Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Calif. lawmakers urge court to overturn Prop 8
03.03.2009 10:40am EST
(Sacramento, California) The California House and Senate have approved resolutions calling on the state Supreme Court to declare Proposition 8 – the measure which bans same-sex marriage – illegal.
The joint resolutions use the argument put forward by LGBT groups fighting the voter passes proposition – that it is “an improper revision, not an amendment, of the California Constitution.”“In my mind, this is not a marriage issue, it’s a constitutional issue,” said Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco). The openly gay Ammiano shepherded two bills through the legislature that would have legalized same-sex marriage only to have them vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R).
At the time, the governor said the issue should be decided by the courts or the people.
Last May, the state Supreme Court upheld the appeal court ruling and thousands of same-sex couples began marrying.
Opponents of gay marriage immediately began collecting signatures for a ballot measure to overturn the ruling. In November, the measure was approved by 52 percent of voters. By that time, some 18,000 same-sex couples had wed.
The American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights immediately filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the vote. The high court will hear oral arguments in the case on Thursday.
The lawsuits charge that Proposition 8 is invalid because the initiative process was improperly used in an attempt to undo the constitution’s core commitment to equality for everyone, by eliminating a fundamental right from just one group – lesbian and gay Californians.
They also say that Proposition 8 improperly attempts to prevent the courts from exercising their essential constitutional role of protecting the equal protection rights of minorities. The suits say that under the California Constitution, such radical changes to the organizing principles of state government cannot be made by simple majority vote through the initiative process, but instead must, at a minimum, go through the state legislature first.
The California Constitution itself sets out two ways to alter the document that sets the most basic rules about how state government works, the groups said in a written brief to the court.
Through the initiative process, voters can make relatively small changes to the constitution. But any measure that would change the underlying principles of the constitution must first be approved by the legislature before being submitted to the voters. That didn’t happen with Proposition 8, and that’s why it’s invalid, the petitioners said.
In the legislature, opponents of the resolution said the body was overstepping its bounds by taking a position on an issue being heard in court.
“I believe if you travel down this path you will open Pandora’s Box,” said Assemblymember Chuck DeVore (R-Irvine). DeVore went on to argue that same-sex marriage would create a strong legal argument for polygamy.
The court has set aside three hours Thursday morning to hear the case. A ruling is expected within three months.
It’s really good to hear that people acted so quickly against Prop 8 to get it revoked. The passsing of Prop 8 really put a damper on election day but it’s wonderful to see that the majority of the Californian government is completly for changing it. I’m looking forward to hearing the Court’s decision on it.
But I absolutly love the argument against gay marriage. It will lead to polygamy? Really? I’m pansexual and last I checked I still only want to be with one other person. Just because I’m not straight doesn’t mean I want more than one partner at a time. I do know plenty of people of any sexuality who are not interested in a strictly monogamous relationship so that’s based on personality, not sexuality. Everyone’s different and I bet that I respect differences between people that more than the majority of people against gay marriage.
Schwartzenegger would like to to see gays have the right to marry, as I get the feeling that he just doesn’t see what all the fuss is about.
He pushed the issue on the courts shoulders because he is a calculated, political “girly-man” who didn’t want to have to alienate his national party and a large part of his GOP voting base.
Now that things are reaching the line in the sand on this issue, he’s finally speaking his true feelings.
As for the Polygamy thing…? I don’t get why this is supposed to motivate people.
Polygamy already exists in various forms. It’s all a matter of semantics. We have people who have been married to thirteen people, who at the same time, have had several litters of kids with other people they never bothered to marry and…?
Then you have those that have those living in the more traditional Polygamous ways. They’re already doing it. They’ve BEEN doing it. So what?
People who are going to live in a Polygamous family structure, ARE GOING TO DO SO regardless of legality and in my opinion, that is their right to do so, as long as everyone is of age and willingly consenting.
Politicians like to think that decriminalizing something is the same as making it popular or common. That’s simply not the case. Were Polygamy decriminalized, it wouldn’t create any more plural marriages than already exist in actuality. Politicians like to think that treating gays equally will result in great gobs of people jumping on the gay bandwagon who otherwise wouldn’t have.
It’s ALWAYS been LEGAL for an eighteen year old to marry a 60,70, 80 or 90 year old and it HAS happened. Is it common though? Is it popular?
When will people realize that mere legality is not synonamous with common or popular, so there’s nothing to fear by just getting off of some peoples backs!…
What I am curious about is if the Constitution of the USA specifically states that congress can make no law in regard to any religion, why is this even being disputed in the first place??? The religious right uses the crazy notion that allowing same-sex marriage would threaten the sanctity of marriage as it is now. If that is such a sincere issue, then why aren’t they standing in the legal arena calling for 100% bans on divorce?? If you don’t personally approve of same-sex marriage–then don’t have one!! Leave everyone to make their own decisions!!
The whole thing brings up some memories of the end of apartheid in South Africa. The system was obviously unsustainable, but there were those who fought til the last to keep on doing something they knew was about to end. Also reminds me of the reforms in East Germany shortly before it imploded. People who crave power are very often scared people. When playing dirty, or rigging the system in their own favor, they prove that they can’t engage in an honest and open debate. When those people are cornered, they can’t back down–their fear pushes them to a more isolated and extreme end.
The Court may well be concerned about voter backlash, but upholding the validity of Prop 8 does far worse things. It attacks the notion of a socially liberal California. California relies on the value of that image to sell itself, like Florida and sunshine. Allowing Prop 8 to stand sets the stage for racist and anti-immigrant campaigns. In tough economic times especially, it’s too easy for someone with money to start pushing hate like that and see success.
I hope everyone heard our bible banging evangelicals state that they will initiate recall proceedings against any of the justices who vote against Prop 8. One would hope that HRC and the other organizations would very loudly make it very clear that if any such attempt is made to recall any justice they will initiate a campaign to defeat the attempt at the polls. Our justices need to hear this!!
I agree with the logic behind this case, regardless of the issue at hand. Let’s hope it works out.
http://stuffqueerpeopleneedtoknow.wordpress.com/
@ FRANKLY:
Engage brain before typing.
The CA Legislature has TWICE passed marriage equality bills (as stated in the article), only to have them vetoed by the Governator, who NOW says he SUPPORTS overturning Prop Hate, if you want to talk about Johnny-Come-Lately.
Oh well said Ginelle, including: ” What has happened with the passing of Proposition 8 in the State of California is a travesty of justice and if anything the people and groups, religious and otherwise, who were behind it’s passage, should feel great shame and remorse for their gang mentality in seeing this awful proposition through”
They do, all the people talked to before the election, still blather the same ‘reasons’ but noting how it has devastated the state, do feel remorse now. But as we are pushing them more and more into the corner, they are just digging in.
I do hope our Court continues in its brave way. I can’t wait to hear Jerry Brown on THURSDAY, and Minter!
A Democracy is for the rights of ALL people – to pit the rights of a majority against the rights of a minority should not and must not happen if a State or a Country is to retain it’s status as a Democracy. What has happened with the passing of Proposition 8 in the State of California is a travesty of justice and if anything the people and groups, religious and otherwise, who were behind it’s passage, should feel great shame and remorse for their gang mentality in seeing this awful proposition through. One can only hope that the wisdom and serious thought of the lawmakers and judges, will prevail by correcting this terrible injustice to the California Constitution and to the rights of ALL people of California.
Wow this is GREAT NEWS. As for missy Devore from behind the ORANGE curtain, You should want polygamy, Cause that would be tradtional marriage Old Testament Style. They just do not get it that all we want is the same thing they have. NO I DO NOT WANT To MARRY MY DOG. I just same legal rights with my Husband, I have been with for the last 14 years, as newly married strait people have.
Tom in Long Beach
it is a given that even if any rights bill passes in any state-the religious right is there to file against it !-no matter what the right or cause. the courts grant us our rights and the church tries their best (using their bible teachings ) to take them away.
““I believe if you travel down this path you will open Pandora’s Box,” said Assemblymember Chuck DeVore (R-Irvine). DeVore went on to argue that same-sex marriage would create a strong legal argument for polygamy.”
OR, it could lead down the path to legalized marriage to “animals or children” – said would-be Prezident Mike Hucklebee.
OR, it could lead to marriage to bicycles or dead people.
Such valid ‘arguments’ from the ‘right’.
Too bad stoopid isn’t illegal.
I love Johnny or Jane come lately’s. They try to seem in support of something after the fact thus gaining political support from the community.
With the legislature, the governor, the attorney general,etc. against the outcome of prop 8, I don’t think it has a snowball’s chance of being supported by the supreme court, but who knows. We need to be prepared to protest like hell if the court rules against marriage equality.
Polygamy, isn’t that something straight Mormon men used to engage in the last couple of centuries? Having harems of women for each man?
What a decrepit arguament against marriage equality. On top of that most gay and straight people have emotional, sexual and physical energy for just one other person at a time.