Gay Patriot Header Image

Should CA Supreme Court Uphold Prop 8 . . .

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 1:36 pm - April 1, 2009.
Filed under: California politics,Civil Discourse,Gay Marriage

With younger Americans more favorably disposed to gay marriage, each year the number of citizens more favorably disposed to state recognition of the institution and eligible to vote increases.  The likelihood grows that should an initiative appear on the California ballot to repeal Proposition 8, it will pass.

With that in mind, it’s imperative that should the California Supreme Court uphold that proposition, as many court watchers expect it to do, that advocates of gay marriage use that setback to their advantage.  I believe that if, in the immediate aftermath of that decision, these advocates conduct themselves responsibly, they will all but guarantee repeal, perhaps as soon as 2010, but definitely by 2012.

Simply put, they need react not angrily, but rationally, saying they understand this decision, acknowledging they need to convince many voters about the merits of the change they propose, something to the effect of “We have not done a good enough job in the past of making that case. We’ll do a better job next time.”

In short, instead of lashing out against the Court and proponents of Prop 8, acknowledge the task ahead.  Don’t blame others, do acknowledge the magnitude of the change they are proposing and the responsibility of those pushing such a change to act responsibly and to speak intelligently.  With solid arguments and the right attitude, they can change their minds of some of those who last year voted for the successful ballot initiative.

It’s all a question of approach.  And attitude.



  1. If (Hopefully when) the court upholds 8, it will be a victory for limited government and the rule of law. I agree, any societial change to reverse/repeal/ammend prop 8 needs to be done by the mechanisms available to the people, just as prop 8 was put there in the first place.

    If the courts decide that they have the power to throw out parts of the constitution, then we’re toast.

    Comment by The Livewire — April 1, 2009 @ 1:51 pm - April 1, 2009

  2. So whether the court should legally uphold Prop 8 is a matter of whether or not we can win a theoretical future to reverse the damage? It’s not a matter of constitutional rights, whether or not the vote or amendment was legal, whether or not the text on the ballot was a revision or an amendment – all of this is irrelevant? All that matters is that we smile? Why do we even have courts, GPW?
    “Don’t blame others” But we do need to blame people for their lies. When the other side flat out lied about priests being dragged from the pulpit for preaching against gay marriage, or churches closed for not performing such marriages, or children “taught” gay marriage – those who lied and funded those lies do need to be held accountable for the same. And we need to make sure they don’t get away with lying next time without the truth getting a better hearing. I’m sure you agree.

    Comment by torrentprime — April 1, 2009 @ 2:35 pm - April 1, 2009

  3. In other words, you would like them to behave like adults? Dream on.

    Comment by Leah — April 1, 2009 @ 3:46 pm - April 1, 2009

  4. Torrentprime.

    The question before the court is not whether the act of two homosexuals having the legal right to marry. No one in the state of CA has legal standing to bring that case. .. yet. The court ruled that Prop 22 is unconstitutional, so the people of the state who disagree with that ruling, a bare majority but a majority none-the-less, amended the Constitution to say that is not legal for gays to get married. A Constitutional amendment, by its very nature, overrules the courts. That is why the state AG had to argue that Prop 8 was a revision, instead of arguing that it’s still unconstitutional. And before Prop 8 had passed, another group had tried and failed to convince this same court that Prop 8 was a revision instead of an amendment, which is one of the reasons everyone expect this latest challenge to fail.

    Now, what will be interesting is how the court rules concerning the status of those already marred and what will happen next. If the court rules that those marriages are null and void, then those couples could stripped of their marriage status could sue to get their married status back. I don’t think this would present a strong case legally. If those marriages are allowed to stand as most expect, then that would open the door to lawsuits by unmarried gays, claiming unequal treatment under the law. This would still be an awfully hard case to win, but it would have a better chance.

    Either way, the best course of action is to present a much better campaign to win the hearts and minds of the California public on the merrits of allowing gays to be legally married.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — April 1, 2009 @ 7:31 pm - April 1, 2009

  5. Torrent, if we argue like you do above, gay marriage is sure to lose. And that’s the point of this post.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — April 1, 2009 @ 7:38 pm - April 1, 2009

  6. […] Dan, a.k.a. Gay Patriot West, wrote a post suggesting how the Same Sex Marriage advocates should refocus their efforts to gain the legal right to marry in the state of California. A commenter replied: So whether the […]

    Pingback by » My Thoughts On The Looming Prop 8 Ruling. — April 1, 2009 @ 7:38 pm - April 1, 2009

  7. […] Should CA Supreme Court Uphold Prop 8 […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Why I’m not Attending Townhall on Gay Marriage Tonight — April 1, 2009 @ 8:10 pm - April 1, 2009

  8. Ironically, the influx of illegal immigrants and the forthcoming attempts to give them amnesty, and undoubtedly voting cards, could theorhetically push voter approval of gay marriage back further, not forward. Just a hypothesis.

    Comment by American Elephant — April 1, 2009 @ 9:01 pm - April 1, 2009

  9. theoretically* (one of those words I know how to spell, yet consistently misspell anyway)

    Comment by American Elephant — April 1, 2009 @ 9:05 pm - April 1, 2009

  10. Torrent,

    You are correct that the court should decide the case based on the law. You are incorrect that the law mandates gay marriage.

    GPW isn’t arguing the legality of prop 8, he — correctly — assumes its legality and is advocating that gays should act like adults, rather than children, when the court rules as much.

    Comment by American Elephant — April 1, 2009 @ 9:10 pm - April 1, 2009

  11. It’s not a matter of constitutional rights

    It is a matter of constitutional rights. It speaks directly to whether or not the voters have the right to amend their constitution in accordance with the process spelled out in it to clarify what they want it to say, or whether they lack that right and the Constitution can be summarily interpreted by the judiciary to mean whatever fits the judicial cause of the moment.

    In short, torrentprime, you are saying that your need to marry any and all sexual partners you desire, a right which is NOWHERE written in the California constitution, outweighs the clearly-outlined, fully-legal, regularly-upheld process that is definitely written therein for amendment.

    That’s strike one.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 1, 2009 @ 9:32 pm - April 1, 2009

  12. […] I’ve written before, it’s a question of approach and attitude.  In approaching conservatives, the portion of the population to which we must appeal, many of us […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » On the Exclusion of Gay Conservatives from Gay Marriage Confabs — April 3, 2009 @ 5:40 pm - April 3, 2009

  13. […] views pretty much echo my April 1 post, “Should CA Supreme Court Uphold Prop 8 . . .“ . . . should the California Supreme Court uphold that proposition, as many court watchers […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Should CA Supreme Court Uphold Prop 8 when it releases its ruling on Tuesday . . . — May 24, 2009 @ 4:56 pm - May 24, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.