Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Calif. lawmakers voice support for gay marriage
12.03.2008 3:10pm EST
(Sacramento, California) A resolution has been introduced in both the California Assembly and Senate to reaffirm support for same-sex marriage.
The measure is non-binding, but the symbolism in the wake of Proposition 8 is significant, LGBT rights leaders say.California voters last month agreed to void the state Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. The legality of the vote, however, is back in the hands of the court, which will hear arguments in the case early next year.
State Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), the first openly gay man elected to the California Senate, and State Assemblyman Tom Ammiano ( D-San Francisco) introduced concurrent resolutions that back up the legal arguments of Prop 8 opponents.
“While a proposed amendment to the California Constitution can be accomplished through the initiative process,” the resolution reads, “A proposed revision of the California Constitution must originate in the Legislature and must be approved by a two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature before being submitted to the electors.”
Proposition 8 passed with a slim 52 percent majority. Following the election three challenges to the vote were filed by LGBT rights groups.
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.
The justices said in addition to hearing arguments on the validity of the vote, it wants to address what effect, if any, a ruling upholding the amendment would have on the estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages that were sanctioned in California before Election Day.
The justices directed Attorney General Jerry Brown and lawyers for the Yes on 8 campaign to submit arguments by Dec. 19 on why the ballot initiative should not be nullified. 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, but a ruling would not be likely for months after that.
The past two sessions of the legislature saw the passage of bills that would permit same-sex marriage. In both cases the bills were vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) who said the issue should be left to either the courts or voters. Schwarzenegger, however, campaigned against passage of Prop 8.
The issue of same-sex marriage in California dates back to 2004 when San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Some 8,000 couples exchanged vows before the state Supreme Court ruled Newsom had acted illegally.
The court nullified the marriages, but said its ruling dealt only with Newsom’s actions. The justices said at the time the question of whether barring same-sex couples from marrying violated the state’s equal protection clause of its constitution was a separate matter.
Legal challenges on the constitutional question were begun almost immediately. Three separate suits ultimately were wrapped together into a single case.
In March 2005, a Superior Court judge in San Francisco ruled that the law denying same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.
“It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners,” County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer said in a written ruling.
In striking down the state ban on same-sex marriage, Kramer wrote that the state’s historical definition of marriage, by itself, cannot justify the denial of equal protection for gays and lesbians.
Kramer stayed his ruling while the state appealed.
In October, 2006, the California Court of Appeal in a split decision overturned Kramer’s ruling. In May the state Supreme Court upheld the appeal court ruling and thousands of same-sex couples began marrying.
If you want to support these resolutions…go to
eqca.org/actioncenter. You can send supportive letters to all California legislators.
I’m no legal expert, can’t marriage equality supporters gather enough signatures to put a measure overturning Prop. 8 in the next election cycle (which would be 2010), since it appears that amending the California constitution needs just a 50.1% majority? Wouldn’t focusing on winning the hearts and minds of California voters by campaigning hard the next 2 years be better than having the court overrule Prop. 8 and given the far right more ammunition for its case against “activist courts”?
“The issue of same-sex marriage in California dates back to 2004 when San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.”
Get real folks, the issue of same sex marriage goes back AT LEAST to 1969 when Rev. Troy Perry started performing “Holy Unions” in the MCC…long before the 2004 marriages in San Francisco.
Funny that the term “activist judges” emerged during the Bush Administration. I never heard these two words put together before this time. When I think about this term I am reminded of something I once read on a poster: “What is popular is not always correct. What is correct is not always popular.” Courts are not meant to make decisions based upon popularity. They are supposed to make decisions based upon careful interpretations of the constitution. Trying to win the hearts and minds of voters will put in in the back of a very long, slow moving line. I’ve been hearing about Prop. 8 for some time but live in the state of Florida where Amendment 2 (to our state constitution) blasted Gay marriage into the stone age. That amendment came from the heart and mind of many Florida voters. In the march for equality, appealing to voters is like riding in an 18th century wagon. Going through the court system would be like hoping a ride with the space shuttle. The courts would give our call for equality a sonic boom.
Judges and courts are only “activist” if the don’t agree with a Christian-conserative agenda. We need to overturn this Proposition any way we can.
DC,
Yeah it seems that way but then couldn’t it be voted out a again the next cycle afterward?
Doesn’t this seem kind of crazy that the constitution could be modified in a ping-pong fashion each election cycle to validate or invalidate gay marriages?
I think this is why the court really does have to rule on it. They already said it was unconstitutional to prevent gays from marrying, the parts of the constitution they used to determine that hasn’t changed and won’t change even if Prop 8 is added to the constitution, it will just create a constitution that has parts conflicting with itself.
Hey everyone,
Just curious. In this article it sayst that:
“While a proposed amendment to the California Constitution can be accomplished through the initiative process,” the resolution reads, “A proposed revision of the California Constitution must originate in the Legislature and must be approved by a two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature before being submitted to the electors.”
It doesn’t specifically say in the rest of the article if the two thirds of the legislature part was actually done.
Did the peopel who put together the Prop 8 to begin with somehow “skip” that part??
if so, then i guess that’s a VERY good case for striking the nasty thing down.
I’m for Australia, so don’t know much about how your government works.
Can someone advise??
Besf of luck to you all – the world is watching, beleive me!
I remember St. Ronald of Reagan being the first to use the term “activist judges.” And always in reference to what were perceived to be liberal rulings.
Andrew, there are two different ways to change the California constitution: through an amendment and through a revision. A revision must start in the Legislature, with the aforementioned 2/3 majority in both houses, before sent to the people for ratification. An amendment may be accomplished through a ballot initiative, which can be brought if a sufficient number of voters sign a petition to put it on the ballot. A constitutional amendment by voter initiative only needs 50% + 1 of the electorate to pass. One of the issues before the court is whether Prop 8 was an amendment, or whether the content was more properly characterized a revision, and therefore could not be achieved by ballot initiative.
I should point out that my explanation above is particular to California, and it should not be confused with the laws of Arizona, Florida, Mass., Conn., etc. Each state has its own peculiarities, as is the case in Oz.
To clarify for Andrew a bit.. there are two types of ‘amendments’ delineated for our state Constitution. The ‘basic’ one, that does not change any previous rights requires only a majority (50%+1)… some of our states require a supermajority…e.g. Florida..that is 60% +1..
However a ‘revisionary’ amendment that does change previous rights must first be ratified by 2/3 of the Legislature. The Court let this be voted on as a ‘basic’ amendment. The legal complaint we are making is that it is a change of rights and requires the 2/3. That case is due by Dec 19, to be heard by March and decided within 90 days from then.
My feeling about why these proposals were initiated is just to get a vote…sort of as a ‘friend of the court’ thing that even if they were asked to vote in a SSM ban they would not do it.
These hold NO LEGAL status… just voice consensus.
Anticipating Andrew’s next question, where was our AG, Jerry the Brown, with an opinion on Prop 8 before it was put to the ballot? P8 is classic Tyranny of the Majority, why no ruling or oversite that could have saved everyone $60 Mil?
I think the Supreme Court should take any concurrent resolution seriously, even though it is non-binding. It certainly raises important “separation of powers” issues. In effect, the California Legislature is asserting that only it has the competence to take away fundamental rights. And since a 2/3rd super-majority in both the Asembly and Senate is nearly impossible to achieve, one would imagine seasoned politicians being a little more deliberate and cautious than the electorate. Thus, lawmakers are arguing that the responsibility for such matters should rest with them rather than Joe the Plumber. Any so-called “amendment” to the constitution which modifies rights the citizenry already enjoys is, in fact, a “revision” by default.
What makes this proposition different from any of the other anti-gay constitutional amendment is that 18,000 couples had already tied the knot. This wasn’t just a vote to ban same-sex marriage in some hypothetical future that doesn’t exist yet. It was the stripping away of rights already conferred by the state. That makes this court case unprecedented. There’s no telling how it’ll end because there’s simply no case law on it.
The court could not rule on a hypothetical situation. All the legal wording had to be put in place to decide if Hate 8 was just an amendment or a revision.
The difference in the argument is marriage a ‘civil right’ If marriage is a ‘civil right’ then the constitution needs to be revised, requireing a revision that needs 2/3s of both houses to get the revision to the voters to approve.
The religious right is claiming marriage is available to every citizen, as long as you choose to marry a member of the opposite sex. But than again, marriage rights include two citizens. This is why you hear there is a difference between religious and civil marriage. The result could become that marriage has no protections in the constitution and therefore terminate all civil marriages. This is not likely to happen, but it could. The equal protection clause states that ALL are equally protected, whether single or married.
The continuous pushing by the right might just force the government from recognize any for of marriage to set all people equal.
My guess is that the legislature is doing this to get Same-Sex Marriage Legal again, and removing pressure from the courts. What I haven’t heard, is there any need for the Gubinator to sign off on this, and if he does, will he sign it or veto it?
hey ! its deja vu all over again !!
Maybe California ought to look into amending the law on percentages to win to increase the number needed to change the state constitution. Florida uses 60% and if that had been the case in Cali then gays would still be married.