Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Excruciating Wait For Prop 8 Ruling
05.22.2009 11:31am EDT
(San Francisco, California) For thousands of same-sex couples the wait for the California Supreme Court to issue its long awaited ruling on the constitutionality of Proposition 8 is excruciating.
Several dozen couples turned up at the court Thursday morning after the blogosphere erupted with rumors and speculation the decision would be coming down.The court has a 90-day self-imposed turnaround rule in issuing rulings after oral arguments in a case are heard. Rulings are handed down on Mondays and Thursdays.
That leaves just three more days for the court to issue its decision. With the Memorial Day holiday on Monday, rulings scheduled for that day will be released on Tuesday, or the decision could come on Thursday. The final day under the rule would be June 1.
Prop 8 was passed by voters in November by a slim 52 percent. The initiative by conservative groups bans same-sex marriage in the state.
The American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights immediately filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the vote. They were joined by additional suits by the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles and a legal opinion by California Attorney General Jerry Brown.
The Supreme Court heard the case on March 5.
For the court there are three issues to be determined: Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution?; Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution?; and If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?
Arguing for the litigants was Shannon Minter, the NCLR attorney who earlier successfully argued the gay marriage case before the high court.
Minter told the court that Prop 8 should be ruled invalid because the initiative process was improperly used in an attempt to undo the constitution’s core commitment to equality for everyone.
He also argued that Proposition 8 improperly attempted to prevent the courts from exercising their essential constitutional role of protecting the equal protection rights of minorities.
Minter said that under the California Constitution, such radical changes to the organizing principles of state government cannot be made by a simple majority vote through the initiative process, but instead must, at a minimum, go through the state legislature first.
The California Constitution establishes two ways that it can be altered. A substantial change to the principles or basic structure of the constitution, called a “revision,” requires the involvement of the legislature and a more deliberative process. A less substantial change, called an “amendment,” can be enacted by a simple majority vote of the people.
The California Supreme Court should strike down Proposition 8 because it is, in fact, a revision, Minter argued.
The principle of equal protection, which prevents the majority from oppressing minority groups, is central to our constitution and our democratic system of government. Proposition 8 would limit that fundamental principle of equality for LGBT Californians and undermine the very purpose of equal protection for everybody he told the court.
Attorney Christopher Krueger, representing California Attorney General Jerry Brown, told the court his office disagreed with Minter’s argument that Prop 8 was an improper revision of the constitution. But Krueger said the measure should still be struck down.
Krueger argued that Prop 8 was unconstitutional because it conflicted with an “inalienable right” to liberty that the state Supreme Court found last year included the right of same-sex couples to marry.
Representing the conservative groups behind Prop 8 was Kenneth Starr who led the inquiry into President Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky.
Starr argued that the will of the people must be respected by the court saying the groups challenging Prop 8 wanted the court to ignore “inalienable right” of the people to change the constitution.
“The people do have the raw power to define the rights,” Starr told the court. “We govern ourselves – and we may govern ourselves unwisely.”
He also argued that the measure also invalidated the 18,000 same-sex marriages between the time gay marriage was declared legal and voters went to the polls in November.
Two separate groups are not taking any chances should the court fail to overturn Prop 8 and are preparing voter measures to overturn it in 2010.
The California Secretary of State has given the group Yes on Equality until August 17 to collect the nearly 700,000 signatures needed to qualify its initiative for the 2010 ballot. It would ask voters to repeal Prop 8. The other, by two college students, would strike the word “marriage” from all state laws.
©365Gay.com 2009
its just in the high court just said they will rule on prop in on tuesday.
R & R, I understand your anger. In fact, I share it. But attacking entire demographic groups is not the answer. Many churches campaigned against Prop 8. What good would it do to attack a unitarian church that refuses to perform hetero marriages until everyone can marry? Or any of the churches that just staged a rally for LGBT rights?
You mean JUNE 1. NOT “JULY” 1. Do your proofreading and fact-checking before you publish! See you in the streets either way–either celebrating or protesting and then working like hell to make sure there’s never another Prop 8 to strip anyone else’s rights. Combined with our budget mess, It seems California needs a new constitution. The problem is…who will get to write it and can we get it ratified?
Oh, I didn’t even read the blog…BUT IT HAS BEEN ANNOUNCED..the Day of Decision if Tuesday, May 26.
See the Day of Deicision site for more details.
Tie a white ribbon to everything you see on TUESDAY!
If anyone is going to put a torch to anything why not start with the nearest church?
Thanks for this Brandy… re: HARVEY MILK Day… but there is a CELEBRATION with Birthday Cake and milk…taking place on the NORTH Steps of the Sacramento Capitol starting in 20 minutes.
Assmn. Leno and others will talk.
I so agree with this… “A champion of hope and civil rights for those of sexual minorities, Harvey Milk was one of the most prominent individuals in the entire history of the gay rights movement.”
But Gavin and Chicken Seven have supplanted anything positive we can do today.
The simple message is this: if 8 is upheld, in any way, then ANY state recognition of ANY minority which goes beyond the Federal Constitution can be wiped out. Don’t think that people like Ken Starr haven’t already considered this.
It’s not about marriage. It’s about full institutional marginalization, the right-winger’s dream.
Also note that, should the Court uphold 8, that action all but destroys the credibility of any of those justices. How is something wrong on Monday but then OK on Thursday? If it becomes OK because of political expediency, then it’s up to gays across the country to make sure that these justices are not only recalled, but that their credibility as legal scholars be questioned until they’re professionally isolated and ostracized.
This fight is only the beginning in California. Said it before, I’ll say it again: California has made a lot of money trading off its social liberalism. Infringe on that in a public way, and there’s no predicting the consequences. Upholding 8 runs the very real risk of chasing some of the best and brightest out of the state, at a time when California is in a deep economic crisis.
It’s sad to say this, but if 8 is upheld, it may be that massive riots (like the aftermath of the Rodney King trial) are the only way to put the right-wingers in check. Specifically, I wouldn’t be surprised to see some angry people printing off lists of pro-8 donors, and putting the torch to their businesses. This is the consequence of justice denied, and if the judges uphold 8, then any civil unrest is squarely on them.
I bet if it is upheld and it goes to through another voters referendum that the people of CA will vote to remove marriage from all laws all together rather than give us our equal rights. My hypothesis is that they would rather uphold their bigotry than share their privileges and special rights.
No mention of Havey Milk’s birthday today anywhere on this website?
Harvey Bernard Milk (22 May 1930 – 27 November 1978) was an American politician and gay rights activist, and the first openly gay city supervisor of San Francisco, California. He was, according to Time magazine, “the first openly gay man elected to any substantial political office in the history of the planet.”
As the “Mayor of Castro Street,” he was active during a time of substantial change in San Francisco politics and increasing visibility of gay and lesbian people in American society. He was assassinated in 1978, along with Mayor George Moscone, by then recently resigned city supervisor Dan White making him a LGBT community “martyr”. White’s relatively mild sentence for the murders led to the White Night Riots, and eventually the abolition of diminished capacity defense in California.
A champion of hope and civil rights for those of sexual minorities, Harvey Milk was one of the most prominent individuals in the entire history of the gay rights movement. Yet, there is no memorial in his honor, no day celebrating his life and legacy, nothing beyond a whisper of hope and a bronze plaque on Castro St.
Everyone needs to come out for Day of Decision!
http://www.dayofdecision.com/
“‘The people do have the raw power to define the rights,’ Starr told the court. ‘We govern ourselves – and we may govern ourselves unwisely.’”
This isn’t about people governing themselves. It’s about one group of people governing another by taking advantage of their larger numbers. That’s a fundamental violation of democratic principals reflected in the California constitution.
The court just announced that it will be issuing a written opinion on the the three cases challenging the constitutionality of the California Proposition 8 on Tuesday, May 26.
I watched the argument and the court telegraphed fairly clearly its intent to uphold prop 8, although it also appeared that the existing marriages would likely not be invalidated.
We still have a lot of work to do, no matter which way they decide.
I sure hope they decide the majority can’t change the constitution just to impose a religious belief on a minority. Then we can move on to repeal of DADT, which mandates discrimination and teaches prejudice, repeal of DOMA, and passing Matthew Shepard hate crimes act, and getting rid of those evil laws that restrict adoption rights. But either way, we will still have a long way to go to educate the general public and convince them that we deserve equal rights under the law.
It seems that the Supreme Court of California should stike down Proposition 8 based upon it being a revision of the State Constitution and not merely an ammendment. I belieive that this is so because the Supreme Court had ruled that same sex marriages could NOT be denied according to thier interpretation of the (then) current constitution. To take away the rights granted is in effect a drastic revision of the contitution. If an amendment banning same sex marriage was duly added to the Constitution prior to the decision the Supreme Court may not have been able to render their pro same sex marriage decision.
The Supreme Court may render a mixed bag verdict. Itmay declare that Proposition 8 is effectively a revision since it takes away rights already deemed granted by the Constitution. They may stay their decision to allow for a vote for a revision to the Contitution. They are likely to rulle that the 18,000 same sex marriages are valid.