Posted by Cassie Myers on Thursday, August 12, 2010 06:13 pm
This just in: a week or so after Judge Walker ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional, said judge ruled to “lift the stay” on gay weddings.
But don’t pop the champagne corks yet, folks–the case has already been appealed. And you can’t go and get yourself gay-hitched tomorrow, either: gay weddings are “on hold” until “at least” August 18.
After August 18, however, feel free to marry.*
*Unless the 9th Circuit Court chooses to uphold Prop 8. Then we go back into legal back and forth.
So gay marriage is/(may be around the date of August 18) kinda sorta legal in California. Maybe. Our advice to gay couples? Get married soon after the 18th of August and gather ye rosebuds while ye may. This looks to be a long fight.
Image source: Fibonacci Blue under Creative Commons
BREAKING: Same sex marriage stay lifted, but…. [sf ist]
Posted by Jill Cowan on Thursday, August 05, 2010 02:57 pm
All right, now that we’ve had a night of unimpeded celebration about the big Prop 8 news, looks like it was time for somebody to turn on the pessimism (realism?) sprinklers. Berkeley constitutional law expert and assistant professor of political science Gordon Silverstein weighed in on the situation for a post on The New Republic’s Citizen Cohn blog.
And wouldn’t ya know it, he thinks there’s a chance that Judge Vaughn Walker’s verdict, though probably right in the moral sense, might actually “undermine the policy goals of the gay-rights movement in the long term.” Can we get a “ruh roh?” read more »
Everyone is talking about Prop 8 and same-sex marriage. It’s a contentious debate on both sides, and with gay marriage just defeated again in New Jersey, it’s a debate without an end in sight. Our state of California is joining the party again with a lawsuit. The plaintiffs are a Berkeley couple named Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier “along with Southern Californians Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo,” and they’re suing the state for their right to marry.
The trial, which began today, asks a question of constitutionality. Does Prop 8 “[violate] the U.S. Constitution by treating gay unions differently from those between straight people?” (Quick answer: yes.) But the Berkeley couple is doing more than simply filing a lawsuit–they’re testifying.
Either way, though, it’s certain to be an important trial. What’s more, “gay rights leaders say the two couples’ testimony will be pivotal in the case.” There you have it: Berkeleyans making history once again.
Posted by Cassie Myers on Monday, December 14, 2009 09:51 am
Gay marriage was just defeated in New York, but here’s a little something to sweeten the tea of Prop 8 haters: not only did Houston just elect its first openly gay mayor, but also a gay Latino man was just chosen to lead the state Assembly! Even cooler? The guy was a Berkeley alum!
The man is John Pérez, a Democrat from Los Angeles. His roots in labor run deep, and he also spent time as the Democratic Caucus’ chairman. Reports say he will be key in budget read more »
Following in the footsteps of the film “A Day Without a Mexican” and the 2006 “A Day Without Immigrants” protest against criminalization of illegal immigrants, proponents of the movement to overturn Prop 8 are asking members of the LGBTQ community to do something about the November passage of the proposition that banned gay marriage in California by doing nothing.
OK, so obviously it’s a little more complicated than that. Participants of the “Day Without a Gay” protest are asked to call into work “gay” and abstain from buying anything, using the Internet or cell phones, watching TV or in any way contributing to the straightness of our economy. The boycott aims to give the economy a metaphorical kick in the ass and show just how much gays are worth to California–literally. read more »
Posted by Jill Cowan on Thursday, November 20, 2008 07:06 pm
So, the Clog’s got good news and the Clog’s got bad news. Which do you want first? OK, we’ll start with the good news.
The good news is, the California Supreme Court has agreed to hear the bajillion or so lawsuits that sprung up immediately after Prop. 8passed, arguing that it’s pretty objectively ridunk. And yes, we do think it warrants the use of the pseudo-word, “ridunk.”
The bad news? Prop. 8′s implementation is not going to be postponed until the lawsuits are resolved. But, um, no worries, right? We all know how speedy and efficient the justice system is, after all. (Mutters under breath. Baby steps. Baby … steps … )
As campuses across the nation celebrated Obama’s victory with chanting, marching and other merriment in the streets, over 2,000 angered citizens of San Francisco attended a candlelight vigil yesterday in front of City Hall organized by Marriage Equality California. Protesters held signs reading “I woke up with less rights than I had yesterday” and “Separation of hate and state. No on Prop 8!”
West Hollywood also held a rally with over 5,000 protesters, resulting in seven arrests and massive street blockage. The next day another 3,000 protesters marched near a temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Westwood section of Los Angeles, to draw attention to the Mormon Church’s throwing mass quantities of moolah at the Prop 8 campaign. read more »
As student post-election jubilation flooded the streets of Berkeley, the nation celebrated the end of the Bush era, the election of our first African-American president and the purchase of Sarah Palin’s flight back to Alaska. But with the passage of Prop 8, California voters learned that while civil rights may be taking a great leap forward on the national front, it’s also taken a step back statewide.
The proposition which will ban gay marriage was passed with a 52% vote yesterday, effectively limiting a constitutional right and leading many to call for a succession of NorCal from the rest of the California. (OK, we made that last part up.) read more »
If passed, the proposition would eliminate the right to marry for same-sex couples and, as Birgeneau argued, would undermine Berkeley principles. Birgeneau did not outright stump against the proposition, but he concluded his letter with: