Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Cal. Supreme Court agrees to hear Prop 8 case
11.19.2008 7:15pm EST
(San Francisco, California) California’s highest court agreed Wednesday to hear several legal challenges to the state’s new ban on same-sex marriage but refused to allow gay couples to resume marrying before it rules.
The California Supreme Court accepted three lawsuits seeking to nullify Proposition 8, a voter-approved constitutional amendment that overruled the court’s decision in May that legalized gay marriage.All three cases claim the measure abridges the civil rights of a vulnerable minority group. They argue that voters alone did not have the authority to enact such a significant constitutional change.
As is its custom when it takes up cases, the court did not elaborate on its decision.
Along with the gay rights groups and local governments petitioning to overturn the ban, the measure’s sponsors and Attorney General Jerry Brown had urged the Supreme Court to consider whether Proposition 8 passes legal muster.
The court directed Brown and lawyers for the Yes on 8 campaign to submit their arguments for why the ballot initiative should not be nullified by Dec. 19. It said lawyers for the plaintiffs, who include same-sex couples who did not wed before the election, must respond before Jan. 5. Oral arguments could be scheduled as early as March, according to court spokeswoman Lynn Holton.
Both opponents and supporters of Proposition 8 expressed confidence Wednesday that their arguments would prevail.
But they also agreed that the cases present the court’s seven justices – six of whom voted to review the challenges – with complex questions that have few precedents in state case law.
Massachusetts got it right, nothing less than full marriage is equal. Connecticut came to the same conclusion after three years of civil unions. New Jersey also has determined civil unions are not equal to marriage, but has yet to address the issue.
For those who don’t believe Massachusetts was right, just remember the American Revolution started in Massachusetts. Think they didn’t get that right?
Doesn’t the fact that the court accepted the cases already signal something? Didn’t they refuse the take up the case about the Prop being a change rather than an amendment PRIOR to the election?
They should
ALL WE CAN DO IS STAY ACTIVE, KEEP UP THE FIGHT, AND HOLD OUR BREATH FOR MONTHS AND MONTHS. MEANWHILE, MY HUSBAND AND I WILL PROBABLY HAVE OUR FIRST ANNIVERSARY BEFORE THE COURT GIVES US AN ANSWER. GRIND ON GAY BROTHERS & SISTERS!
I’m not sure I’d read the expedited timeline as a good sign. Remember, the original marriage case was decided 4 to 3. So, with the passage of Prop. 8, the three anti-gay judges might be eager to take the case because they smell blood in the water.
If you look at the more detailed analysis of this from the San Francisco Chronicle, the fact that the lone vote AGAINST hearing this challenge came from one of the “gang of four” that legalized same-sex marriage in the first place is a rather ominous sign as well.
I think it maybe time to forget about California and move this fight to the Northeast, where the political climate is more receptive and there are no voter initiated referendums (i.e. ballot measures must be approved by the legislature first).
If the courts rule for the proponent of Prop8, then the CSC will rule itself as useless. They will not have any power in the future to make any decision that cannot be overcome by the people, no matter the law and no matter the ill-conceived amendment (or revision) to the California Constitution.
If the judges are not the final arbiters of a situation (in this case, a very bad decision by the people), then there will always be back and forth resolutions to add and remove some perhaps even more devastating decision.
The court must maintain its hold on its finality of a decision, else they are useless, and have been castrated to be nothing, except maybe a rubber stamp to the legislature and eventually, the people.
Our republic is doomed if they do not rule to keep their power and against the people’s evil vote. How else can a “tyranny of the majority” be abbreviated if not by some sane judges?
It speaks volumes. They refused to take the case before the election because at that point no constitutional rights had been stripped. Now they have. I am no constitutional expert but I feel very positive.
Keeping 8 will turn the Cal. judiciary into a joke. It will cost the state more prestige than money, but money will follow prestige. For example, California puts up state funds for research involving stem cells; if you’re a gay researcher and you can conduct research AND have your marriage respected, then why go to Berkeley, Stanford or UCLA if you get more at Yale, Harvard or MIT? The New England schools can offer more, and there’s the underlying respect for private lives that Prop 8 violates. (A consideration like this wouldn’t matter in Arkansas, where the big interest is in using dinosaur tallow to provide light to read that Jing James bible.)
There’s no doubt that gay couples will eventually be able to marry across the US, and have Federal recognition. It might be another 30 years, it could be much sooner, but it’ll happen. The 8 fight is offensive because it’s fighting to justify something we already had. If the Court upholds 8, I look forward to every faction coming out from under the rocks and causing all the chaos they can in the Golden State. I may be in a shitty flyover state, but at least I already knew where I stood. Guess we’re not such backward hicks are we now, huh West Hollywood and Silverlake? Welcome to our reality, and learn how to suck it up. Though I hate 8, there is that part of me that’s kinda glad that oh-so-self-righteous California has proven itself just as bigoted as Ohio or Virginia.
‘Our republic is doomed if they do not rule to keep their power and against the people’s evil vote. How else can a “tyranny of the majority” be abbreviated if not by some sane judges?’
Well, I think that’s highly dramatic. The courts are NEVER the final arbitrators. Constitutions can be amended or revised if enough people want it to be. Judges have to follow the constitution. They are not kings, afterall.
If the Nepalese court can get it right about same sex marriage, then why can’t all of the United States? Not just California. It seems that we are falling behind the rest of the world.
Drewski, don’t ever confuse California with fly-over country. California is so much less bigoted than all those wretched red states in the “heartland” of America.
This wrong will be righted soon enough. The Supreme Court of CA will overturn Prop 8, trust me. Read the original decision declaring the denial of same sex marriage unconstitutional. It speaks to much more than just marriage. It is sublime in it’s eloquence. And they quite directly address the court’s position if Prop 8 were to pass.
I don’t live in West Hollywood nor Silver Lake, nor San Francisco.
My husband and I, (I love the sound of that) live in South Pasadena, about 7 miles North of Downtown Los Angeles. This town voted 65% NO, to 35% YES on Prop 8.
We can walk down the streets holding hands and no one blinks an eye. Everyone says hello. Who lives here? Mostly straight families with lots of children.
We don’t live in your reality and never will so we don’t have to suck it up. All we have to do is work a little harder. Victory will be ours. We will not accept defeat.
John – you are missing a crucial point. There is no need to give up on California is spite of our ridiculous penchant for voting on everything.
The crux of the appeals to the CA Supreme Court is that there are 2 ways to change the state Constitution. By amendment and by revision. Amendment is reserved for minor things such as giving chickens the right to live in roomy accomodations.:) A constitutional revision is for issues of greater import such as taking away the constitutinal rights of one group exclusively. Please remember the Supreme court gave us the right to marry in June. And Prop 8 stripped that right. This obviously falls in the latter category. Constitutional revisions must first go through the legislature and pass with a super majority. That’s not going to happen – after all this legislature twice past legislation allowing same sex mariage, only to be vetoed by the Governor, who as of late seems to have become enlightened. If the Supreme Court invalidates Prop 8, whick I think they will, game over – we win. Read the original decision. They give their hand away when speaking of the possibility of Prop 8 passing.
I too am a little concerned that the lone vote against re-hearing the petition came from one of the 4 who voted in favor of marriage equality. However, maybe the lesbian on the court will reverse herself now that the court has decided there is a fundamental right to marriage.
I’m concerned at the push for expedited review. My ideal time line would be for a decision that harmonizes Prop 8 w/ Marriage Cases before the ruling on Prop 8 alone. The Court can abide by Prop 8 AND it’s prior ruling by removing the term Marriage from a legal context, and replace it with non-discriminatory Civil Unions, etc. That way Prop 8ers can have the term marriage, but they can’t apply it to the secular world. If this ruling came out in early 2010, a proposition on the 2010 ballot would pass to reverse Prop 8 to restore the term legal marriage, AND apply it to everyone. I agree, this is about the future relevance of the Cal Sup Ct.