Well about in an hour here in San Francisco.
Great news for a Friday afternoon!
I really have to give credit to former S.F. mayor Gavin Newsom (who is now Lt. Governor). He started the ball rolling when he, pretty arbitrarily, decided to allow same-sex couples to get married in San Francisco back in 2004. Everybody thought he was crazy, even those who thought he was morally correct. But he persevered and in the end he was vindicated.
Wow, they were talking 25 days yesterday. The radio ran interviews with city clerks, who were ready to make all their windows marriage license windows and had volunteers trained to issue them.
I am one of those who thought that it was a big mistake and that it would backfire. I have am so happy that I was totally wrong about that.
This is amazing.
My normal commute route takes me through San Francisco. Tomorrow, I think I’ll go around…
To be fair, I think it did backfire some - in the short term. I seem to recall anti-gay forces picking up some temporary public momentum in the immediate aftermath. It is even claimed it may have helped cost a presidential election for the Democrats ( not sure I buy that, but it probably didn’t help ). Thankfully societal attitudes/public perception continued to evolve at a rapid rate and happily Newsom gets the last laugh. But I think even he mentioned the other day that nobody was giving him much love between ~2004 to 2009.
But look at us now. Short of a Federal Constitutional amendment, SSM is legal in California, it will always be legal in California and there isn’t a god damned thing that anyone can do about it.
It is a good day :).
I was also thinking about Gavin Newsom as I watched the wedding ceremony live from San Francisco City Hall.
Wooohoo!
I can remember how depressing it was to drive around near election time in 2008 and see people (some with their kids) holding signs in support of Prop 8. A heart-felt “fuck you” to each and every one of you (except the ones who’ve had the sense to change their minds since then).
Abso-fucking-lutely. Good luck to everyone and God bless us all.
Too late by the time anyone sees this, but Rachel Maddow has the live broadcast of the Prop 8 plaintiffs Katami and Zarrillo getting married by the mayor of LA at the LA City Hall.
…at least for the moment (which is probably why there will be a rush on same-sex marriages in California; when Prop 8 was first upheld, the court said, “However, any same-sex marriages conducted during the time Prop 8 was not in effect will remain valid and recognized by California, despite the fact that the state Constitution now specifically says they’re not”
Excuse me? What court said that? Certainly not SCOTUS.
…except:
(a) in 2014, elect a new Attorney General of California who would be willing to bring the case to SCOTUS (and I have a feeling the Attorney General race is going to be a de facto referendum on Prop 8 for this reason alone); or
(b) wait for another state’s similar law to be heard before SCOTUS, and if the law is upheld, wait to see if they decide that the California lower court ruling is sent back to that court for a decision in line with the SCOTUS one (which would bring up the question: can the same law be constitutional in one state and unconstitutional in another?)
Then again, what should happen is:
(c) Start petitions in California for a ballot initiative to remove the Prop 8 text from California law and the state Constitution so the whole thing becomes moot.
Hurray for all the happy couples. This really is a good day.
Perhaps not “always”, since an amendment to the US Constitution outlawing same-sex marriage would take precedence over all of the states who allow it, but unlikely to change for certain since the decision standing as law right now is Judge Walker’s original decision ruling Prop 8 unconstitutional. SCOTUS didn’t decide the case on the merits, but stated that the appellants who brought this before the 9th Circuit court didn’t have standing to do so.
Quoting Really Not All That Bright from this post:
“No. The doctrine of res iudicata (legal Latin for “no do-overs”) bars relitigation of the issue.”
So no, option (a) is out.