In theory, the western United States could get same-sex marriage tomorrow

*nuts. Max beat me to it.*

Wouldn't it be lovely? *happy sigh*.

This is great. Though I can already hear people whining about activist judges.

I hope all goes that way, Max, 'twould be lovely indeed. But the Ninth Circuit and the USSC don't usually see eye-to-eye. On hardly anything. Fingers crossed this is the exception.

crunchyblanket said:

Wouldn't it be lovely? *happy sigh*.

Click to expand...

I'm reminded of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L--cqAI3IUI

The funny thing is that Canada's had same-sex marriage for YEARS and yet we still survive...

If anyone ever wanted an example of a country doing it right, point 'em to da Great White North. We may not be perfect but we sure as heck keep on trying...

Maxinquaye said:

The 9th Circuit Appeals Court is scheduled to publish its decision about Prop 8. As I understand it, if it is declared unconstitutional, then other similar measures in other states would be affected. While a stay of implementation is likely until this gets to the supreme court, in the rosy land of Positivia - all the states in the 9th Circuits jurisdiction could get same-sex marriage at 10am (Pacific time) tomorrow.

Click to expand...

Wow, that's a perspective I hadn't thought about. I hadn't considered that the appeals court would effect other states. Well, good luck to the appeals court coming to the correct decision!

I'm crossing my fingers

its the Supreme Court which counts. long as they rule 8 unconstitutional it's fine.

Sheryl Nantus said:

The funny thing is that Canada's had same-sex marriage for YEARS and yet we still survive...

If anyone ever wanted an example of a country doing it right, point 'em to da Great White North. We may not be perfect but we sure as heck keep on trying...

Click to expand...

I could also point them to Argentina, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Belgium, Iceland, Portugal, Netherlands, and South Africa. Or if they'd rather have some closer to home examples: New York, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, District of Columbia, and New York. It's funny how nothing bad has happened to those countries and states since legalizing same sex marriage. Yet people still act like, if their state does it, it's the end of the world and will do irredeemable damage to their kids.

Maxinquaye said:

Well, if you accept the principle that you can vote 'yes' on human rights, then you accept the principle that you can vote 'no'. This is the good way to do it. This is what the courts are supposed to do.

I'm sure the people crying about activist judges wouldn't like their state assemblies or state populations to vote that their churches should be closed and banned. My bet is that they'd flock to these same activist judges.

Click to expand...

I completely agree. When it comes to rights, it should be the courts deciding, not voters. If we just left things up to the voters, there'd likely be many bad laws still being enforced.

That would be cool. Then we just have to hope it's the rare 9th decision not overturned by the Supremes.

Even better would be if it simultaneously opened civil-unions to everyone. Unfortunately civil unions would probably just go away.

Sheryl Nantus said:

The funny thing is that Canada's had same-sex marriage for YEARS and yet we still survive...

If anyone ever wanted an example of a country doing it right, point 'em to da Great White North. We may not be perfect but we sure as heck keep on trying...

Click to expand...

Some darn good tv shows too. (I wish Netflix would get all the seasons of Da Vinci's Inquest.)

Shadow Dragon said:

I completely agree. When it comes to rights, it should be the courts deciding, not voters. If we just left things up to the voters, there'd likely be many bad laws still being enforced.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Would Brown vs. The BOE have happened if it were a public referendum? In 1954, probably not.

Here's Newark Mayor Cory Booker speaking passionately on the subject. Wish I could vote for this guy. (Never wanted to be in Newark before.)

I've heard different opinions, but a big part of this ruling was based on procedure, and stuff like the fact that they were already granted the right to marry and then it was taken away, and stuff like that. So, it might not extend beyond California, if the ruling is more, "The Prop. 8 campaign was improperly and deceitfully conducted" and not "Equal marriage is a constitutional right."

The decision was 2:1 that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. From what I've heard, the decision was limited to CA, so it won't affect any other states.

I've got some kind of nasty bug so I haven't read the decision, but I wanted to share the link: http://documents.latimes.com/proposition-8-gay-marriage-unconstitutional/