Looks like the CA Supreme Court didn't choose May 15 to decide on Prop 8

[Athelwulf]

I was kinda hoping they would. Striking down Prop H8 on the one-year anniversary of the initial ruling that started this whole story would have been a great symbolic gesture. But the California Supreme Court's web site doesn't have a heads-up. If they were to make their decision public on May 15 (tomorrow), I think they would have told us by now.

Oh well. June 3 is almost here. I'm really anxious.

[bluestateguy]

1. Either way, prepare yourself for another ballot initiative

Either to re-legalize gay marriage, or a recall campaign against the judges who voted to throw out 8.

[Athelwulf]

4. I wonder, would a recall be effective?

As I understand it, all the judges but one were appointed by a Republican governor. Even if they succeed in starting a recall election, I assume the Californian public will be more inclined to vote for Democrats — who are, on measure, fairly sympathetic to LGBT rights — than for Republicans, even if the issue du jour is same-sex marriage.

And I doubt that same-sex marriage will ultimately prevail as the foremost concern in people's minds when they consider new judges. I believe they successfully fought a measure in Connecticut to start a constitutional convention, originally intended to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage, by arguing that everything in a convention is fair game, like the right to choose.

Then again, this is a state that has an unhealthy love affair with Republicans from Hollywood. Who knows.

[bluestateguy]

5. I'm just telling you that the fundy crowd is setting up to recall the judges if they throw out 8

They'll get the signatures, pass the clipboards around on Sunday at the megachurches, and we'll be right back debating this again next year.

[Athelwulf]

7. I don't doubt it. n/t

[KitchenWitch]

15. The urban areas are more democratic

But make no mistake, the rural areas in CA are as red as red can be. Even the Inland Empire (San Bernardino and Riverside Counties) are very conservative.

This is going to be a dog fight either way.

[sam sarrha]

2. ... they cant Legislate Religious Dogma.. especially just shit they made up..

[FreeState]

3. Per Courage Campaign: 4 possible dates left: May 18, 21, 28 or June 1. n/t

[Athelwulf]

6. Link please? n/t

[FreeState]

8. It was from their twitter... but here's the link

http://twitter.com/CourageCampaign

its down a bit in the postings.

[Athelwulf]

9. Thanks. I wonder what the significance of each of those dates is. n/t

[FreeState]

10. There is not any - the court issues rulings on Mondays and Thursdays

there is Memorial Day in May on a Monday - so according to the courts web page there is one more possible date that the Courage Campaign did not list for some reason (they may have not know about it or the court may have just added the date recently) -

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

"All California courts will be closed on Memorial Day, Monday, May 25, 2009. The filing of any opinion by the California Supreme Court that would normally occur on Monday, May 25, will instead be filed on Tuesday, May 26 at 10:00 a.m.

If any opinion is to be filed on Tuesday, May 26, a Notice of Intended Filing announcing the court's intent to file the opinion will be posted on the California Court Web site by Friday, May 22, 2009 ..."

[Athelwulf]

11. Thanks a bunch for the info! n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

12. they deliver their judgements on mondays and thursdays only

or so i thought

[Athelwulf]

13. Someone else said the same thing, so I think you're right.

I wonder why this is the case. Do they party?

"Woo, Monday's over!"
"Yippee, it's Hump Day!"
"Tee Gee Aye effin' EFF!!!!!"

[AnthemRoad]

14. ...

Haha, sure

[wryter2000]

16. Never mind

Never mind. Randi made a mistake.

Damn, damn, damn.

[FreeState]

17. Yes - the LA times was promoting an article from a year ago today by accident

there was a thread on this here earlier - its been locked for some reason (Im guessing it looked like an attack on a poster here rather than an attack on whomever started the articles circulation today).

[wryter2000]

18. That's cruel

Probably a mistake, but cruel, anyway. :cry:

[FreeState]

19. I dont think there as any ill intention but rather a re-post of it since 1 year ago today the court

legalized it - it was a heres an article from a year ago to mark the history but it got taken the wrong way by people not reading the date of the article.

Here's to hoping a real article will be out soon that says the same thing though:)

[wryter2000]

20. I'll drink to that

:toast: