1. Governor Schwarzenegger said regarding prop 22 that he supported equal rights, but that as governor he had to support the will of the people BUT that he would leave it to the courts to decide.
2. If that means he is going to stand by the decision of the California supreme court, he can let the issue sit for 30 days, after which not being signed would automatically be vetoed.
3. The state senate is not in session. The senate could over turn his veto with a 66% majority... if they were in session.
4. Prop 8 dies
1. Governor Schwarzenegger "respects the will of the [majority of] the [voting] people", signs the bill, leaving it to the Supreme court to possibly decide.
2. Five constitutional amendments have been proposed, which would require a 75% majority of the people, AFTER it gets the approval of some high majority of the senate and house each (one 66%, the other 75%. This has all but been completely been burned, never going to happen... so we can hope.
3. The supreme court has refused to hear any issue on gay marriage because they believe the issue has already been resolved. Gay marriage ban is CLEARLY unconstitutional under the 14th amendment equal protection clause.
4. Now with 30+ states with gay marriage bans, and particularly California banning gay marriage, The supreme court will have to hear the issue and make their final ruling.
5. And in case it needs to be said: there were some strong compilations with people that voted yes on 8. Sadly if black, but also the poorer the person, and the less educated you were, the more likely the person was to vote yes on 8. Asian and Hispanic were tied, white people voted no, as well as educated and middle to upper class voted no. So for an extra point, where do most supreme court justices typically fall in that demographic?
prop 8 still has to be interpreted, so despite all the lies spewed by the churches to successfully sway the poor and uneducated, there is a little lie that got through from the no on 8 side. Married gay couples will not loose their marriage licenses, otherwise it is de facto segregation. The licenses were lawfully obtained at a time when it was legal. there is nothing in prop 8 that makes this retroactive, not to mention the courts get to interpret the law... a court that has already decided on the issue. The language may be "very clear", but the implications are still completly open to interpretation.
Further, until the bill is signed into law, it is still legal. Therefore anyone planning to get married may consider moving their plans up to ASAP.
Civil Unions are brought up to date to be equal to 'marriage', and marriage is abolished as being a clear violation of separation of church and state, as well as equal protection, effectivly making prop 8 irrelevant. This could happen either in California, but there is a decent chance this is what would happen in the supreme court.
I'd like to see this issue resolved sooner... you know, like today like I expected. But as history has shown, the harder you try to oppress people for a longer period of time, the blow back when they are finally unwilling to put up with it has larger and larger implications as time goes by.
It is more than simply not over, one can say that this has really just begun.
To anyone else that cared about the California propositions, this is how things split according to LA Times:
Propositions Precincts reporting: ~95.0%
- 1A: High-speed rail Yes 52.2% No 47.8%
- 2: Farm animals Yes 63.2% No 36.8%
- 3: Children’s hospitals Yes 54.7% No 45.3%
- 4: Abortion notification Yes 47.6% No 52.4%
- 5: Drug offenses Yes 40.2% No 59.8%
- 6: Criminal justice Yes 30.5% No 69.5%
- 7: Renewable energy Yes 35.1% No 64.9%
- 8: Gay marriage ban Yes 52.0% No 48.0%
- 9: Victims’ rights Yes 53.2% No 46.8%
- 10: Alternative fuels Yes 40.1% No 59.9%
- 11: Redistricting Yes 50.5% No 49.5%
- 12: Loans for veterans Yes 63.4% No 36.6%