Equality On Trial

1477934 Commentshttp%3A%2F%2Fequalityontrial.com%2F2012%2F02%2F14%2Flove-honor-cherish-cancels-prop-8-ballot-repeal-initiative%2FLove+Honor+Cherish+cancels+Prop+8+ballot+repeal+initiative2012-02-14+17%3A00%3A54Jacob+Combshttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.prop8trialtracker.com%2F%3Fp%3D14779 Leave a Comment

• 1. Bob Barnes  |  February 14, 2012 at 10:33 am

  Sanity restored. Let's see what happens in court, I'm optimistic that we will win.

• 2. peterplumber  |  February 14, 2012 at 10:35 am

  A wise choice…

• 3. MightyAcorn  |  February 14, 2012 at 10:44 am

  Thankfully! I couldn't believe they would persist in this knowing it might moot the Perry decision. I still wonder who got a hold of their reins….I supported their failed signature drive back in 2009 before Perry went to court, and they couldn't even get their website updated or answer requests for donation info. Suddenly they were all slick and connected, and it made me wonder what was going on. We'll see what role they choose to play in future.

• 4. Sagesse  |  February 14, 2012 at 10:46 am

  @

• 5. Noxy  |  February 14, 2012 at 11:03 am

  I wonder where they get the impression that marriages will resume "by the end of this year, or even, at the end of this month". Certainly we all hope for that, but how can they be so sure?

• 6. misken  |  February 14, 2012 at 11:05 am

  It would have been nice for us to redeem ourselves as a state. After all, recent polls show support for same-sex marriage in California to be upwards of 60%…

  Besides, if a repeal initiative passed, would it moot the 9th Circuit opinion, or just give the SCOTUS an even more convenient reason to cop out?

• 7. AnonyGrl  |  February 14, 2012 at 11:37 am

  Bear in mind they need to put a positive spin on it for their supporters. So some of that may be wishful thinking.

• 8. AnonyGrl  |  February 14, 2012 at 11:39 am

  It would moot the entire case. Wipe it out as though it had never happened. And leave CA at risk of it happening again. If the court ruling STANDS, however, that risk disappears.

• 9. Carpool Cookie  |  February 14, 2012 at 12:00 pm

  Thank god (and I don't even really believe in a god!)

  That was a completely misguided and ignorant concept they had…and I'm so glad they've seen the light.

  They can still keep their volunteer base and work on something that will improve LGBT lives. Certainly there's lots to do, in many areas.

• 10. John D  |  February 14, 2012 at 12:05 pm

  I have no qualms about mooting Perry. Given the narrow decision, the truth is that the Perry case is not going to bring marriage equality to the nation (and I never held such hopes). Like MightyAcorn, I supported their earlier effort. This time, I saw that the numbers indicated a tough fight. Repeal is tough. And as horrible as Prop 8 is, failing to remove it at the ballot box would be devastating. Additionally, as important as marriage equality in California is, fighting Prop 8 will swallow massive resources. Even as a California resident, I'd rather see those go to protect marriage equality in Washington and to promote it in Maine.

  The time may come when the ballot box becomes our best option. If we do that, we must be ready to win.

• 11. steven  |  February 14, 2012 at 12:45 pm

  From the start, I believe that it was a bad idea to try to repeal Prop 8 by the voters in the middle of the major court case. Honesty, its a major cop out for LHC because I have heard rumors that they were telling their members WE will lose with SCOTUS. I believe their real reasons to stop collecting signatures because they don't have money to do so and nobody was supporting it…………

• 12. bythesea  |  February 14, 2012 at 12:48 pm

  Perhaps so, but it would be foolish to moot it before a final ruling. The only rational time to repeal by ballot is if we lose the case in the end. Then a repeal proposition would be a good idea and by that time it would be even more assured of actually passing. Mooting the entire case before it is final is very foolish and would erase any precedent leaving CA and other states vulnerable to future prop 8 like actions. If the ruling is final and Prop 8 struck down for good, I would support an action to repeal it from the books after that just for cleansing though. I agree with you that this case now seems very unlikely to result in nationwide equality at all, but It still is likely to ultimately either be affirmed by SCOTUS or denied cert making prop 8 truly and finally dead, and we should wait for that moment (which may not be so far off potentially, and even if it is it is worth the wait).

• 13. Jamie  |  February 14, 2012 at 12:53 pm

  Yes, it's terribly important that we not moot the Perry decision that may allow gays and lesbians to marry in California sometime in the distant future by passing a marriage amendment that allows gays and lesbians to marry in California in 2012.

• 14. DaveP  |  February 14, 2012 at 12:55 pm

  I ws sooo happy to read this headline. I do realize that they had the same goals as other folks (marriage equality) but this could have become a really bad situation causing a lot of discord within our community and the anti-gay folks would have been loving every minute of it.

• 15. Jamie  |  February 14, 2012 at 12:56 pm

  When the North Carolina marriage amendment passes it will be a much better case to bring marriage equality to the nation.

• 16. Jamie  |  February 14, 2012 at 1:09 pm

  Maybe it's just me, but I'd say it would be much easier to get voters to repeal Proposition 8 now, after it has been invalidated by two courts, than it would if it were upheld by the supreme court. most voters don't understand these legal issues, and they would interpret it as "the supreme court says we should ban gay people from marriage"

• 17. Carpool Cookie  |  February 14, 2012 at 1:10 pm

  I agree. A case of simply misguided goodwill.

  You can't expect regular people on the street (even LGBT) to be as informed as this site's members are about Prop H8 and its non-Constitutionality, and the resulting lawsuit's potential…but it was really frustrating to see professionals who should have known better lead people to cross-purposes.

  I always got the sense there was some ego involved….but that's just a feeling, not fact.

• 18. Carpool Cookie  |  February 14, 2012 at 1:13 pm

  Re: "Given the narrow decision, the truth is that the Perry case is not going to bring marriage equality to the nation (and I never held such hopes)."

  Yeah. Life's problems aren't usually solved in one fell swoop, unfortunately : ( The pending decision has ENORMOUS potential for rock-solid change though, in the entire 9th Circuit, especially. It may not be the change we want to the LETTER, but it's change. And great. And at a Federal level.

• 19. fiona64  |  February 14, 2012 at 1:27 pm

  ::sigh:: And then the NOMbies will come back and undo it … and none of the precedent and momentum we have will count.

  Honest to god, people … don't you get it? Voting on whether or not people have equality, *especially* in CA's effed-up initiative system, is an exercise in futility.

• 20. AnonyGrl  |  February 14, 2012 at 1:29 pm

  Easier, perhaps, but not wiser.

  The thing is, a court ruling is one that cannot be overturned simply because the wind changes, while a vote could be. We are much safer and more secure if SCOTUS rules in our favor, and we have options if they do not. The good news on this is that if we WIN, a further vote to remove our rights is almost impossible, but if we LOSE, a further vote to equalize rights is actually still quite doable.

  We need the protection that the court case offers, and we should see it through to the end, rather than risk losing all the work that has been accomplished thus far.

• 21. AnonyGrl  |  February 14, 2012 at 1:32 pm

  I sincerely hope that Love Honor Cherish will take their not inconsequential resources and put them to much better use now that they have set aside this business. There is a ton of good work that still needs to be done, and if they have the ability to do some of it, I say HURRAH for them! And all of us!

• 22. DaveP  |  February 14, 2012 at 1:35 pm

  I think you're missing the point. Yes, it may be easier to get voters to repeal Prop 8 now. But that would have a horrible side effect, even if we WIN. It would moot the entire Prop 8 trial, as if it never happened, with no final ruling from the court. And therefore we would keep seeing our marriage rights put back up for a vote every time some anti-gay group gathered enough signatures to put it back on the ballot, which would very likely be EVERY SINGLE GODDAMN ELECTION CYCLE. We MUST let the court rule and make it clear: "NO, you cannot do that. Marriage is a fundamental right and you cannot subject it to a popular vote".

• 23. Carpool Cookie  |  February 14, 2012 at 1:44 pm

  In addition….it's very expensive, stressful and time-consuming to go through the same ballot battle every 4 years. Even if it passed in our favor, we'd have religious bigots with money from their churches trying to bring up a different vote each time thereafter, and we wouldn't be able to sit back and just hope it stayed law. It would turn into a long commitment to something that can be solved more permanantly and CHEAPLY with the current lawsuit….which we are WINNING.

• 24. Bob  |  February 14, 2012 at 2:02 pm

  you bet get that volunteer base working on re-electing OBAMA keep all those feet on the ground and busy,,,,,,,

• 25. Bob  |  February 14, 2012 at 2:08 pm

  put those resources to work on keeping Obama ,,, that would help not only LGBT people,,, but 99% of Americans

• 26. Kathleen  |  February 14, 2012 at 2:42 pm

  Here in California, we still have this battle to contend with: http://stopsb48.com/

• 27. MightyAcorn  |  February 14, 2012 at 3:42 pm

  Yes Jamie, that is correct.

• 28. Chris in Lathrop  |  February 14, 2012 at 4:03 pm

  After the courts have their say and Prop 8 is nullified–the right way–can the state legislature remove the amendment to the state constitution? Or would it take another ballot initiative to remove that piece of bigotry from our guiding document?

• 29. Bob  |  February 15, 2012 at 1:21 pm

  good point Kathleen,,, I didn't know that,,,,,

  here in a small community in the province of Manitoba,, very religious,, Mennonite I believe,, some teachers had taken training in LGBT issues,, and posted a small, sign on their clasroom,, people took exception to the rainbow,,, (ever wonder about the power of the rainbow),,,, they didn't want the subject talked about in their schools,,,,, the signs came down,,, but know everyone is talking about homosexuality over the dinner table,,, exactly what they where trying to prevent…. so our battle continues too…..

• 30. bythesea  |  February 15, 2012 at 2:14 pm

  That's a good question. I'm not sure if the legislature could do it alone if it has been ruled unenforceable by the courts. Generally it would require another ballot initiative to remove, I believe, but someone more informed on the specifics of CA law will, one hopes, chime in on whether or not the legislature could take action in that specific circumstance. I think such an effort would easily pass as a referendum, since the other side would have zero incentive to invest any money or advertising to oppose it at that point.

• 31. NancyH  |  February 15, 2012 at 2:54 pm

  Prop 8 repeal initiative was a bad idea for a few reasons.
  1) It would not win. Obama is on the ballot again. This means that black turnout will probably be at record-high again for 2012. Blacks tend to view marriage equality negatively. It probably would not have passed. (sure, call me racist, the fact is that it passed while Obama was on the ballot)

  2) If it had passed, would prop 8 would have been repealed? Probably not anytime soon. As we’ve seen with the pro prop 8 crowd, they’re willing to put in as many stops as possible. The litigation around prop 8 does not need another constitutional review of a judicially repealed law that would now have to include a majority repealing said law. I’m sure the prop 8 proponents would be salivating at the question “Does the state and federal court have the ability to review a law that is already in litigation that has been repealed by the voters?” and “Does a gay judge sitting on a state and federal court have the ability to review a law that is already in litigation that has been repealed by the voters?” BAM, there’s 2-4 more years of unnecessary court battles.

  3) Let the merits of prop 8 speak for itself. At worst, the supreme court probably will not review it and marriage equality remains only in California for now.

• 32. Chris in Lathrop  |  February 15, 2012 at 3:07 pm

  That's kinda what I've been thinking, too. I don't recall the specific law–anti-miscegenation or something racial–that stayed on the books in Alabama well into the 90's, and I'd hate to see that same kind of thing happen with Prop 8 here in California.

• 33. Schteve  |  February 20, 2012 at 12:53 am

  Ugh. Opposing a repeal because the Perry case would become moot is ludicrous.

  To begin with, a decision that has been vacated due to mootness does not disappear; it would not be as if it never happened. The ultimate judgment (ie, that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional) would no longer act as precedent, but the analysis and conclusions reached on the merits of the case would still carry precedential weight. See, for example, the Supreme Court case County of Los Angeles v. Davis, in which the court vacated as moot a decision from the Ninth Circuit, stating that “our decision ‘vacating the judgment of the Court of Appeals deprives that court’s opinion of precedential effect’” (quoting another case where the vacating was not due to mootness, but due to a new case having been decided in the interim that would have had precedential effect, so the Supreme Court vacated the circuit court’s ruling so that they could consider the newer decision which did not exist when it first handled the case). Justice Powell correctly pointed out in a footnote to his dissent, however, that “although a decision vacating a judgment necessarily prevents the opinion of the lower court from being the law of the case, the expressions of the court below on the merits, if not reversed, will continue to have precedential weight and, until contrary authority is decided, are likely to be viewed as persuasive authority, if not the governing law of the Ninth Circuit.”

  Or, to see it more plainly, look to the Seventh Circuit case United States v. Articles of Drug Consisting of 203 Paper Bags, where the case had become moot but the U.S. government changed its mind about dismissing the case and wanted a decision to be reached so they could avoid a bad precedent. The court plainly stated: “It is true that vacating a decision because of supervening mootness does not destroy its precedential effect. The purpose of setting aside a decision on that ground is only to prevent the decision from having res judicata or collateral estoppel effect in future cases. The district court’s decision, when made, was within the court’s power to make, because the case wasn’t moot then. Its later becoming moot prevents appellate review and by doing so deprives the decision of the additional precedential force that it would have had if it had been affirmed by a higher court, but it does not eliminate whatever precedential force an unreviewed and unreviewable lower-court decision has.”

  In short, even if an initiative repeal were successful, the conclusions the Ninth Circuit reached in its decision would remain just as strong in influencing any future decisions made in any of the nine states within the circuit’s boundaries. That would even include cases that arose challenging a reinstatement following the appeal in the extremely unlikely scenario of California instituting the amendment and repealing it repeatedly. Considering that a court would not block a new initiative reinstating the amendment prior to a vote (recall that the California Supreme Court declined to rule on the validity of Proposition 8 before the election since courts generally only resolve actual harms, of which there would be none if the initiative had failed), there’s absolutely zero effect leaving the Ninth Circuit’s opinion as unvacated would have on future attempts to ban same-sex marriage (well, other than the demoralization it would bring to opponents, making them extremely unlikely to want to proceed with a new initiative; however the same would be true if we were to vote to repeal the dang thing ourselves and were successful in that effort).

  It only makes sense to oppose the initiative repeal if you believe one of two things:
  1) That the Supreme Court will rule on much broader grounds and find a general right to same-sex marriage
  2) That some other state outside the Ninth Circuit will withdraw freely available access to same-sex marriages but leave in its place access to all the substantive rights of marriage.

  If you believe the first of these, you should not be taken seriously, This decision is purposefully narrow and applies only to California, and there is absolutely no reason to believe the Supreme Court would hand down a decision that applies to any other state besides California.

  The second, while more plausible than the first, is still highly unlikely. The only state where this is even a current possibility is New Hampshire, where a bill has been introduced repealing the marriage law and restoring civil unions, which do in fact share all the substantive rights as marriage. However, a vote on it has continually been put off and it is generally believed that there is not enough support to override the governor’s promised veto. No other state with same-sex marriage is in a similar position. Iowa is not comparable since they do not have civil unions or domestic partnerships that have all the rights of marriage, and the attempts to amend their constitution to forbid same-sex marriage would not create such institutions; thus, the Ninth Circuit’s decision has no bearing on that situation. Attempts to appeal the newly (or soon to be) passed laws in Washington and Maryland likewise are not comparable, since the laws would be put on hold pending the referendums, and so no marriage rights would exist before they are subsequently withdrawn. Furthermore, Maryland’s parallel domestic partnerships are extremely limited and do not offer all the substantive rights of marriage, and Washington, whose domestic partnerships are equivalent to marriage, is within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit anyway.

  I’m frankly ashamed to be a Californian if my fellow opponents of Proposition 8 who want to get rid of it are adamantly opposed to an actual attempt to get rid of it because of nonsense reasons that have no basis in reality.

• 34. Ian  |  June 1, 2012 at 11:18 am

  Then, hopefully, we will repeal it post-trial to wipe the abomination off the books!

Leave a Comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL  |  RSS feed for comments on this post.