The high court announced the pending opinion on its website Friday.

Prop 8 was passed by voters in November by a slim 52 percent. The initiative by conservative groups bans same-sex marriage in 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 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 L. 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 Aug. 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

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

As a lawyer there are certain things you are supposed to understand. First, your title lends a certain authority to everything you do or say publicly and so your actions should not bring the profession into disrepute. Second, you are an agent of the court and must, above all else, ensure that dishonesty does not enter the courtroom.

But, when a lawyer adopts an ideological position, signs on to unscientific studies about a minority group and then propagates those lies in the public forum, he has certainly brought the practice of law into disrepute.

There are many lawyers who are crusaders for social causes. In fact, some of the most heroic people I know work in legal clinics that serve underprivileged populations or take on constitutional challenges with the ACLU. But in doing so, it is important that the social cause not interfere with the obligation to be objective, committed to the rule of law and impartial during negotiations and advocacy. It might be a profession full of fighters, but it is most certainly always supposed to be a fair fight.

In the Proposition 8 hearings, Starr did not deviate from the truth. At least his oral arguments related mostly to precedents about revisions vs. amendments. However, the HRC reports that Starr has also made public statements about how gay relationships endanger children. This kind of misinformation is far from the objective and honest approach we should all expect from well respected advocates.

Starr may be an excellent oral advocate. And he is a lawyer who has significant power in the world of American politics. But he is also a liar. And that is something the legal profession should not tolerate.

Starr argued before the California Supreme Court to both uphold Proposition 8, which bans marriage between loving same sex couples, and to strike down the 18,000 marriages performed when marriage equality was legal in the state.

The petition drive was featured on EndtheLies.org, launched by the Human Rights Campaign to confront what HRC said are lies and distortions repeatedly used to defeat LGBT equality measures.

Starr has referred to the struggle for marriage equality as “seizing and hijacking the marriage relationship in order to achieve apartheid-type values.”

EndtheLies.org launched on March 5, the day of the California high court arguments.

“This kind of response to the lies repeatedly used to block our equality demonstrates that many Americans have had enough,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “Grassroots tools like EndtheLies.org will be critical to our community’s upcoming legislative battles, including passing the Matthew Shepard Act in 111th Congress.”

HRC also has added four new profiles to the interactive site: Colorado State Senator Scott Renfroe, right-wing radio personality Rush Limbaugh, GOP Chairman Michael Steele, and the Washington Values Alliance.

Renfroe gained notoriety when he compared homosexuality with murder during a legislative debate.

Limbaugh has repeatedly made anti-gay statements, including a comment accusing LGBT students of “trumpeting” their sexuality and “inviting dissent.”

Steele, who once chaired a political action committee urging the Republican Party to be more inclusive of LGBT people, has apparently abandoned those efforts and recently called civil unions “crazy.”

The Washington Values Alliance has been fighting a Washington State bill that would establish equal benefits for couples registered as domestic partners, including that children will not be safe in schools. The Alliance has argued the bill would make it illegal to speak against marriage for lesbian and gay couples.

EndtheLies.org features an interactive wall that includes videos, audio, pictures, and quotes from the anti-gay figures it highlights.

By clicking on the panels of the wall, users can access more information about those on the wall, watch videos, add comments on multimedia discussion boards, and learn how to take action to counteract their misdeeds.

Along with Ken Starr and the four new additions, the wall also features the American Family Association, elders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Oklahoma State Representative Sally Kern, and Utah State Senator Chris Buttars. Users can also nominate their own candidates for inclusion on the wall.

Valentine’s Day is evil. Oh sure, short fat Cupid is all smiles with his arrows and talk of love, but he is the spawn of Satan. And if you doubt, then you’ve not listened to Nina Simone’s “The Other Woman.”

Before I start my drinking binge to block out all the heart decorations (for some reason the only thing that makes the day bearable is all the chocolate candy), I’m going to spread the word about the Courage Campaign’s Fidelity video. Next month the California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on whether the 18,000 same sex marriages need to be voided because of the Prop 8 vote. The video is a montage of couples and families, with music by Regina Spektor. Now I know folk will take the Courage Campaign to task for a rather ham fisted way of making a point (hey there Joe!), but after watching it for a few times I’m willing to cut the Campaign some slack.

Mainly because the pictures are so bland and ordinary, like family photos are. Conservatives when they yammer about gay life like to make it some extraordinary thing removed from the mainstream (has anyone ever really explained what the heck “gay lifestyle” means?). They get in a tizzy every gay pride parade with the photos of drag queens or leather lesbians (this is Mr. Bill O’Reilly’s fav, and only, tactic). When you point to the doctors, lawyers, nurses, teachers, firefighters, police, stockbrokers, dock workers, who are in the same parade  the conservatives turn silent because their argument only works when we are “the freaks.”

The 18,000 couples are no freaks. So take your cranky selves over to the Courage Campaign’s site and add your John Hancock.

It wouldn’t be 2009 without a little noise from our friends on the social conservative side of the spectrum.

Ken Starr released a response yesterday to the California Attorney General’s submission to the Supreme Court on Proposition 8.

For those who are not legal junkies, the Attorney General submitted a brief back in December arguing many of the same points as legal counsel for the invalidation of Prop 8. However, he also argued that Prop 8 was invalid because it constrained the liberty rights (guaranteed in s. I of the California Constitution) without offering a compelling interest for doing so.

Well, it is a new way of looking at things – at least for this legal battle. And Starr, bless his soul, was quick to point that out. In a flowery-worded brief, the case for democracy was made. There was much talk about the power of the people, the rights of the majority to govern based on duly elected officials, the opposition to tyranny through democratic movements.

I mean, it sounded more like a communist theory of the people’s uprising than an attack on the rights of a minority group of citizens.

But where Ken Starr misses the point is not in his rhapsodizing about the virtues of democracy. I agree wholeheartedly with his notions of elections and accountability.

He just doesn’t understand what a Constitution is.

As any nation with a Constitution, the United States, each of them, create documents outlining the principles that should govern the enactment of laws by the elected government. They are instruments of limitation – establishing certain guidelines for the “will of the people.” The Attorney General merely points out that even subsequent amendments to the Constitution should not undo those guidelines already established. It’s a reliance on “natural law” or the idea that some kinds of rights are so fundamental to the fabric of society that they can’t be legislated away.

Constitutions are a check on the tyranny of the majority. Just like in the civil rights movement, courts may step in and find that the people are using their power in a way that contradicts the notions of liberty and equality and justice that underlie the basic law of the land.

But Starr feels that majority rule is the only game in town. And as such, the courts should trust the will of the people. He even asks, “What, then, of the Attorney General’s appeal to dark, conjectural fears that the people of California might someday use their initiative amendment power in tyrannical ways?”

Well on this one, both Starr and the AG have missed the boat. I’m pretty sure the people have already used this power they may or may not have had to seriously attack the dignity and freedom of a minority group in their midst. If this is not tyranny, I am hard pressed to find what is.