The California Supreme Court plans to announce its decision on the legality of Proposition 8 at 10 a.m. Tuesday morning.
San Jose Mercury News
Posted: 05/22/2009 10:36:11 AM PDT
Updated: 05/22/2009 10:43:54 AM PDT
Proposition 8 restored the state's ban on same-sex marriage.
The Supreme Court heard arguments in March from both sides in the legal fight over Proposition 8, which voters in November approved by 52 to 48 percent and confines marriage to heterosexual couples. The justices last May, in a sharply divided 4-3 ruling, struck down California's prior ban on gay marriage, prompting the ballot measure in the fall.
A number of local governments, including San Francisco and Santa Clara County, challenged Proposition 8, along with civil rights organizations and same-sex couples seeking the equal right to marry. They maintain the measure was an improper method of amending the state constitution and targets a minority group by depriving gay couples of the right to marry. Attorney General Jerry Brown, in a rare move for the state's top lawyer, also has urged the justices to strike down the voter-approved law.
In addition to deciding whether to uphold Proposition 8, the justices are weighing whether to invalidate an estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place last year after the Supreme Court struck down the prior gay marriage ban but before Proposition 8 went into effect.
During a hearing in March, the justices appeared reluctant to overturn Proposition 8,
but also sent signals they were unwilling to wipe out existing gay marriages.
Comments
It's rumoured...
That the decision will confirm the hate-filled amendment, as Gavin Newsome, Mayor of San Francisco, requested that they delay the issuance of the decision because the projected date happened to coincide with the "White Night" riots that followed the near-acquittal of Dan White for the murders of SF Supervisor Harvey Milk (gay) and Mayor George Moscone (not) after eating too many Twinkies, a type of soft ersatz-vanilla cake with a chemical cream filling.
Still and all, one has our fingers crossed, and it would be a shame for the riot anniversaries to coincide.
Puddin'
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
Riots?
Still and all, one has our fingers crossed, and it would be a shame for the riot anniversaries to coincide.
Since it already happened by ballot last November what is the likeliness of riots breaking out if the court upholds the vote? I'm hoping you meant decisions coincide and not riots....
Hugs
Frank
I don't know if you can comprehend...
...the level of anger it might engender to have rights long fought for, and then won, taken away by a group of hateful bigots, many of them gathered in from all across the country, but I can assure you that a large number of people will be seriously ticked off. At least some of them will be young and reckless as well as angry, always a volatile combination.
The implication, of course, is that similar groups of bigots, if they can be found in sufficient number, could prevent, let's say, Jews or persons of African descent from marrying, except that the current set of judges wouldn't allow it, so upholding the idiots is at the same time an indication of covert judicial hostility toward gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered persons of all sorts.
What's not to dislike?
This is California, after all. Except for the Central Valley and other scattered enclaves of dolts, many of us are surprisingly reasonable.
I'm still prepared to be pleasantly surprised, but not particularly hopeful just now.
This is what comes from reading the newspapers...
I should know better.
Puddin'
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
I understand the frustration and umbridge
I just don't think rioting is particularly constructive to anyone's cause. Prop 8 was a disgusting measure and I know a lot of the money for supporting it came from Utah.
It is amazing how states other than CA are legalizing Gay marriage though. It will happen all over eventually I think or the vast majority of the states at any rate.
Frank
P.S. What's a newspaper? :D
It's happened before...
For too long, it was against the law for a caucasian to marry a person of african descent in some states in our country... This continued LONG after Slavery was abolished (even into the lifetime of many of us)... What makes us think that it will be any easier to generally convince the many bigots (that have a LOT of money) that equality should exist?
Sorry. Despite recent wins - there have been tooooo many losses as well in the past few years.
Annette
I dare say it's within all of our lifetimes...
The last miscegeny law was voted down in Alabama in the year 2000, although enforcement of it had been illegal for many years by then.
The first to be found unconstitutional, in a strange twist of irony, was California, in 1948. I was at the time just one year old, so I didn't follow the case closely.
In Perez v. Sharp the court ruled:
"A member of any of these races may find himself barred from marrying the person of his choice and that person to him may be irreplaceable. Human beings are bereft of worth and dignity by a doctrine that would make them as interchangeable as trains."
In 1967, in Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the last miscegeny laws in the United States, although they remained on the books in several handfuls (16) states, being slowly removed as the legislatures became increasingly embarrassed by them. Alabama was more recalcitrant than most, and indeed refused simply to repeal the law through legislative action, as it would have required certain legislators to vote against a symbolic defiance of the rule of Federal law that was wildly popular amongst their most important constituents.
http://tammybaldwin.house.gov/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=1388
Apologies to any nine-year-old (or younger) reading this if I excluded you from "all," as it was on purely technical grounds.
This is the site of a group dedicated to preserving "traditional marriage:"
http://www.domawatch.org/cases/
They have an extensive list of cases involving these issues, many of which contain strong arguments both for and against the beliefs they espouse, including discussions of Perez and Loving, which are extremely germane. Here's one example:
http://www.domawatch.org/cases/arizona/StanhardtPlaintiffsRe...
http://community-2.webtv.net/WesternMind/MISCEGENY/index.html
Puddin'
--------------------
There is no nonsense so arrant that it cannot
be made the creed of the vast majority by
adequate governmental action.
--- Bertrand Russell
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
Has Anyone Heard
Has anyone heard a positive legal argument why they would expect the Calif Court to toss the voter initiative? Early on, I thought I had heard some compelling arguments for why the will of the majority couldn't be allowed to simply trump the rights of the minority. (e.g. "Democracy is not three wolves a lamb deciding what's for dinner.") But, lately, all I hear is legal scholar types saying they expect the Court to uphold Prop 8. Can anyone give me some hope by citing some authoritative voices on the other side?
I seem to recall
An early opinion was the court wouldn't hold with the majority revoking existing rights from a minority. Like there couldn't be a ballot initiative that would take away the right to vote from women.
Hugs
Frank
There are multiple precidents...
There are multiple precidents for the California Supreme Court to strike down Proposition 8. As you mentioned, a ballot measure revoking women's right to vote would, even if passed, be immediately struck down either by a state court or a Federal court. The same is true for a law or ballot measure reinstating racial segregation or interracial marriages. I honestly feel that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for a court which has previously struck down a state law banning same-sex marriages to reverse itself and now uphold Proposition 8. This would be even more so should the court uphold the measure but also rule that all same-sex marriages which took place between the time of its prior ruling striking down the state law and the date that Proposition 8 became law are still valid. Such a ruling would literally be granting those fortunate enough to have taken advantage of the prior ruling a right which the court itself would be denying to other same-sex couples who could not get married during that interval.
Jenny
Information on Prop 8
Here's the address of the communications to and from the Court:
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.c...
You can sign up for notifications of further actions at the bottom of the page.
The most telling arguments are from the Iowa decision, which I already cited elsewhere in these pages, but here it is again:
• Read the summary: Iowa Supreme Court's decision on same-sex marriage.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/assets/pdf/D213209143.PDF
• Read the full opinion: Iowa Supreme Court's decision on same-sex marriage.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/assets/pdf/D213209243.PDF
Here's a fairly current wiki page which follows the developments in the case:
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Propo...(2008)
http://tinyurl.com/4qz67k
Both supporters and opponents can follow links to find ample items of interest to either side.
(Look how "fair and balanced" I can be when pressed...)
Puddin'
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
Political blogging
This is pushing the limits of political discussion here. Many readers and authors at BC, including myself, have intense feelings on this subject. Everyone that comments here should remember not to be publicly insulting to people whose political ideas differ.
This is a community but it isn't a single population with only one viewpoint.
I had to remove blogs on this subject back last November, so, no insults.
Hugs,
Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
Moving such discussion off site to The Garden
Hi Folks,
as I agree with Erin, I want to offer
Hypatia's Garden as a place to continue that discussion and maybe also as a place for political blogs.
Saphira
--
>> There is not one truth only out there. <<
--
>> There is not one single truth out there. <<
Right Here in River City
What would Meredith Wilson think? The land of fruits and nuts has become a battleground where basic liberal ideas have been trampled by a moneyed group of patriarchs. Yet, Iowa, the land of Grant Wood, Madison County bridges, and dreamy ballfields, has set a standard not currently attainable on the left coast.
Riots seem so 60 - ish. Maybe the GLBT should take to the streets in one long and earth-shattering pout. They could hold their breath until everyone was a lovely periwinkle. Or, maybe they should go to Utah and challenge the tax status of a certain butt-in-ski so-called church who is bullying their bigoted ideas onto others.
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
Amy's Sanctity
After writing the above post, I got to feeling so bad I just had to read my story "Amy's Sanctity". It's been years since I poked the establishment in the eye with that fable, but -- damn -- it still feels good.
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
Speaking as a right-wing
Speaking as a right-wing conservative redneck... who gives a dam about who marries whom! If two people want to get married, go for it! Just keep it in the bedroom and don't scare the horses and little kids.
BTW, I've always been in awe of Californians. I mean, how can they be so insane and still keep breathing??? Awesome! ^.~^
Some days you're the pigeon, some days you're the statue
That's easy
There are six lawyers on every street corner here ready to sue if you stop breathing. And it would put our therapists out of work if we acted sane enough to ignore the lawyers.
We still have a long way to go
Eventually prop eight will be over turned, if not by the court but another election. If one were to ask for the same vote twenty years ago, the results would have been ninety to ten. Election night my son phoned in tears because of the defeat. As a side note, I used to own some property at Lake Tahoe and the deed specifically stated that I couldn't sell it to blacks or people of the Mongoloid race. My Philippino wife, who was born here thought it was a riot. She couldn't stop laughing at how racially motivated people were. Change will come, but it will be slow, Arecee
A little less hateful please?
I am of two minds on prop 8 because as a resident of Oregon, I can legally marry a Man.
I can't see much wrong with the idea that some would have a problem with same sex marriage if they would just try to actually like live up to the religious principles they espouse.
In the Documents of every religion I have studied, everyone is supposed to be loving, forgiving, and accepting. Somehow bigots have turned many faiths to hateful, exclusivist philosophies.
So for those who support prop 8, then just don't marry a person of your gender and shut up.
It is hard enough to find a mate in life, so, why would we torment those who try things outside what some would consider the norm?
Gwendolyn