Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Breaking: SF Mayor Newsom asks CA Supreme Court to delay Prop 8 ruling

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
keepCAblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 02:51 PM
Original message
Breaking: SF Mayor Newsom asks CA Supreme Court to delay Prop 8 ruling
Source: Towleroad.com

Exclusive: SF Mayor Gavin Newsom Asked Court to Delay Prop 8 Ruling

Confidential sources close to San Francisco City Hall told Towleroad's Corey Johnson that the California Supreme Court was prepared to release its opinion on Proposition 8 tomorrow, but decided to delay the ruling after a call from Mayor Gavin Newsom.

Newsom reached out to the Supreme Court and asked them to hold off releasing their decision so it did not coincide with the White Night riots," said our source.

As mentioned earlier, a ruling Thursday would have fallen on the 30th anniversary of the San Francisco riots, which were set off when the court handed down the most lenient decision possible (voluntary manslaughter) against Dan White for the murders of supervisor Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone. The ensuing riots in San Francisco on May 21, 1979 caused hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage.



Read more: http://www.towleroad.com/2009/05/exclusive-sf-mayor-gavin-newsom-asked-court-to-delay-prop-8-ruling.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ccharles000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
1. k/r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grown2Hate Donating Member (833 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 03:00 PM
Response to Original message
2. Is there a good idea about what the decision will be?
Or am I just obtuse? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Based on how the justices acted during oral arguments...
Edited on Wed May-20-09 03:07 PM by slackmaster
...They are probably going to uphold Prop. 8.

It's going to be ugly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grown2Hate Donating Member (833 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Fuck.
:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tempest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. It's only temporary

It's just a matter of time (a few short years) before Prop 8 will be thrown out by the voters.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nichomachus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. I think they will uphold PropH8, but let the current marriages stand
I hope I'm wrong, but they did everything but offer Ken Starr cookies and a cold beverage during the oral arguments.

Undoing the current marriages would be a nightmare, as there are property issues and other legal matters involved that would have to be resolved case by case. It would be a legal nightmare. You can't just declare a marriage over without addressing those issues. The lawsuits would be staggering.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rockholm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. That would be illegal.
That was one of the reasons why Massachusetts succeeded in keeping marriage equality. The legislators could not figure out what to do with all of the marriages that had taken place. To set up a "well, you are married" but "you can't be" scenario would have been a nightmare.
Maybe this is the plan. If that happens, then there will be a new lawsuit and this will be revisited again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nichomachus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. Illegal and a nightmare
Every one of the 18,000 dissolved marriages would need to go through a legal proceeding -- especially if there were children or property issues involved.

In fact, if each of the 18,000 couples decided to force their marriage in front of a judge, it would overwhelm the courts -- especially as people could drag their feet and work all the angles.

It also raises serious constitutional issues of ex post facto laws. In other words, when we got married, it was legal. You can't pass a law later saying what I did in the past wasn't legal when I did it. That would get the matter in front of the 9th Circuit in about five minutes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rockholm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. Maybe it is a beautiful set-up...right to the US Supreme Court?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Soylent Brice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 03:11 PM
Response to Original message
4. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 03:32 PM
Response to Original message
5. Sounds like it's going to be bad news. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
8. A wise choice from Mayor Newsom...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nichomachus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Why is that?
White night is ancient history. A lot of people don't even remember it. Many of the people who were involved in it are dead or have moved away. If there was going to be any commemoration, it was probably going to be low key.

Newsom may have actually made the situation worse. By delaying it, he will be pushing the decision closer to Gay Pride -- at which there will be hundreds of thousands of people -- maybe close to a million -- many from out of town, and if there are raw nerves lingering over Prop H8, which there will be, then it could get ugly -- especially since it's the 40th anniversary of Stonewall.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pab Sungenis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 03:59 PM
Response to Original message
9. Announce it tomorrow
And let the gays riot. It's long past time we started actually fighting for our rights if the courts aren't going to protect them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #9
20. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Newsjock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 04:58 PM
Response to Original message
12. Newsom's office says this story is not true
http://sfist.com/2009/05/20/newsom_asks_court_to_delay_prop_8_r.php

Towleroad might have gotten it wrong, or so says Newsom spokesman Nathan Ballard.

Today a website posted an item that quoted a false allegation from an unnamed source: "Mayor Newsom reached out to the Supreme Court and asked them to hold off releasing their decision so it did not coincide with the White Night riots."
This allegation is not true. We have asked the website to correct the item immediately.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
keepCAblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Towleroad.com standing behind their source. Not taking post down.
Comment from towleroad.com blogger:

Franko -- it doesn't surprise me that Newsom's office is denying it. Why would they admit to it?

I stand by source who gave this to Towleroad.

Onward,

Corey

Posted by: Corey Johnson | May 20, 2009 5:39:52 PM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #13
22. I tend to believe towleroad. Newsom's office has misled before. n/t
Edited on Wed May-20-09 07:31 PM by EFerrari
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Sounds like political drivel to me.
if the CaSC upholds it, we're just going to have to go back and fix it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rockholm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 05:41 PM
Response to Original message
16. I have read on Americablog that they are setting up barriers in the Castro.
What that means? Who knows.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Downtown Hound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Who's setting up barriers?
The police or protesters?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Downtown Hound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 06:19 PM
Response to Original message
17. If, in fact, he did ask the Court to hold off its ruling
It has nothing to do with the White Night riots, and everything to do with today. I'm currently involved with a group that is planning massive civil disobedience in the city when the decision is announced. I'll probably be going to jail. That's fine, been there, done that before. But if there was a request, which I'm skeptical of, then I think it has more to do with what they know is being planned right now than with what happened years ago. And they should be afraid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
keepCAblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. You go! We need more heroes lie you who aren't afraid to stand up for their rights. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Downtown Hound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. Well thanks.
They're not even my rights, but I appreciate the sentiment. I'm straight. But throughout my life, I have known too many wonderful gay people that have enriched my life for the better. I wouldn't be much of a friend if I wouldn't be willing to spend a little time in the slammer for them, now would I?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 09:27 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC