Prop 8

[Gorgon]

i actually would have passed ron's test.

 

taks

You like small flaccid *edited by Walsingham for upsetting his breakfast*

[~Di]

I think that if the pro-prop 8's keep up the shinanigans then we'll see the amendment thrown out.

 

The California SC cannot throw the amendment out because it is part of the Constitution of the State now. In other words, unless it conflicts with another aspect of the same it is the supreme law of the state and the SC is bound to enforce and uphold it.

 

Hold your horses.

 

Two significant lawsuits are in progress already on this matter. 1) Interpreting how rights are applied is up to the Judiciary branch (courts) not the Legislature branch (voters), as determined by the CA Constitution (and also the US Constitution) under separation of powers, 2) removing equal protection under law is a change to the fundamental nature of the Constitution and thus is a Revision, not an Amendment, which in turn requires a 66% majority, not a 50% majority.

 

It sucks that government has any say over marriages in the first place, but until America adopts stronger civil unions things like this will be important.

 

^^^

Exactly. California's constitution prohibited discrimination based upon, among other things, sexual orientation. That's why the Calif Supreme Court threw out the first initiative that prohibited gay marriage in the first place. Prop 8 basically revised the state constitution by removing all protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation... that's not a minor amendment; it's a total revision of what the constitution stands for.

 

We can thank our knee-jerk initiative process here, where any dumb idea with enough signatures can be put on the ballot first, then marched into court later.

 

Prop 8 is nothing more than instituionalized legal discrimination. It's just plain wrong.

[Gfted1]

California Supreme Court upholds gay marriage ban

 

May 26, 1:09 PM (ET)

 

By LISA LEFF

 

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - The California Supreme Court has upheld a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, but it also decided that the estimated 18,000 gay couples who tied the knot before the law took effect will stay wed.

 

The decision Tuesday rejected an argument by gay rights activists that the ban revised the California constitution's equal protection clause to such a dramatic degree that it first needed the Legislature's approval.

 

The announcement of the decision caused outcry among a sea of demonstrators who had gathered in front of the San Francisco courthouse awaiting the ruling.

 

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

 

 

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - The nation's most populous state stood poised to recapture the spotlight in the debate over gay marriage as California's highest court prepared to rule on the legality of a voter-approved ban on same-sex unions.

 

The California Supreme Court planned to hand down its decision Tuesday in a series of lawsuits seeking to overturn November's Proposition 8. Gay rights advocates maintain the ballot measure so dramatically revised the state constitution's equal protection clause that it needed the Legislature's approval before it could be put to voters.

 

If the seven-member court upholds the initiative as a constitutional expression of the electorate's will, it also will be deciding whether to sustain the marriages of an estimated 18,000 gay couples who wed before the measure passed with 52 percent of the vote.

 

Proposition 8 superseded the Supreme Court's May 2008 ruling that legalized same-sex unions by changing the state constitution to outlaw them. In that 4-3 decision, the court majority invalidated California's marriage statutes, holding that denying same-sex couples the right to wed amounted to state-sanctioned discrimination.

 

But based on the skeptical questions raised during oral arguments, legal experts have doubted the same four justices would undermine California's powerful citizen initiative process by invalidating the new ban.

 

Since that March hearing, however, three other states - Iowa, Maine and Vermont - have joined Massachusetts and Connecticut in making same-sex marriage legal. The trend has offered gay rights advocates hope that the court might elect to make California the sixth state to extend marriage to gays and lesbians.

 

"Many of us are heading into Tuesday filled with both hope and determination," said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. "And we need to be clear that regardless of how the court rules, we will need both for whatever the next steps are."

 

Gay rights advocates have scheduled marches throughout California and in several other states for Tuesday evening. Organizers say the gatherings will be celebratory if the court rules in their favor and angry if Proposition 8 is upheld.

 

Activists in the San Francisco Bay area, including several clergy members, said they planned to block the street outside the courthouse and to be arrested in a mass show of civil disobedience if the justices do not invalidate the measure.

 

"Words are not enough right now. We believe it's time to put our bodies on the line to show that separate is not equal," said Kip Williams, an activist with One Struggle, One Fight, a group that was launched in response to Proposition 8's passage.

 

In tense anticipation of the news to come, about 400 same-sex marriage supporters attended an interfaith prayer service held Monday night at San Francisco's Episcopal Grace Cathedral.

 

The Rev. Roland Stringfellow, with the Pacific School of Religion, said the service was meant to show how many communities of faith stand with gay couples on this issue. Among those to offer prayers were a Sikh mother, a Buddhist nun, a Jewish rabbi and Episcopal Bishop Marc Andrus.

 

Proposition 8's supporters, meanwhile, have not planned any organized events to accompany the decision. If a court majority invalidates the measure, angry voters would funnel their energy into unseating the justices who went along with the decision, predicted Frank Schubert, who managed the successful Yes on 8 campaign.

 

"If the court were to go as far as throwing it out, saying the people do not have the power to amend their constitution, then they are going to have to ultimately answer to the people," Schubert said.

 

One couple who will be anxiously awaiting the ruling are Karen Strauss and Ruth Borenstein, the lead plaintiffs in one of the lawsuits challenging Proposition 8.

 

The two women, partners for 17 years, had wanted to marry in the presence of their parents, who live in Florida. But Strauss' 84-year-old mother is dying of cancer, and they now realize she won't live long enough to attend their dream wedding no matter what.

 

"People who don't know us, who have nothing to lose by our decisions, had the opportunity to decide for us this most private and personal decision," said Strauss, 51, who will be across the country at her mother's bedside when the decision comes down. "That is a personally painful position to be in, whichever way it goes."

 

Huh, for once the California Supreme Court actually honors the will of its residents. Sucks for the gay people though.

Edited May 26, 2009 by Gfted1

[Walsingham]

I don't want to presume too much upon your opinion, but the purpose of an appeal court is to rule on the legal coherence, not policy.

 

To my untutored eye it looks like the court made an error in this duty. If the constitution - the higher legal document - states that all are equal whatever the gender orientation, then an inferior document cannot supercede it as it has here. The people are perfectly within their rights to amend the constitution and THEN pass a law banning same sex marriage, but not until then. But I guess that would require people to face up to the rather unsavoury suggestion that gay people aren't people like us. Not really. It's either hypocrisy, bigotry, or simple laziness to do otherwise.

[Gfted1]

Heh, like a lot of things I sometimes lose sight of the "little" things while looking at the "bigger" picture. Several years ago the people of California voted similarly and were consequently overridden by the courts. That irritates me to no end. I dont have a horse in this race, I was far more interested in how they were going to spin overriding the actual State Constitution if it would have come to that.

[Walsingham]

I would certainly agree that there apears to have been a worrying trend over the years for appellate courts to refine constitutions to the point where they are effectively creating policy. I'm not an expert on US politics, but my feeling is that this trend has been exaggerated by the appointing authorities trying to pack the judging panels with partisan appointees. If it isn't that, it may be simply that the system itself is flawed. Maybe circuit courts should have the power, and use the power to refer a case back to the legislature at the appropriate level. Of course THEN you'd have a speed bump in the checks and balances, where there should be a gate.

[Jaesun]

Prop 8 is nothing more than instituionalized legal discrimination. It's just plain wrong.

 

This. It is really sad.

 

Just imagine if the Civil Right's Bill were put to a vote by the People. That would have went over well.

[Walsingham]

Woah. Lets' be clear. It's a democracy. So, like I say, if people want to be up front and say they don't think gay people have the same protection under law as anyone else then that's their right. But they have to be clear.

 

I personally think that would be a repellent notion, but that would be coherent. This doesn't seem to me to be coherent. Which makes it stupid on two levels.

 

EDIT: I nearly forgot. I am however, opposed to the notion of marriage. It seems to me to be a strange and mainly unworkable arrangement to enter into. I think the divorce stats back me up on this. In almost every other contractual area of life we have witnessed a trend towards shorter more flexible commitments. Committing to a lifetime was hard enough in biblical times. Doing it in an era of career obsolescence, lifespans in the 80s not uncommon, and global environmental shifts - not to mention children who grow up to be total bastards - is sheer lunacy.

 

So I'm not saying gay people are missing out.

Edited May 26, 2009 by Walsingham

[Killian Kalthorne]

I am still kind of in shock that California discriminates while Iowa is more accepting of others. Iowa tends to be more conservative than California until very recently.

[Walsingham]

I like to think of Iowans as being more phlegmatic, like the British used to be. Just because you're slow to adapt doesn't mean you refuse to. Slow and steady. Once it emerged that being gay didn't cause more tornadoes or flooding (surely you've had less in the last ten years of heretical acceptance) I reckon they were fine.

[Hell Kitty]

If only those silly gays didn't believe in marriage, this totally wouldn't be an issue.

[Aristes]

The 6-1 ruling underscores something I've said all along. The ballot initiative has run amock in California. The justices wisely upheld the law because they deemed that, whether the constitution should be so easy to ammend, the established law makes it so.

 

Now, I think this issue is not finished. It might be a better turn of events than some folks realize. Look at it this way, if the only thing allowing homosexuals the right to vote was the Supreme Court overturning an honest to God constitutional ammendment, there would be a hue and cry like no other. ...And California has already suffered from hubris and foolery already.

 

Instead, craft a proposal that legitimizes civil gay marriages but does not penalize individual churches for refusing to perform the ceremony. I bet that will cut the legs out from under the coalitoin that currently opposes gay marriages.

[Killian Kalthorne]

I like to think of Iowans as being more phlegmatic, like the British used to be. Just because you're slow to adapt doesn't mean you refuse to. Slow and steady. Once it emerged that being gay didn't cause more tornadoes or flooding (surely you've had less in the last ten years of heretical acceptance) I reckon they were fine.

Funny you would bring up floods and tornadoes for in the last two years we have had plenty.

[Humodour]

I like to think of Iowans as being more phlegmatic, like the British used to be. Just because you're slow to adapt doesn't mean you refuse to. Slow and steady. Once it emerged that being gay didn't cause more tornadoes or flooding (surely you've had less in the last ten years of heretical acceptance) I reckon they were fine.

Funny you would bring up floods and tornadoes for in the last two years we have had plenty.

 

I think Australian did something wrong last year because God's really punishing us this year.

[Pidesco]

I like to think of Iowans as being more phlegmatic, like the British used to be. Just because you're slow to adapt doesn't mean you refuse to. Slow and steady. Once it emerged that being gay didn't cause more tornadoes or flooding (surely you've had less in the last ten years of heretical acceptance) I reckon they were fine.

Funny you would bring up floods and tornadoes for in the last two years we have had plenty.

 

I think Australian did something wrong last year because God's really punishing us this year.

 

"VEGEMITE"

[Humodour]

I like to think of Iowans as being more phlegmatic, like the British used to be. Just because you're slow to adapt doesn't mean you refuse to. Slow and steady. Once it emerged that being gay didn't cause more tornadoes or flooding (surely you've had less in the last ten years of heretical acceptance) I reckon they were fine.

Funny you would bring up floods and tornadoes for in the last two years we have had plenty.

 

I think Australian did something wrong last year because God's really punishing us this year.

 

"VEGEMITE"

 

Is delicious. In fact, I'm going to make some toast right now. Thanks for the idea.

[HoonDing]

God has no reason to punish my country for allowing gay marriage as marriage here is foremost considered a legal union, not a religious one.

 

Then again, we did have a 'storm of the century' a few days back, with hailstones as big as tennis balls.

Edited May 27, 2009 by virumor

[Humodour]

Then again, we did have a 'storm of the century' a few days back, with hailstones as big as tennis balls.

 

Oh, we get those every year.

[deleteduser]

This photo I took at the Santa Ana protest last night pretty much sums it up.

 

[Fionavar]

Indeed Mustang - thanks for sharing this. It is a good reminder of the work that remains to be done.

[kirottu]

*pic snip*

 

Hmm, I

[Walsingham]

My sign would have read : "Equal rights under law [not equal to sign] different rights to marriage"

 

and my sign would suck.

[Calax]

meh, I think if they take this to the SCOTUS they have a good chance of shooting it down.

 

But politically I think the concervatives have just killed their power base with this because they overstepped.

Edited May 28, 2009 by Calax

[Aristes]

I disagree on both points. There's no guarantee that the SCOTUS will consider this issue. ...And I don't think it's in the best interest of the activist groups for the SCOTUS to do so. Oh, don't get me wrong, it would be if the issue were certain. The SCOTUS is the final word. It has the gravitas that state courts simply lack. However, there is no certainty that the decision would fall the way the activists want, and that gravitas cuts both ways, no?

 

Finally, I don't think social convservatives need to worry based on the popular unrest. The homosexual groups threw everything they had into this issue both times and lost. Now, I know my views on this are unpopular. I think homosexuals should have the right to marry. After all, why should I want to deny homosexuals the right to do something when that right doesn't hurt me personally or cause harm to society. However, society does have the right to decide the issue. ...And they have. Twice.

 

If, on the other hand, homosexual groups can find ways to draw off voters, they can do something much better than win in court. They can make a counterproposal that explicitly allows gay marriage. Won't that victory be much sweeter? ...And it has the added advantage of not promoting the encroachment of the judiciary into legislative power.

[Hell Kitty]

I don't think society should have the right to decide the issue, when the issue is denying rights.