Gay Patriot Header Image

Should CA Supreme Court Uphold Prop 8 when it releases its ruling on Tuesday . . .

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 4:56 pm - May 24, 2009.
Filed under: California politics,Civil Discourse,Gay Marriage

While my rabbi differ on the result we’d prefer* from the California Supreme Court when it hands down its ruling Tuesday on Prop 8, she holds a few nearly identical to my own on how we should react should the court uphold that popular initiative.  On Friday, she said, “we don’t need to finger point; we need to roll up our sleeves.”

Her 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 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 [being proposed] 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.

The important thing to remember is that with the news coverage this decision receives, people will be paying close attention to how both sides react.  Juvenile antics and name-calling will not endear proponents of gay marriage to citizens ambivalent and skeptical about changing the state definition of this ancient institution.

Let us hope that should the court uphold 8, when leaders of the movement begin strategizing on how to overturn the the constitutional provision defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, they should make sure to reach out to gay conservatives as they have not done in the post.   They will also need to replace more partisan activists who hold positions of responsibility in gay organizations with those who capability of speaking to a broader audience.

There are many Republicans who would support state recognition of same-sex marriages, but need first be convinced that such recognition is a good thing and that it preserves the freedom of religious institutions to define marriage according to their creeds.

As I’ve said so many times before, gay marriage advocates need make a civil case for gay marriage.  It accomplishes nothing, indeed, is quite counterproductive, to attack supporters of the status quo.

RELATEDHow a Reasonable Person Should Respond to Carrie Prejean

The Gay Marriage Debate and the Needed Overhaul of the Gay Leadeship

*She believes the court should overturn 8; I believe it should uphold the Proposition, but not annul the (same-sex) marriages conducted between the court’s decision last May mandating state recognition of same-sex marriage and the passage of the Proposition.



  1. Should CA Supreme Court Uphold Prop 8 when it releases its ruling on Tuesday

    I would say “no”, but only if it does so based upon the provisions of the CA Constitution that distinguishes between revision and amendment. Otherwise, as much as I hate to say it, yes it should. As for negative reactions, that’s unfortunately par for the course which will do the movement no favors whatsoever.

    Comment by John — May 24, 2009 @ 7:51 pm - May 24, 2009

  2. I would love for you to try to forward this post to some of the more left-leaning blogs. Some of them may be open to hearing it right now as opposed to after the ruling. I think if any of us tried to post a similar idea AFTER the ruling we’ll be severely attacked. You make a very, very clear point that we need to come together and work our butts off to get what we want. To try to be a “guest blogger” on left blog may get our message out to others.

    Just something to think about!

    Comment by BC — May 24, 2009 @ 8:57 pm - May 24, 2009

  3. Well, a majority of the Justices have already demonstrated that they are perfectly willing to sign on to an embarrassingly illogical results-oriented opinion if it means appeasing the gays. However, if for some reason they aren’t inclined to do it twice, I have no doubt we will be informed of the home addresses and telephone numbers of several of the Justices within 60 seconds after the decision is released.

    Comment by Sean A — May 24, 2009 @ 9:59 pm - May 24, 2009

  4. I think that either way it goes there will be negative consequences. Personally I don’t see that they have a choice but to uphold it even though I think that a vote like that is obscene and against what the this country supposedly stands for. Sadly, there will be idiots who react in destructive and/or offensive ways if Prop 8 is upheld. On the other side, if it’s struck down our opponents will just increase their end of the world nonsense and work harder for their ultimate goal, which is totally ignored/denied and actually even supported by some on here. If Prop 8 is struck down it will increase the chances that New Hampshire will not get SSM and also piss off the pseudo-conservatives enough that anyone who Obama selects for SCOTUS will be fed into a wood chipper.

    Comment by a different Dave — May 24, 2009 @ 10:22 pm - May 24, 2009

  5. If more gays looked and acted like Kris rather than Adam, we’d have gay marriage in all 50 states. Kris knows how to manipulate the masses with that down-home, white bread, worship-leader Christian kind of thing which Americans like. If gays continue to act like Adam, no matter how deserving of America’s votes, Americans will feel threatened and not vote for him or his issues. If gays learn to dress and act like Kris, they will be safe and non-threatening and get all those who vote irrationally on persona rather than facts to vote for them.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — May 24, 2009 @ 11:34 pm - May 24, 2009

  6. Ash – I don’t get it. I’m assuming (from previous posts) that you are being somewhat “tounge-in-cheek” with that comment. I don’t think anyone here is saying not to be yourself. Just saying that there is a mature, logical, rational way to go about making change. Screaming and yelling, name calling and those types of things are not the way to go about it. However, based on the reaction to Prop 8, the fear I have is that the screaming and name calling will happen.

    The irrational acting out is what separates “us” (more directly, those that allegedly “speak for us”) from the majority of America. Not the fact that we are gay.

    Comment by BC — May 24, 2009 @ 11:53 pm - May 24, 2009

  7. #4: Although I categorically disagree with you, a different Dave, you made an interesting point that I hadn’t considered: the effect it may have on Obama’s SCOTUS nominee. If the Court’s opinion is yet another circular, transparent charade designed to assist them in circumventing their job duties to appease the gays, it may be used as a lightning rod to bring attention to the fact that Obama plans to re-shape the Court to be just another federal agency under the control of the Executive Branch. Of course, the GOP ultimately doesn’t have any real leverage on the issue when it comes to confirmation, but who knows, maybe there will be more tea party-esque, long overdue outrage.

    Obama was quoted all week about the specific qualifications he’s looking for in a potential Justice of the highest court in the land–essentially, he’s looking for someone with “real-life experience,” that has NEVER served on the federal bench or has any legal experience whatsoever, who feels really, really sad that there are poor people in the world, and someone who understands “how being a judge affects Americans’ everyday lives” (translation: someone absolutely committed to ignoring the law altogether if applying the law would be “mean” or make a plaintiff sad). So, once I stopped the hemorrhaging in both of my ears, the sobering reality came into focus–Obama is going to appoint a leftist social worker who will understand that his/her job is to make up constitutional jurisprudence on the fly, unrestrained by the outdated shackles of “stare decisis.” Every morning Obama’s Justice will get to go to work with the exciting prospect of re-interpreting the Constitution in some new or different way (than he or she did only 24-hours earlier). In fact, under these standards, Levi is more qualified for the job than I am (and I am an attorney).

    The scariest part is that the MSM is so far gone that Obama knows he doesn’t even have to pretend that he’s looking for a judge to fill a vacancy left by a judge. He has been totally upfront about the fact that he wants someone who isn’t going to be bogged down in that quagmire known as “the law” when “dispensing justice.” I mean, wasn’t it just a few years ago that there was AT LEAST a polite song-and-dance about “qualifications” and a PRETENSE that judicial activists need not apply (wink-wink)? Now, this is the one issue where Obama can go off the Teleprompter without a net. All pretense is out the window–JUDGES of any stripe need not apply. Obama is literally out there making it clear that he believes the problem with the legal system is THE LAW itself.

    I dunno, the window on our country being able to recover from all of the destruction and hardship that is getting closer every day. Obama is just lighting fuse after fuse after fuse and all we can do is sit and brace ourselves for the first of many booms.

    Comment by Sean A — May 24, 2009 @ 11:54 pm - May 24, 2009

  8. Since marriage has a religious meaning why do those from the gay community feel they need to have the govt get involved at all and try to redefine the meaning of the word?

    There shouldn’t be any laws on the books with regard to marriage. What laws prevent a gay couple from living together and raising a child? That should be a fight to change legislation, not push to use the word marriage. It is just a word but one that has special meaning. That is why the religious community is so against it. Why do hospitals not allow loved ones who are not immediate family members? Shouldn’t that fight be with the hospital policy? You see what I mean? There are many times that the immediate family may not be able to go to see a loved one in the hospital, so the fight should be one that gay and straight people should fight together so the policy is overturned. What are the reasons for that policy? So strangers cant come in and possible do harm to them? A husband or wife could come in to do harm to their spouse just as easily. Tax laws should NOT discriminate.. that isn’t a result of discrimination because of marriage, it discriminates against single people as well as gay couples! That is another way people of all sexual preferences can come together to change.

    I was “married” in a civil union at City Hall. It should have read “civil union”on my certificate. Once they make it apply to all couples, years down the road it will be just as natural as someone having a marriage certificate. I have a different “radical” idea about what should be done so all people can have a happy family whoever they love. The govt shouldn’t be involved at all. A Union (getting hitched outside the Church, with a person who is not a priest/minister/rabbi-a civil servant) should be a civil ceremony. No discrimination what-so-ever between a straight or a gay/lesbian union.

    The thing that bothers me is that the govt makes the distinction that created the division, not the faithful. Why should being married have any special treatment under the law? Gay/Lesbian couple have been having commitment ceremonies, which I think is a great way to go for any person, straight or gay. The push to make gay marriage legal seems to me to be an attack on institutions that believe something based on their faith. Right or wrong, it is what they believe. Should the government impose their own meaning on an entire segment of society because they don’t like what they teach? It seems to me that the only reason many activists want this is so they can persecute Houses of Worship down the line, take them to court and force them to marry same sex couples in their Churches.

    Thank you for listening.. I would appreciate your feeling on my proposal.. I don’t agree with those who do not understand that being gay/lesbian is natural-but I do understand that they believe what they will believe. Hopefully down the road they will understand that God created us all, we are all Gods children.

    Comment by J Gregory — May 25, 2009 @ 7:43 am - May 25, 2009

  9. Simply put, they [prominent gay marriage advocates] 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

    This is like saying (of the economy) “Democrats need to act responsibly, slashing deficits and raising interest rates as soon as possible, at the first sign of inflation or sooner.” In other words: We know they should do it, they know they should do it, they may even pay lip service to doing it, but ’tain’t gonna happen, or if it does then I’ll be fairly shocked.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 25, 2009 @ 9:08 am - May 25, 2009

  10. I think adDave makes a point, maybe w.o realizing it.

    If the court does their duty and upholds the ammendment, you’ll see rage, hatred and violence from elements of the left. If they expand their power and toss it out, then you’ll see an organized effort to revise the constitution, much less violence.

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 25, 2009 @ 10:30 am - May 25, 2009

  11. To Sean A’s point, Obama has already said that he sees the Supreme Court as something that should be forcing redistribution of wealth on society, unhindered by the Constitution, and that justices should rule based on race and minority status rather than on the basis of the law.

    Obama has already illegally confiscated property in the Chrysler bankruptcy and has completely circumvented established financial law. He just signed a bill that essentially states that financial institutions have no power to charge people with bad credit and who skip out on their debts more. Next up, a law just like the Obama Party demanded forcing banks to lend to people based on skin color and not creditworthiness.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 25, 2009 @ 12:07 pm - May 25, 2009

  12. ILC, you said it. It is possible that the Dems realize that what they are doing is wrong, but as long as they can get away with it, they will.

    The same will be true of this court decision. If the Left looks at this from a legal point of view- they may acknowledge that legally, the court had to reach a certain decision. But it’s all about feelings, so they’ll throw the usual hissy fit.

    For too long the left has equated legal with moral. The two are not the same, often what is legal is far from moral or right.

    I’m hoping that Rabbi Denise, as a very strong voice here in Los Angeles uses her pulpit and strong voice in the community in working towards changing hearts and minds, not simply fiddling with legal definitions.

    Comment by Leah — May 25, 2009 @ 12:11 pm - May 25, 2009

  13. I support civil unions as the legal solution for everybody. As a a Christian, I would look to my community for blessing. Churches that don’t want to bless gay civil unions shouldn’t have to. But the secular government needs a legal way to protect gay couples. I think that gay couples and straight couples have a different dynamic, and it’s OK to call them by different names, but legally, they should be the same.

    Also, you should not have to look like Kris in order to be legally joined together. America has decided that cute, mediocre, non-threatening men are what it likes and ambiguous, loud (shrieky), creative, intelligent guys with guyliner and black nails are what it doesn’t like. America wants Kris to get married and raise a family, but America is terrified that Adam wants to find a partner and raise kids. I think Adam would make a great father, but most of America think he’d be a secret pedophile recruiting the next generation of glam rockers.

    This isn’t fair. But if you want to win America’s heart, throw out the guyliner and become Kris. This is exactly what the Prop 8 issue is about–not legality or fairness. It’s the California Supreme Court version of Kris vs. Adam. Coming soon to a state legislature near you.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — May 25, 2009 @ 1:12 pm - May 25, 2009

  14. #11: “To Sean A’s point, Obama has already said that he sees the Supreme Court as something that should be forcing redistribution of wealth on society, unhindered by the Constitution, and that justices should rule based on race and minority status rather than on the basis of the law.”

    You’re right, NDT. Obama has been very open about his intentions regarding judicial appointments from the beginning–I just chose to go into complete denial about it until Souter announced his retirement. I still can’t believe how shockingly uncontroversial the media found Obama’s comments on judicial appointments during the debates. If I were a liberal, I would have sucked in my breath thinking my candidate had just made a terrible mistake (that is, admitting what we have all known to be true for some time–that liberals despise the rule of law), but Obama’s admission that he would appoint judges based on their “empathy” and “commitment to social justice” went by without a peep. (Yet ANOTHER issue that McCain should have been all over but chose to ignore.) The case he talked about in the debates was the one involving Lilly Ledbetter who was precluded from recovering in a wage discrimination case because she missed the statute of limitations. Congress has since passed the Lilly Ledbetter Act which essentially provides that a new statute of limitations accrues with each new pay period. Congress passing a law to address a court ruling they disagree with is fine. That’s the way it’s supposed to work. But Obama’s point in the debate was that the court that dismissed Ledbetter’s lawsuit should have just IGNORED the applicable statute of limitations because,…well, because statutes of limitation are mean, or something like that.

    As for the current post, if the Supreme Court upholds Prop. 8, there will be bombastic screaming and disproportionate insanity from the gay left for sure. And it’s not because they haven’t learned the lesson that their conduct is hurting the cause. It’s because the opportunity to be “outraged” when they lose the battle is just as important to them as winning the battle itself. For them, a decision striking down Prop. 8 is the prize, but a decision upholding it (and the opportunity to act like petulant, hyperactive children before a cooperative liberal media) is the consolation prize. If they can’t have same-sex marriage, at least they get to live out their romanticized Stonewall/Harvey Milk fantasies as though they are the outraged victims of an oppressive society. I’m bored already.

    Comment by Sean A — May 25, 2009 @ 1:53 pm - May 25, 2009

  15. I think the Kris vs. Adam thing proved that gays are the outraged victims of an oppressive society. It’s clear that Americans are afraid of men with guyliner. I’m bored with people saying gays aren’t oppressed. Imagine Kris and Adam at the adoption agency–who would get the kid? Would it be based on parenting skills or looks? Is Kris’ marriage any more likely to be successful than Adam’s civil union? Why? Because Kris is a worship leader and a mediocre singer? Americans want to force men to fit a certain mold–straight, married, kids, career, church. Americans don’t want to give men the legal right to do anything else.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — May 25, 2009 @ 2:14 pm - May 25, 2009

  16. Ashpenaz, I don’t know. It seems like you really took Adam’s loss personally.

    As for the court decision, I’m not a scholar of California’s constitutional law. But thankfully, it appears that tomorrow’s decision (whichever way it turns out) will be moot in a couple of years.

    Comment by Pat — May 25, 2009 @ 3:57 pm - May 25, 2009

  17. #7 Sean A “Although I categorically disagree with you”

    I’m totally shocked 🙂

    All the babbling about how Obama wants to change the Supreme Court is just noise. Every single President who had the opportunity to appoint someone chose those who would influence their decisions in a particular direction. The Christian right was practically orgasmic when W had more than one chance to put someone they liked (in other words one to force their agenda) It is what it is, you can say that some are good and some are bad but it’s just opinion. He’s not going to be able to push things too far because the Repubs WILL do whatever they have in their power, including filibuster, to force him towards the middle. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, there has to be balance. And as soon as he puts in a left wing version of Alito and Scalia (they’ll need to scrape the bottom of the left wing scumbags barrel to balance himl) , things will shape up.

    Comment by a different Dave — May 25, 2009 @ 6:47 pm - May 25, 2009

  18. Prop 8 won’t be upheld. There’s too much momentum building with pro gay-marriage decisions being upheld in similar progressive states.

    Comment by The Peoples Program — May 26, 2009 @ 6:40 am - May 26, 2009

  19. #18.

    So your basis for the court overturning an ammendment is ‘everyone else is doing it?’

    If 5 states recommended going back to the DSM III, would you then say everyone else should?

    Comment by The Livewire — May 26, 2009 @ 12:33 pm - May 26, 2009

  20. […] Should CA Supreme Court Uphold Prop 8 when it releases its ruling on Tuesday . . . […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » CA Supreme Court Upholds Prop 8 — May 26, 2009 @ 1:27 pm - May 26, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.