# California Supreme Court Ruling on Proposition 8 (SSM) **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [May 22, 2009, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306 "2009-05-22T16:29:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306/121 "2009-05-27T23:00:46Z")
> [@Punoqllads](#): > > [This pdf](http://www.ucop.edu/cprc/documents/caconst.pdf) seems to back up **DSYoungEsq** : Did your PDF say anything about which category removing a fundamental right would fit in? I didn’t see it. ---
**Author:** ![Punoqllads](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d2c977/32.png) [@Punoqllads](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Punoqllads)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306/122 "2009-05-27T23:05:11Z")
> [@Arnold\_Winkelried](#): > > Did your PDF say anything about which category removing a fundamental right would fit in? I didn’t see it. What I quoted is all it said about the difference between an amendment and a revision. That is, the difference between the two appears to be the structural nature of the change rather than the significance. ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306/123 "2009-05-27T23:12:20Z")
> [@Punoqllads](#): > > What I quoted is all it said about the difference between an amendment and a revision. That is, the difference between the two appears to be the structural nature of the change rather than the significance. If you’re saying that previous case law indicates “anything can qualify as an amendment instead of a revision, as long as it’s short and fits into a sentence”, then my opinion is “Yes, I am proposing that the Supreme Court ignore established precedent and create a new approach.” ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2010, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306/124 "2010-08-04T17:12:12Z")
The judge comes back with a ruling today. ---
**Author:** ![DiosaBellissima](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a8b319/32.png) [@DiosaBellissima](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DiosaBellissima)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2010, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306/125 "2010-08-04T17:23:38Z")
> [@ArchiveGuy](#): > > The judge comes back with a ruling today. Bah! I saw a post had been made in this thread and thought a decision had been put up. Curses. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2010, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306/126 "2010-08-04T21:03:41Z")
Breaking news at Yahoo: [California’s same-sex marriage ban overturned](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100804/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage_trial) ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2010, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306/127 "2010-08-04T21:07:49Z")
Great news! Though it will be very interesting to see the judge’s ruling. ---
**Author:** ![DiosaBellissima](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a8b319/32.png) [@DiosaBellissima](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DiosaBellissima)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2010, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306/128 "2010-08-04T21:09:52Z")
Wonderful. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Kyla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/eada6e/32.png) [@Kyla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kyla)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2010, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306/129 "2010-08-04T21:14:38Z")
So happy!!! [Ruling is here, btw.](http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/acrobat/2010/08/04/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL.pdf?tsp=1) ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2010, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306/130 "2010-08-04T23:02:12Z")
Great news! Justice is served for now but the battle is far from over. ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306/131 "2010-08-05T00:53:43Z")
Woot:D ---
**Author:** ![garygnu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/garygnu/32/2924_2.png) [@garygnu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/garygnu)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306/132 "2010-08-05T04:39:15Z")
I’m a straight male, and I’m about to celebrate my ten-year wedding anniversary. I’m so happy for this victory for equality. I hope whatever judges that can rule on this issue see the absurdity of the position of gay marriage opponents. ---
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306/133 "2010-08-05T14:08:21Z")
Okay, so what happens next? ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306/134 "2010-08-05T14:59:36Z")
The judge has overturned Prop. 8 because it violated the equal protection clause in Amendment 14 of the US constitution. Same-sex couples cannot get married in California immediately: the judge has stayed his ruling at least until Friday when he will have another hearing. The next step will be an appeal to the US Supreme court. ---
**Author:** ![MN\_Maenad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e95f7d/32.png) [@MN\_Maenad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MN_Maenad)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306/135 "2010-08-05T15:32:17Z")
Actually the next step is the US District Court, then the Supremes. It’s a very good day. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306/136 "2010-08-05T16:14:39Z")
> [@MN\_Maenad](#): > > Actually the next step is the US District Court, then the Supremes. > > It’s a very good day. 🙂 The stay actually sounds like a good idea if it’s going to be appealed. Given the challenges that lie ahead, I have to reserve my excitement. Otherwise, my head will explode. But you’re right, it is a good day. It occurred to me last night that even if we have opposition, the fact that they even have to mount an argument, an offense, a case, means something about changing values in this country. There was a time where no widespread public conflict would exist. There was a time where everyone just took the inferiority of sexual minorities for granted. So yes, simply the fact that this is an issue at all, simply the fact that any court would rule the ban unconstitutional, makes this a good day. ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/848f3c/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_Dunlop)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306/137 "2010-08-05T16:14:53Z")
> [@MN\_Maenad](#): > > Actually the next step is the US District Court, then the Supremes. > > It’s a very good day. 🙂 Actually this ruling was for district court. The next step is the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, then the U.S. Supreme Court. But you’re right about it being a great day. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306/138 "2010-08-05T16:46:43Z")
For now it’s a temporary stay but expect it to remain. Next step, as others have said, is the 9th Circuit. This Court is notoriously liberal and they almost for sure will uphold the ruling. Either way, it will be appealed to the Supremes and that’s a crap shoot assuming that the Court stays the same as it will be later today when Kagan gets her new job. The Supreme Court can refuse to hear the appeal in which case the 9th’s ruling stands. Odd are that they’ll hear it. Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia will likely vote anti-SSM using whatever logic necessary. Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsberg and Breyer will likely vote pro-SSM using whatever logic necessary but correctly in my opinion. Barring any surprises, it’s down to Kennedy. Judge Walker was well aware of this and he pretty much wrote his whole opinion to that end. He cited Kennedy fifteen times when arguing various parts of his ruling. There’s a nice analysis of that [here](http://www.slate.com/id/2262766/). ---
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306/139 "2010-08-05T16:54:03Z")
Fingers crossed. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306/140 "2010-08-05T17:18:06Z")
> [@olivesmarch4th](#): > > Fingers crossed. Exhale, **olives** , it’ll take a year or two for this to play out. 😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306.md?page=8)