You can't stop the love!

This is the California Prop 8 case redux.

Let's do a quick recap:
1. State assembly with signature of the Governator pass a state law banning same-gender marriage
2. Same-gender couples challenge the law as unconstitutional. State courts hold law violates the state constitution
3. CA Supreme Court agrees
4. Bigots and haters create Prop 8 which would amend the state Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman goes to the voters and passes with 52% of the vote after a torrent of out of state money including lots of money from the Mormons pours into the state
5. Legal challenges to the constitutionality of the amendment are raised with eventually the state Supreme Court holding it to be constitutional
6. Challenges brought in federal court asserting the amendment violates the U.S. Constitution
7. Federal District Court held the amendment unconstitutional
8. State refused to appeal the District Court's holding. Proponents of Prop 8 and one county but state appealed. At issue was whether they had standing.
9. On appeal to the 9th Circuit, the 9th held they had standing but sought confirmation of the CA Supreme Court. State Supreme Court held the parties had standing but then upheld the District Court's finding
10. Proponents of Prop 8 appealed the 9th Circuit's holding to the SCOTUS
11. SCOTUS dismissed the appeal finding the proponents lacked standing (i.e. proper legal status to appeal), that the 9th Circuit erred in finding standing and allowing the original District Court holding to stand

Although the SCOTUS stopped marriages in Utah pending the appeals process, Utah is defending its ban on same-gender marriages in court. Here Oregon is not defending the ban and this leads to me believe the SCOTUS has a similar line of thought as with California...i.e. if the state does not defend it, an interest group such as NOM likely has no standing to challenge this in court.

The Rationale used by the Majority was the Plaintiff did not have standing for the only people who had standing was the Governor and Attorney General, the problem is both opposed the Measure.

Thus you have a rule, that any law, passed by the Majority of the people of any state with voter initiative can have their will over ruled by a Court just because the Governor and Attorney General opposed the law. Thus if the voters voted for a law that PERMITTED gay marriage in a state where the Attorney General and Governor opposed such a law, all the Governor has to do is make sure the case goes in front of a Federal Judge that agrees with them, have him rule it violates the US Constitution and then have the Governor and Attorney General refuse to appeal that ruling. Based on the decision of the US Supreme Court no one else could file that appeal, thus the Voter Initiative that approved Gay Marriage would be null and void.

The ruling on standing puts Voter Initiatives in the hands of the elected officials such Voter Initiative was design to by pass. The Dissent pointed this out big time and the dissent was a mix of Liberals and Conservatives who accused the Majority of refusing to accept the whole concept of Voter Initiative.

You may like the result of that Supreme Court decision, but the actual ruling is an attack on Democracy and the will of the Voters. If the court had accepted the ruling of the Trial court I would be more comfortable, but the ruling as it was made is just plain frightening for anyone who truly believes in Democracy.

And now, back to everyday life in Oregon.

Will Ginsburg be replaced with another extreme rightwinger??? Possible if the GOP steals the Senate in the November elections. And then gay Americans will be dead in the Paraguayan water.

plus the 6 more to come, that are on hold.

results.

I'd say that RW religious bigots are proving that definition true pretty frequently.