Prop 8 aftermath

I've been busy this week, so I didn't write anything about the Prop 8 ruling when it happened. I'm sure everyone has read about the ruling. The ruling hasn't changed anyone's minds about anything: you are still either pro-equality or you aren't.

Even Governor Schwarzenegger has weighed in with his opinion:

...I think that this is not over. This decision - because I think that they will be back - that there will be in a year or two they will be back again with another initiative - trying to get it - you know, eventually it's going to be overturned. I'm sure of that.

Of course, this is the governor that vetoed same-sex legislation in 2005.

Now two lawyers, former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, are planning to file suit.

In a project of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, Olson and Boies have united to represent two same-sex couples filing suit after being denied marriage licenses because of Proposition 8.

Their suit, to be filed in U.S. District Court in California, calls for an injunction against the proposition, allowing immediate reinstatement of marriage rights for same-sex couples.

Some have questioned Olson's motives. Olson was, after all, an Assistant Attorney General in the Reagan administration and in that capacity he defended President Reagan during Iran-Contra. He also represented George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore (where Bush stole the 2000 election) and in doing so was rewarded with the position of United States Solicitor General.

In response, a coalition of LGBT organizations have issued a press release warning against lawsuits.

In response to the California Supreme Court decision allowing Prop 8 to stand, four LGBT legal organizations and five other leading national LGBT groups are reminding the LGBT community that ill-timed lawsuits could set the fight for marriage back. The groups released a new publication, “Why the ballot box and not the courts should be the next step on marriage in California.” This publication discourages people from bringing premature lawsuits based on the federal Constitution because, without more groundwork, the U.S. Supreme Court likely is not yet ready to rule that same-sex couples cannot be barred from marriage.

One thing to note is that the wording of the ruling made it clear that this ruling doesn't slam the door on same-sex marriage as many on the right are claiming.

Some conservatives have interpreted the California Supreme Court's decision as the Court defining marriage as between "a man and a woman", but that's wrong. The Court is protecting the initiative called Proposition 8 which claims marriage is between a man and woman because it interprets the California Constitution as consisting of these constitutional amendments and the Court has stated that its job is to interpret the state constitution and that it's not above it. That distinction is important because should voters pass a new initiative that overturns Prop 8, the Court would be legally inclined to protect it as well.

Of course, has Governor Schwarzenegger just signed the damn legislation years ago this whole thing would be moot. That being said, I think the coalition might be correct here: winning at the ballot box removes the argument that Conservatives use that the courts routinely subvert the will of the people. If the people vote for equality...well, Conservatives will still figure out a way to complain. But screw 'em. They will have lost fair and square.