California needs our help in defeating prop 8

felicia, that has yet to be determined according to my sources. They may still remain recognized but likely will be nullified . I'll probably find out more this weekend on gayusa if there has been a decision. I hope that our side will take this  to court and I hope that any Arkansas LGBTs who have adopted children will also take their decision to court

Thanks moo--- felicia here is an update....

From the Los Angeles Times

Gay-rights advocates to challenge Proposition 8

By Jessica Garrison, Maura Dolan and Nancy Vogel | Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

5:00 PM CST, November 5, 2008

LOS ANGELES - After losing at the polls, gay-rights advocates filed a legal challenge Wednesday in California Supreme Court to Proposition 8, a long-shot effort that the measure's supporters called an attempt to subvert the will of voters.

Lawyers for same-sex couples said they will argue that the anti-gay-marriage measure was an illegal constitutional revision -- not a more limited amendment, as backers said.

The legal action contends that Proposition 8 actually revises the state constitution by altering such fundamental tenets as equal-protection guarantees. A measure to revise the state constitution can be placed before voters only by the Legislature.

Opponents of gay marriage expressed outrage at the move.

"This is exactly the type of behavior that brought us to this position to begin with," said Proposition 8 co-chair Frank Schubert. "The people voted eight years ago overwhelmingly in favor of traditional marriage, and they seem to be saying in pretty strong terms again ... that they favor traditional marriage, and yet this is not accepted by gay-rights activists."

"Now, if they want to legalize gay marriage, what they should do is bring an initiative themselves and ask the people to approve it. But they don't. They go behind the people's back to the courts and try and force an agenda on the rest of society."

Former California Supreme Court Justice Joseph Grodin said the legal challenge will be a "tough battle" for supporters of same-sex marriage.

Gay-marriage proponents see it differently. "A major purpose of the Constitution is to protect minorities from majorities. Because changing that principle is a fundamental change to the organizing principles of the Constitution itself, only the Legislature can initiate such revisions to the Constitution," said Elizabeth Gill, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California.

It is a matter of fairness, said Jenny Pizer, a staff attorney with Lambda Legal. "If the voters approved an initiative that took the right to free speech away from women, but not from men, everyone would agree that such a measure conflicts with the basic ideals of equality enshrined in our Constitution. Proposition 8 suffers from the same flaw: It removes a protected constitutional right -- here, the right to marry -- not from all Californians, but just from one group of us," she said.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Equality California and six same-sex couples who did not marry before Tuesday's election but would like to marry now.

The state Supreme Court has twice before invalidated measures as illegal revisions, but some legal analysts expressed doubt that the Proposition 8 challenge would succeed. Similar attempts to overturn anti-gay-marriage measures have failed in Oregon and Alaska.

A spokesman for San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said Herrera would also file a legal challenge.

With more than 96 percent of precincts reporting in the state, the measure leads by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent, prompting the Los Angeles Times to call the race. Opponents of the measure have not yet conceded defeat.

The loss was devastating to many in the state.

Paul Waters and Kevin Voecks of Valley Village, who married more than four months ago, were stunned Wednesday. "More than half of my fellow Californians still don't get it," said Waters, 53. "They still don't understand that sexual orientation is ... not a thing that should differentiate."

Early in the campaign, strategist Jeff Flint noted, polls showed the measure trailing by 17 points.

"I think the voters were thinking, 'Well, if it makes them happy, why shouldn't we let gay couples get married.' And I think we made them realize that there are broader implications to society and particularly the children when you make that fundamental change that's at the core of how society is organized, which is marriage," he said.

Elsewhere in the country, two other gay-marriage bans, in Florida and Arizona, also won. In both states, laws already defined marriage as a heterosexual institution. But backers pushed to amend the state constitutions, saying that doing so would protect the institution from legal challenges.

Proposition 8 was the most expensive proposition on any ballot in the nation this year, with more than $74 million spent by both sides.

The battle was closely watched across the nation because California is considered a harbinger of cultural change and because this is the first time voters have weighed in on gay marriage in a state where it was legal.

Campaign contributions came from every state in the nation in opposition to the measure and every state but Vermont to its supporters.

And as far away as Washington, D.C., gay rights organizations hosted gatherings Tuesday night to watch voting results on Proposition 8.

Most of the state's highest-profile political leaders -- including both U.S. senators and the mayors of San Francisco, San Diego and Los Angeles -- along with the editorial pages of most major newspapers, opposed the measure. PG&E, Apple and other companies contributed money to fight the proposition, and the heads of Silicon Valley companies including Google and Yahoo took out a newspaper ad opposing it.

On the other side were an array of conservative organizations, including the Knights of Columbus, Focus on the Family and the American Family Association, along with tens of thousands of small donors, including many who responded to urging from Mormon, Catholic and evangelical clergy.

An early October filing by the "yes" campaign reported so many contributions that the secretary of state's campaign finance Web site crashed.

Proponents also organized a massive grass-roots effort.

Research and polling showed that many voters were against gay marriage but afraid that saying so would make them seem "discriminatory" or "not cool," said Flint, so proponents hoped to show them they were not alone.

Perhaps more powerfully, the Proposition 8 campaign also seized on the issue of education, arguing in a series of advertisements and mailers that children would be subjected to a pro-gay curriculum if the measure was not approved.

Supposedly there are a(or were) 2 million absentee ballots, which would make the different if a large percentage were against the ban.

Props to San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsome (sp?), he is going to continue to marry gay couples unless somebody arrests him!