I called it after oral arguments. The CA Supreme Court doesn't have the gonads to actually say flat-out that the people were wrong, and that you can't amend the Constitution to allow the majority to take rights away from a minority. But because of the insanely fucked up ballot initiative process, apparently, you can take away rights from a minority. I want to start a ballot initiative to outlaw the Mormon Church.*
In all seriousness, though, while I Am Not A Lawyer, even I can tell that this ruling has a hole big enough to drive the Narada through. By allowing those of us 18,000 couples who'd already gotten married to stay married, the Court has just created two classes: LGBT people who are legally married, and LBGT people who can't legally marry. This would seem to be a direct violation of the equal protection clauses in the state constitution.
One thing I do know is that if we want a hope in hell of reversing this in 2010, the No on 8 side needs to do a much better job at presenting our case. We simply can't just react to the lies of the other side; we need to be proactive about explaining why banning same-sex marriage is bad policy, and show the actual people who will be hurt by this. Why didn't the "Don't Divorce Us" slideshow get done last August? Why did the No on 8 campaign hardly ever mention the words "gay" or "lesbian" in their ads, and rarely show actual GLBT people?
Last night before we went to bed, I told Ruth that I didn't give a fuck what the Court said today: as far as I'm concerned, we're married until one of us says we're not.
* Yes, I am aware that this wouldn't be upheld because it would violate the U.S. Constitution. But I'm feeling bitchy and vindictive and angry--which, again, illustrates why civil rights should never be put to a popular vote.