The California Supreme Court website has the link for .pdf and .doc files regarding the cases on the front page. They say pretty much what raffiki posted, though this is good source for any new developments. I don't remember ever seeing the court cover a case on the front page:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/

Well, now the Prop 8 folks are suing to invalidate the 18,000+ marriages that were performed, though I don't think they have standing. "Standing" is the requisite that a plaintiff must have demonstrable injury in order to pursue a legal action.

Kenneth Starr signed on as lead council for the bigots.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081220/ap_ ... e_lawsuits

That is part of standing, but not all of it. Standing, besides an injury, also requires causation and redressability. Thus one could have an injury, but still lack standing.

I really hope the Supreme Court over-rides Prop 8, and soon. The sooner it's done, the sooner this will get to the supreme court, and thus the sooner it will force all 50 states to recognize gay marriage rights.

Fingers crossed.

Thanks Eagle.

Peace,
Mike

Well, with the current Supreme Court, that would be kinda scary, no?

Anyway. Yeah, meant to update this... I can't wait they actually went there and want to nullify the marriages. This needs to get ALOT of attention in the media because it will only do harm to their cause.

Other pieces of info you may have heard...

For the first time ever, a gay men's choir is going to be performing at the Presidential inauguration.
On the flipside, Obama has selected Rick Warren to perform the invocation at his inauguration. Warren was a huge supporter of Prop 8 and is from one of CA's most conservative counties.

Alot of people are pretty upset over Obama's pick. I, myself, don't quite get it. He is apparently one of the most well-known pastors in the U.S. but really, there was no one else to choose outside of California?

Actually, now that I'm trying to look it up, the gay men's chorus is not performing. I winder what happened and apparently the D.C. gay men's chorus had performed at Clinton's second inauguration. So, no pros just cons for us.

I love this cartoon:

<edited extra spam>

Why, I can't think of a lovelier way to spend the Christmas holidays. Destroying families is such a shinning example of what Jesus stood for!

*vomits*

I would say Obama's pick does cause a bit of worry. I think Obama's stance is clear, and it's not a horrible one, but I don't by any means think it's an issue he plans to give a moments thought to while in office.

As for the Supreme Court, I think their love of the law and upholding the rights of people would over-ride any bias they may have. In general, these are some of the smartest individuals in our country, I'd be thrilled if it got put into their hands. But again, it all depends on the specific CASE that is brought before them and the scope of the ruling, as well as exactly what they would be ruling on.

Eh, I always said Clinton was the more progressive of the two on domestic issues. I'm still not sure how everyone got the impression this guy wasn't a moderate, that's why he was so popular. Didn't step on too many people's toes.

This just an inauguration, so I do agree with you its not that big a deal, but I wish they would just do away with altogther the blatant introduction of religious figures into such political events. Why not just have some judge or state official do it? Pastors shouldn't be here in the first place. That would be painfully obvious if Bloomberg won and had a Rabbi conduct the ceremony. People would freak.

Well, Bloomberg wouldn't have a rabbi on; he'd have another bloody pastor.

Why do you say that?

Personally I agree with dolcevita. Throw out the church-state politicking altogether, but if the choir was scheduled to sing and the Rick Warrens had anything to do with canceling their appearance then I would rather nuke Warren and have Jerry Falwell do the ceremony. Just prop that dead bastard up and let the facts speak for themselves.

Because it's the politically shrewd thing to do, DUH?

No, this isn't about Prop 8 but instead concerns Wyoming. Yea, the place Dick Cheney lives and who gave McCain 65% of its vote and whose house has a 41-19 GOP majority. I placed it here because this has been where most gay marriage related discussion has taken place. Anyway, the Wyoming legislature voted against a constitutional amendment to its state constitution that would have limited marriage to between a man and a woman.

http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2009/Digest/HJ0017.htm

Good on ya, Wyoming.

not looking good. was outside and watched the proceedings go down on a big screen between fervent shouts and song and dance (my crew brought a guitar and we sung our hearts out on the steps of the supreme court like the sassy queens we are). i'd say maybe 2 of the 7 looked ready to overturn prop 8. i'd be very surprised if that number budged enough. looks like they feel judicial activism only applies when it works in favor of hegemony.

bring on the us supreme court!

seriously, as frustrating as this is, i'm as pumped as ever. change is inevitable, anyway.

My prediction is that they will uphold Prop 8, but keep the existing gay marriages in tact. The fact that 18,000 gay couples could stay legally married in CA would be a victory of sorts.

Um hello, Youtube that shit.

NAACP takes a stance against Prop 8. It's about time.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?art ... nst_prop_8

The NAACP has been walking a tightrope on gay rights. Polls show that African Americans overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage, but much of the high-level leadership of the nation's oldest civil-rights organization opposes legal efforts to deny gays the right to marry. Last week, the national office of the NAACP leapt into the fray when it sent a letter to California legislators urging them to support legislation that would repeal Prop. 8. After meeting with the National Black Justice Coalition, a black LGBT-rights group, and the leadership of the California State Conference, NAACP Chairman Julian Bond and NAACP President Ben Jealous agreed to come out publicly in support of repealing Prop. 8.

About time. This group should always be in favor of civil rights for all.

The court decision will be coming down tomorrow 10am PST

To reiterate, the court is not ruling on the constitutionality of marriage. They already affirmed that last year. Here is hat they are ruling on...

(1) Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution? (2) Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution? (3) If Proposition 8 is not
unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?

I don't think there is anyone who has expressed predictions of a repeal of Prop. 8. Most are expecting Proposition 8 to be upheld, but also for the 18,000 marriages to be kept legal.

Protests, rallies, and marches have already been planned. And there is an event called Meet in the Middle this Saturday where everyone is traveling to Fresno to stage a rally.

This is a lose / lose situation for the court, really, because they could be completely in favor of gay marriage and have to rule against it for legal grounds, because the law wasn't passed in a specific way (or vice versa for that matter). No matter what they decide, someone will be really unhappy.