in Prop 8, but it was inflammatory – not all Mormons supported Prop 8. His statement came across as biased towards the religion. As a recovering Mormon, I tend to agree with him, but understand how that might have been considered going too far.

  • 69. Bob Barnes  |  December 19, 2011 at 6:42 am

    I'm hoping that someone from AFER will call LHC and walk them through the possible scenarios.

  • 70. Sheryl_Carver  |  December 19, 2011 at 6:42 am

    Similar thing continues to happen to me, James. I used to be an R&D software engineer, then switched careers to something much more health-oriented. 20 years later, I still have to do a mental reset whenever I encounter NIH. In the health context, it's the National Institute of Health. However, in my brain it will always mean "Not Invented Here.".

  • 71. Sheryl_Carver  |  December 19, 2011 at 6:43 am

    Good for you, Kalbo! Don't know if they'll pay any attention, but one can hope.

  • 72. beegbolt  |  December 19, 2011 at 6:44 am

    Oh God. I mean if it gets enough signatures, and gets on the ballot, you have to vote for it. I pray the SCOTUS gets the case before Nov., and indications are they will. Mob-rule voting on minority rights is awful. We WILL win in court. Anti-equality forces only have the bible for their arguments. The prop 8 trial was totally a no brainer when it comes to our constitutional right.

  • 73. Sheryl_Carver  |  December 19, 2011 at 7:02 am

    I understand the argument that an ultimate favorable USSC decision is a better thing, but it delays relief, and is by no means a sure thing.

    No, it's not a sure thing. But what IS a sure thing is if this initiative passes before Prop 8's journey through the court system ends (SCOTUS either denies cert or rules), the entire case & all the work done & all the intermediate victories achieved GO INTO THE LEGAL WASTEBASKET! Just like LCR's battle re: DADT. And we are left once more with our rights being given or taken away at the whim of the majority of people who show up to vote on a given day.

    We are probably less than 2 years away from the end of the Prop 8 legal battle. Please let it play out!!!

  • 74. Shanta'  |  December 19, 2011 at 7:53 am

    I'm going to email LHC today and I am encouraging all of my friends and family members to do the same. We have to stop this.

  • 75. Steven  |  December 19, 2011 at 8:36 am

    I have heard that LHC is telling their members that Prop 8 case will lose when it reaches SCOTUS because "conservative justices" would vote against equality, yes that'd be a given. Maybe Chief Justice will vote for us, thats I have heard through rumorville How do they know that we will lose? They don't!! Go to their facebook page and share your opinions.. It needs to be heard!!!!!!!! If SCOTUS really wants to stop marriage equality why didn't they stop it in their BACKYARD WASHINGTON, DC??

  • 76. Steven  |  December 19, 2011 at 9:00 am

    If LHC is really interested in collecting signatures where the petitions and locations? It sounds like they don't have a plan……… They should have been already to go to collect signatures soon as it got approved on Wed/Thurs. Where are the plans??????

  • 77. Leo  |  December 19, 2011 at 9:07 am

    If I remember correctly, I asked about this scenario during one of the open Q&A sessions with AFER lawyers here on P8TT: what happens if the Ninth Circuit rules Prop 8 unconstitutional, but by the time the case gets to SCOTUS, it becomes moot due to repeal. The answer was that the Ninth Circuit ruling would remain a binding precedent. Obviously that's not what happened with DADT. Maybe that's because of a difference between district courts and appellate courts, or maybe the answer I got was incorrect. Just putting it out there.

  • 78. AnonyGrl  |  December 19, 2011 at 10:55 am

    Sent them a note saying "I absolutely support your goals, but not your methods…"

    If everyone could do that, tell them that we do want them in the fight… but the fight right now needs to be in the courts, maybe it will help?

  • 79. AnonyGrl  |  December 19, 2011 at 11:01 am

    I thought the same thing when I read it!!!

  • 80. Steven  |  December 19, 2011 at 11:12 am

    They won't Check out their homepage http://www.lovehonorcherish.org they don't have any BREAKING NEWS about getting an approval to start collecting signatures….

  • 81. Carpool Cookie  |  December 19, 2011 at 11:15 am

    "You really think the Supreme Court is going to make marriage legal everywhere anytime soon? That's insane. Don't you want gay couples to be able to marry?

    As it relates to the Perry case…if it makes them nervous, the US Supreme Court can decline to hear its appeal, which (if the 9th Circuit upholds Judge Walker's solid ruling) would bring Marriage Equality to Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. (Don't know how it effects Northern Mariana Islands or Guam.)

    So, the complete picture isn't totally balanced on how SCOTUS would vote on Judge Walker's ruling.

  • 82. Carpool Cookie  |  December 19, 2011 at 11:24 am

    "I have heard that LHC is telling their members that Prop 8 case will lose when it reaches SCOTUS because "conservative justices" would vote against equality, yes that'd be a given. Maybe Chief Justice will vote for us, thats I have heard through rumorville How do they know that we will lose? They don't!! "

    What I want to know is, how does that group "know" Perry will even END UP before the United States Supreme Court?? That's not a given, AT ALL.

  • 83. Carpool Cookie  |  December 19, 2011 at 11:52 am

    The whole proposal of trying to get Marriage Equality back on the ballot from OUR side basically violates that whole business model of "not duplicating efforts," (something that non-profit groups REALLY need to pay attention to, as funding and volunteer time from donors and the public is limited.)

    Getting it back on the ballot and undermining Perry rulings, Finding of Facts, etc. is a pretty legally-naive route that appeals to people who want a quick fix rather than having the patience to familiarize themselves with the bigger picture. But, quick fixes are what your ordinary person is about, psychologically and emotionally, so…what can you do? It's (lazy) human nature.

  • 84. DaveP  |  December 19, 2011 at 12:03 pm

    I just sent them this email: (PART 1)

    Hi LOC.org folks,

    I absolutely support the goal of repealing Prop 8. But I am strongly opposed to the method of taking the fight back to the ballot box. Doing this will render the pending Prop 8 trial moot, with no final decision, and we will be right back where we started – with our equal rights left vulnerable to attacks at the ballot box by exposing them to majority vote, over and over and over again, with each new election cycle. We will gain and lose and gain and lose equal civil marriage rights repeatedly unless the courts are allowed to reach their conclusion and say “no, things like Prop 8 are unconstitutional and we cannot subject equal rights of a minority to majority vote”.

  • 85. DaveP  |  December 19, 2011 at 12:04 pm

    (PART 2)
    Look what happened to the DADT trial. It was rendered moot without a decision as soon as DADT was repealed by the legislature, leaving LGBT military personnel vulnerable to a future reversal of the policy with each new election cycle. This is a terrible scenario and it would not be the case if the trial had been allowed to conclude with a final ruling.

    I wholeheartedly support your motives and our shared goal, but I urge you to reconsider your tactics. Please – let the trial conclude. We will never again have this opportunity, with this legal team and these circumstances, to once and for all end this process of letting people vote on our rights. Taking the issue to the ballot box will do far more harm than good.

    Thanks,

  • 86. Steven  |  December 19, 2011 at 1:22 pm

    I have no clue how they know that Prop 8 *lost for marriage equality* will lose at the end. One of their members said a while ago on a facebook page" They said this, after somebody posted they won't sign a petition or donate after 9th Circuit of Appeals hand down their decision, : "Waiting til spring will be too late – word is that the 9th circuit is going to have another trial en banc – meaning this court case will last into ay least 2014, probably longer!"

    Where did they get that info? We haven't heard any official word. They can't have en banc hearing out of blue without an appeal from 3 judge panel's decision.

  • 87. Steven  |  December 19, 2011 at 1:32 pm

    They responded with this comment after somebody asked them how do they know.. We need to talk to the lawyers who have spoken to the justices on 9th Circuit of Appeals because some justices have some interest and want to chim in this case.. I think they are blowing smoke because I think they get negative responses about petitions..

  • 88. Jacob  |  December 19, 2011 at 1:36 pm

    To be fair, I think the OP's question was one would apply the argument that "you should never vote on civil rights" to the fact that the community in Maine made a conscious decision to do just that. As you say, part of the goal is making sure we don't "have" to keep putting up that fight. Is it, then, a bad idea for Mainers to be fighting for this, since it would seem like they're legitimizing the idea that a popular vote on gay marriage is an appropriate action?

    I'm not advocating one or another, but I think it's a reasonable question to pose.

  • 89. Jacob  |  December 19, 2011 at 1:40 pm

    I can't believe the US Supreme Court would allow a situation in which the Constitution meant one thing for marriage equality in the 9th Circuit and something else everywhere else. I think they'd be more likely to decline to hear an appeal if the 9th Circuit finds a way the ruling is tailored only to California and Prop 8.

  • 90. Jacob  |  December 19, 2011 at 1:53 pm

    Now, now. There's no group of people stronger than the LGBT community. Support or oppose the ballot initiative idea, surely we are strong enough to handle some negative ads!

  • 91. Ray in Sacramento  |  December 19, 2011 at 2:15 pm

    I'm going to play devil's advocate here. Suppose the new LHC's ballot iniative gets on the ballot and wins. I wouldn't put it past the opponents of this new initative to turn the tables and sue to have it overturned back to where marriage would still be only between a man and a woman.

    If anyone approaches me to sign the initiative, I'm going to decline. Let's see how the current Prop. 8 case plays out in the courts before another attempt is made to put it back on the ballot.

  • 92. grod  |  December 19, 2011 at 2:19 pm

    Sheryl – Agree. As said elsewhere, it’s important that the LGBT community strive to be on the same page, to reaffirm, or reshape what was thought to be the current consensus. If you expect your straight allies to be on that page, you ought to also seek their council as the community moves forward.

  • 93. Carpool Cookie  |  December 19, 2011 at 2:37 pm

    "I have no clue how they know that Prop 8 *lost for marriage equality* will lose at the end."

    What I mean is, I think it's presumptive for them to assume Perry will end up before the US Supreme Court at all, either to win or fail at that level. It's just as likely Perry will end at the 9th Circuit, with SCOTUS declining to hear an appeal from either side and letting the 9th Circuit ruling stand, whatever it turns out to be.

  • 94. Bob  |  December 19, 2011 at 2:57 pm

    and they're cross border shopping duty free,, NOM caught in a tangle with the Vancouver Canada school board,, over anti bullying poicy,,,,, seems a person speaking out about it was interviewed ,, he says he had no idea his interview would be aired by NOM against SSM

  • 95. grod  |  December 19, 2011 at 6:30 pm

    Steve and Carpool Cookie – both insightful observations. I suggested elsewhere that if the current consensus is vulnerable or faltering, there is an organizational need to have stakeholders either reaffirm the current consensus that for California the court process is the better route; or reshape that consensus. The LGBT community must represent itself as being on the same page if it wants to be viewed as credible to its straight allies and the media.
    To believe that the ballot initiative process is not fraught with challenges, possibly greater that the Court process at this stage fits with your question "where is the plan?" In December 2009, James r. Oaksun said in concluding his analysis of the Maine’s question 1: in my previous report on the California, Maine and Washington campaigns, I suggested some strategic changes. Here I go further. If they are to start prevailing, the marriage equality forces also need a strategic redesign of their campaign organizational and operational structure. ….throwing more money at this issue, without serious reconsideration of strategy and organization, will be money wasted.

  • 96. Str8Grandmother  |  December 19, 2011 at 8:57 pm

    I am looking at their Facebook wall and I do not see any negative comments at all on there.

  • 97. fiona64  |  December 20, 2011 at 12:44 pm

    In a different kind of nerdiness, I see LHC and immediately think "Living History Centre," which was a non-profit educational group in whose reenactments I once participated regularly.

  • 98. Carpool Cookie  |  December 20, 2011 at 1:27 pm

    But if one basket makes the other basket disappear…then you've still only got one basket.

    The question is, which basket is bigger and stronger?

  • 99. Carpool Cookie  |  December 20, 2011 at 1:38 pm

    The thing we take for granted here sometimes is that others (gay, straight, whomsoever…) understand the legal process the way we do. Even having HALF a grasp on how the court process works is SO MUCH MORE than your average American has.

    The concept of putting this issue back on the ballot — and not understanding how vulnerable that "victory" would be, if eventually won — is one that appeals to people who don't know how the system works.

    I tried to explain why the Perry route was better to someone gathering signatures (last year?) for a CA ballot initiative, but they got huffy and shut down. But…that's my fault for not explaining it correctly. I must brush up on my technique…

  • 100. Carpool Cookie  |  December 20, 2011 at 1:39 pm

    I don't mean "take for granted" in first sentence…I mean "assume". (Or, is either phrase okay? I mean it's a false belief.)

  • 101. Steven  |  December 20, 2011 at 4:55 pm

    Cookie, you have a point there about other people don't understand how the legal process works especially with this case. With a ballot measure we will be at vulnerable of will of voters again. That's not good at all like now due to Prop 8 case's appeal. Personally, I want to wait till the appeals are done. We will win or lose by courts, and nobody will be allowed to vote on our civil rights to marriage again in California. If there is a ballot measure to restore marriage equality in CA and it passes. It will give other side permission that they can put our civil rights on the ballot again. Voting on our civil rights IS NOT A GOOD IDEA NOW!!!!!!!!!! WE need to have a positive court decision to stop this nonsense via voting for our rights.

  • 102. Lester  |  December 20, 2011 at 6:04 pm

    I hear this argument a lot, that we shouldn’t ever have to put our rights up for a vote. In an ideal world that should be true. Unfortunately, in the real world, the rights of the disenfranchised are put up for a vote all the time in this country. That has been the case for LGBT rights for decades, with numerous votes for and against extending or recognizing rights at the state and local level, many of which were pursued by the pro equality side. It was certainly the case with the gradual extension of equal rights to women. In the early 20th century the Women’s Suffrage movement built momentum for the enactment of the 19th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which granted women the right to vote in federal elections, through a series of popular referenda at the state level granting women the right to vote in those states. Between the 1860's and 1920, there were at least 56 referenda to male voters on the right of women to vote. It was because those votes were successful that Congress and the state legislatures adopted the federal constitutional amendment. In the 1970’s, supporters of the Equal Rights Amendment followed a similar strategy by gaining passage of constitutions or constitutional amendments in 20 states providing that equal rights under the law shall not be denied because of sex and supporting advisory referenda to pressure state legislatures to ratify the federal ERA. Even when civil rights have been extended by legislation instead of by a direct vote of the voters, such as what happened in New York this year, it has been in the context of the political process and because legislators felt confident that majority sentiment was on their side. As feminist leader Lucy Stone said: "The politician is the creature of the public sentiment — never goes ahead of it because he depends on it . . ." Ultimately, this discussion is academic. Unless the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Prop 8, it will remain the law until a majority the people of California to repeal it.

    Lester Aponte
    Board Vice Chair
    Love Honor Cherish

  • 103. Sheryl_Carver  |  December 20, 2011 at 10:08 pm

    Ultimately, this discussion is academic. Unless the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Prop 8, it will remain the law until a majority the people of California to repeal it.

    And if LCH's initiative makes it onto the ballot & passes, it GUARANTEES that Prop 8's journey through the legal system will NEVER make it to SCOTUS. And all the work done by the awesome legal team will be flushed down the toilet.

    For this reason alone, the timing is totally wrong for this initiative, & if it makes it onto the ballot, I shall vote against it.

  • 104. Johan  |  December 21, 2011 at 2:53 am

    Thanks for taking the trouble to come here and join the discussion. Since you need every signature and every vote you can get, you might as well start convincing people here, considering the strong divide in opinion on this very issue. I would suggest writing a sperate piece to go up as a new article on the site (Adam, please chime in on this).

    In it, I suggest addressing the points made in this thread, such as: why not wait till the prop 8 case has a final result (I think even the principled naysayers will lend their support when the case ends badly); how do you think winning at the ballot will not harm the court case; who are your sponsors, what are the campaign strategies, what kind of ads can we expect (be specific!); why now when major lgbt organizations opted out; why the ballot box when we haven't even won once when on defense, etc.

  • 105. Johan  |  December 21, 2011 at 2:54 am

    again

  • 106. Sheryl_Carver  |  December 21, 2011 at 7:26 am

    Better reply than mine, Johan!

    Speaking only for myself, IF the Prop 8 legal battle ends without it being overturned, I would then support a ballot initiative wholeheartedly. I think many here would probably do the same. But we have at least a 50-50 chance of WINNING in the COURTS, & in a way that would now be virtually impossible to overturn, unlike any law or ballot initiative.

    So yes, Lester, please address the points in Johan's comment. We will read them, & most if not all here with an open mind. And I would also support this being posted as a new article, Adam.

  • 107. AnonyGrl  |  December 21, 2011 at 8:14 am

    Thank you for coming in to address this with us Lester. We are all interested and obviously opinionated on this issue, so it is good to hear your reasoning and for us to try to understand your thoughts on this.

    I hope you will return and address specific points that concern us, that you are interested in keeping this dialogue open. I see that others have floated the idea of you writing a front page post about this, which I would heartily support.

  • 108. Carpool Cookie  |  December 21, 2011 at 11:10 am

    "Ultimately, this discussion is academic. Unless the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Prop 8, it will remain the law until a majority the people of California to repeal it."

    This is not the case.

    If the 9th Circuit upholds Judge Walker's ruling, that ruling will hold in California, and (depending on how the 9th Circuit words it's ruling), perhaps even in the other states within the 9th Circuit. SCOTUS could very well decline to hear an appeal of that 9th Circuit ruling, which means Walker's ruling and finding of facts (which could not be more favorable for our side, and basically says everything that could be hoped for) could have enormous and far-reaching legal weight.

    It does not necessarily boil down to how the U.S. Supreme Court would rule on an appeal…. because there's no assurance they will want to put themselves in the position of taking on this hot button topic right now.

    Walker's vast Finding of Facts can eventually be applied to any number of future lawsuits, if it's not wiped off the books by making the Perry case moot through a ballot initiative such as we're discussing.

  • 109. Jacob  |  December 21, 2011 at 12:34 pm

    The effectively zero chance that the US Supreme Court would refuse to hear an appeal of a judgement that holds that marriage equality is required by the US Constitution. They may well refuse to hear an appeal if the 9th Circuit tailors its case to California and Prop 8, but if the 9th Circuit does not, it's simply untenable for one circuit–and all the Western states–to have a differing view of the US Constitution in such a dramatic way.

    So sure, the US Supreme Court might not be the final arbiter, but it is not quite such a wide-open option.

  • 110. Jacob  |  December 21, 2011 at 12:34 pm

    That should read: "There is effectively zero chance."

  • 111. Jacob  |  December 21, 2011 at 12:36 pm

    If the legal battle ended without being overturned, I sure hope everyone would support a ballot initiative. It would be the only option left!

  • 112. Carpool Cookie  |  December 21, 2011 at 12:43 pm

    "So sure, the US Supreme Court might not be the final arbiter, but it is not quite such a wide-open option."

    Of course, nothing is assured. SCOTUS might not hear the case because the H8ers lack standing, as well.

    What I'm responding to is the supposed assurance that the U.S. Supreme Court is going to hear this case at all, which is what the OP ("Ultimately, this discussion is academic. Unless the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Prop 8, it will remain the law until a majority the people of California to repeal it.") incorrectly states.

  • 113. Carpool Cookie  |  December 21, 2011 at 1:20 pm

    "If anyone approaches me to sign the initiative, I'm going to decline"

    Yes. Also, we need a pamphlet (culled from info here) we can carry to give to those collecting signatures…so they're informed about what they're encouraging others to undo.

  • 114. Carpool Cookie  |  December 21, 2011 at 1:23 pm

    I'd think they would. Though it's hard to speculate about how one would behave under circumstances that haven't arrived yet. You'd need to know all the specifics, seek advice, look at something from several angles…basically be informed. An one can't be informed about an imaginary future that hasn't taken shape.

  • 115. Jacob  |  December 21, 2011 at 2:19 pm

    That's true, too–the standing issue. It still doesn't make sense to me that they have standing, but everyone seems to think that's settled. In a way, so much the better. Let the whole thing be done with so we know where we stand.

  • 116. fiona64  |  December 21, 2011 at 3:10 pm

    Lester wrote: In the 1970’s, supporters of the Equal Rights Amendment followed a similar strategy by gaining passage of constitutions or constitutional amendments in 20 states providing that equal rights under the law shall not be denied because of sex and supporting advisory referenda to pressure state legislatures to ratify the federal ERA.

    Except for one problem, Lester, The federal ERA didn't pass — thanks in large part to efforts by the Mormon church.

    If you want to argue on one side of your mouth that LGBT peoples' rights should not be put to a vote, and then on the other side put them to a vote again, well … I just don't get it. Re-read Madison's Federalist #10, okay?

    I'm on your side in this matter (pro-equality) even though I'm straight and have no horse in the race other than knowing that any time someone's rights can be voted upon, my rights are in danger.

    I am so sick and tired of watching this movement eat its young. All you are doing is prolonging a stupid initiative race that (should your ballot measure be successful) just opens the door for the bigots and haters to get an initiative on the ballot to reverse the reversal … and then we go on, ad nauseum.

  • 117. Carpool Cookie  |  December 21, 2011 at 3:52 pm

    Yes…..that outcome would be okay, too, though we know Walker's ruling would just apply to CA. Still a major, unusurpable win, though!

    Since I work for a lawyer now, I kind of see how it's better to leave complex challenges to them, especially if they're GREAT, like the Olson / Boies team of we have (and aren't even having to pay for)

  • 118. Jacob  |  December 21, 2011 at 4:11 pm

    The same could be said to the people in Maine. Putting up a vote is a legitimate choice. So is pursuing the Court option exclusively. So is pursuing both simultaneously. Reasonable people can–and, in the LGBT community, always will–disagree.

    Besides, if the Supreme Court fails us, the ballot is all we'll have left, although at that point we'd be best off waiting till 2018.

  • 119. Lester  |  December 21, 2011 at 4:15 pm

    Here's the link for the petition and instructions for signature gatherers.

    http://lovehonorcherish.org/index.php?option=com_

  • 120. Steven  |  December 21, 2011 at 5:05 pm

    If 9th Circuit upholds Walker's decision most likely (99%) their decision will be only for California based on and likely hood that SCOTUS will hear the appeal from anti-marriage equality side will decreased little If they do I believe that they will uphold Walker's decision by 5 to 6 votes.. Lester, if SCOTUS denies an appeal after 9th Circuit uphold unconstitutionality of Prop 8 THE RULING WILL STAND AND Prop 8 will be no longer in effect in CA. Where did you get that information? Please answer the points throughout the thread….. Do you think people have a right to vote on people who have disabilities to take their rights away? its same thing…….. ANSWER IS NO……. RIGHT?

  • 121. Carpool Cookie  |  December 22, 2011 at 11:42 am

    "If 9th Circuit upholds Walker's decision most likely (99%) their decision will be only for California"

    If that is what happens, there is still the benefit of having Judge Walker's AMAZING and EXHAUSTIVE Findings of Fact cemented into the system as a prevailing one….and its arguments can then be most effectively cited in other lawsuits, which should be especially valuable in cases heard before the 9th Circuit, if it has already upheld the original ruling and Findings of Fact. (http://adellefrank.com/blog/review-summary-walker-eighty-findings-of-fact-perry-vs-schwarzenegger)

    There was another poster online who wrote, "What strikes me about Judge Walker’s opinion is the amount of evidence he included there — numbered, paraphrased facts with direct citation to and quotation from the trial record. As a lawyer, I can’t say that I have ever seen a judge include that much of the trial transcript in an opinion. He would have done this to make his record so that when the case is appealed — as everyone knows it will be — he has included enough direct evidence produced at trial to support his application of the law."

  • 122. Carpool Cookie  |  December 23, 2011 at 11:42 am

    That's a very sucinct (?) encapsulation of the facts.

    Thanks.

  • 123. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip  |  December 13, 2012 at 8:24 pm

    […] Department’s arguments against DOMA in the Golinski hearings were an important milestone, and covered the beginning of Love Honor Cherish’s campaign to put a repeal of Prop 8 on the 2012 ballot […]

Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!