California's gay marriage battle back in court
SAN FRANCISCO —
The latest round in California’s battle over same-sex marriage began here Thursday as rights lawyers appeared before the state’s highest court seeking to overturn a ban of gay weddings.
Hundreds of supporters and opponents gathered outside the Supreme Court in San Francisco ahead of the hearing, which came 10 months after the same court legalized gay marriage in a landmark ruling last May.
However that ruling was cast into doubt last November when voters approved a change to California’s constitution in a referendum which redefined marriage in the state as a union between a man and a woman.
Supporters of gay marriage are seeking to have the result of the referendum known as Proposition 8 quashed on the grounds that minority rights should not be vulnerable to a simple majority vote.
Appearing Thursday before the seven California Supreme Court justices who will rule on the case, attorneys urged the court to strike down Proposition 8 as discriminatory.
“This is the first time a ballot initiative will have been used to take away a fundamental right from a suspect class,” Raymond C Marshall of the Asian Pacific American Legal Center told the court.
The court must issue its ruling within 90 days.
Last November’s referendum came six months after California Supreme Court justices had voted 4-3 in favor of overturning a previous ban on same-sex marriage in the state.
That decision sparked jubilation among gay and lesbian activists, and led to around 18,000 same-sex couples flocking to swap vows as California became only the second state to allow gay marriage.
However, the issue was forced back on the agenda later by social conservative and religious groups, which successfully gathered enough support for Proposition 8 to be placed on ballots at Nov 4 polls.
When the measure was approved by a margin of 52.5 to 47.5%, the status of same-sex marriages was cast into doubt.
A coalition of rights activists, city and state officials are challenging the legality of Proposition 8 on the grounds that the rights of minorities should not be vulnerable to a simply majority vote.
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, whose administration is seeking to overturn the ban, said the case represented a challenge to human rights.
California’s Attorney General Jerry Brown has also voiced his opposition to Proposition 8, claiming it violates the state’s constitution.
Supporters of Proposition 8 will be led Thursday by Ken Starr, the independent counsel who famously investigated former president Bill Clinton in the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
“The people ultimately decided,” Starr said in a court brief. “Under our system of constitutional government, that is the end of the matter.”
Before the Thursday’s hearing got underway, anti-gay marriage protesters brandished banners reading “Homo Sex is Sin,” “Gay = Pervert,” and “The Wages of Sin is Death.”
A woman using a bullhorn screamed at same-sex marriage supporters, who responded by singing and playing guitars.
Meanwhile, the court proceedings were being closely followed at viewing parties across California organized by city officials.
Wire reports
Order by Time Order by Popularity
33 Comments
Login to comment
0
skipthesong
and what happens if it doesn't work in their favor again? If those who oppose it lose, are they allowed to have a re-vote?
0
adaydream
I believe that they have the rights to get married or marriage contracts and the rights of other couples where it comes to taxes, insurances and everything thing else.
These are people we're talking about. They deserve equal rights just as a man/woman marriage. < :-)
0
Molenir
Whats really interesting about this, is that if the California Supreme court goes against the measure, they will essentially be declaring their own constitution, unconstitutional.
If you want these people to be able to marry others of the same gender, then why not get your own people together, and try to pass a law revoking it. But of course you can't do that. The majority are opposed to it. Libs are always trying to get the courts to create new laws.
0
likeitis
Meanwhile conservatives go straight for the constitution!
I suppose they can legally change the legal definition of marriage if they want to. Gays should just take the civil union, which everyone will call a marriage despite the little vote.
0
adaydream
likeitis - In most places gays aren't even allowed civil unions. < :-)
0
Betzee
Voters chose leaders they don't interpret laws. This is not the first time a ballot initiative has muddied the rights and responsibilities of citizens versus the judiciary.
Suppose the right of women to vote had been put up for a vote (and only men could vote)? Some might have voted against it on the same grounds which gay marriage has been opposed, namely this will open the door to people wanting their pet to have the right to vote.
0
rollonarte
Dems destroyed the Golden State.
A handful of non-elected officials overturning two referendums on the issue and declaring "gay marriage" legal seems likely - it's open war on the Constitution and on the family, the most basic unit of society.
This is what "liberals" and "progressives" do best - destroy.
0
Betzee
I was a little surprised myself last fall to see Prop 8 promoted as a family strengthening measure. Guess some backers didn't know too many gay couples or they would appreciate how many have children. And they want them raised by married parents who can make medical decisions in emergencies, etc. They want that for their partners too. Simply put, they want the legal rights of marriage having already assumed the responsibilities.
0
Good_Jorb
I could kind of see the Constituational side of your agrument, but how is it a war on the family? I have a hard time believing that two straight people will suddenly think less or differently of thier marriage/faimly or how the manage thier household and family life.
0
Betzee
Divorce and out of wedlock births do far more to fray familial bonds than co-habitating same-sex couples who want their union recognized in legal terms.
0
Betzee
Gays should just take the civil union, which everyone will call a marriage despite the little vote.
History has shown "separate but equal" does not prove to be the case.
0
rollonarte
Irony of ironies, it was the "minority" population in Cal that overwhelmingly supported and passed prop 8, and on the same day as Obama's historic victory:
"70% of African Americans backed Prop. 8, exit poll finds"
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/70-of-african-a.html
0
Sarge
"gay marriage"
Sure.
0
Good_Jorb
Indeed, a lot of people lose sight of forest when it comes to gay marriage.
0
Madverts
I'm just terrified at the thought of liking gay sex so I'm going to fairly blame the democrat party, President Obama, liberals and progressives to help me live my latent lifestyle without undue stress.
0
likeitis
A complete inability to define words or comprehend what they mean seems to be a rather common trait in the Republican party.
Gays and blacks might both be minorities, but that is where the similarities end. Its not nearly enough to declare a state of irony, let alone an "irony of ironies". There seriously seems to be something wrong with your wiring. Tell me your year of manufacture and your model and I will check to see if there is a recall in effect.
0
likeitis
Which is why I suggest they go for it. It seems to be the easier option to make legal at this point, especially since the constitution got changed with regards to "marriage." They should forget about calling it marriage and get civil unions recognized.
0
Betzee
There was much disinformation put out to scare people such as the prospect that the "gay lifestyle" would be promoted in public schools. Among other Republicans, Arnold Schwarzenegger, campaigned against passage of Prop 8.
If one studies the works of the founding fathers, and what patriot hasn't, it's clear how little faith they had in the common man to handle important decisions. This is because they understood full well the power of demagoguery to sway people's emotions. Hence the judiciary was entrusted with interpreting the rights of citizens, not the ballot box.
If Prop 8 is thrown out by the courts, it would not be the first ballot initiative to be found unconstitutional.
0
rollonarte
The reactions to Prop 8 provided quite an education for a lot of minorities in Cal about how shallow liberals' conception of "tolerance" is, how fickle it is, and how maliciously self-serving it can be.
That attacks upon Xtians, Mormons, blacks and Hispanics by gay marriage advocates were pretty eye-opening.
I'm kinda shocked that the issue is being revived. The Left eating its own is never a pretty sight.
0
Betzee
You contradicted yourself by pointing out many minorities may in fact be social conservatives. Fiscal Republicans, a dying breed, by contrast followed Arnie.
This is, as I outlined above, a matter to be decided by the courts since it involves citizen rights. Just like issues such as segregation and female suffrage where "activist judges" overturned longstanding social practice.
0
Midnightpromise
Heaven forbid a democracy abide by the definition.
0
rollonarte
Nationwide, 70 percent of black children are born out of wedlock. That is undoubtedly the rate for California. And yet exit polls taken last November showed 70 percent of blacks voted to uphold California statutes which limited marriage to one man and one woman.
Hispanics had their own reasons for supporting traditional marriage, but again I seriously doubt an impartial observer would conclude it was their 'social conservatism.'
Guilty white liberals, on the other hand, were the one Cal demographic that showed over 50 percent support for allowing gay marriage.
It is most amusing to watch the Left try and rationalize the thuggery they resorted to or so often seemed to condone in the aftermath of prop 8's passage.
Like I said, I can't believe they are trying to revive the issue.
0
Molenir
Umm, apparently you don't have a clue about American History. They didn't entrust the judiciary with this, but rather the legislature. If they saw what the courts had been doing the last 50 years, they would be horrified. It wasn't til 1803 that the Supreme Court established the principle of Judicial Review. Some 14 years after the constitution had been ratified. Essentially it was a huge power grab that most people agreed was a good thing. It ceased to be a good thing when judges started creating laws, rather then merely ruling on them.
0
Betzee
It's very interesting to see what options are open to the California State Supreme Court. One is to get the state out of the marriage business altogether, replacing it civil unions for all to avoid the "separate but unequal" issue. Marriage would revert to a religious ceremony.
As the newspaper reported:
Same-sex couple rights lawyers and Pepperdine University law school dean Kenneth Starr, who was representing Proposition 8's sponsors, agreed that making marriage the province of religious institutions was one way, however unanticipated, around the problem.
"There is a long tradition of requiring different parts of the California Constitution to be harmonized," said David Cruz, a constitutional law professor at the University of Southern California who is not involved in the case. "It's not necessarily what the voters intended -- their only clear intent was to stop gay people from getting married."
This has the advantage of avoiding the situation where existing unions of same-sex couples who tied the knot before November are grandfathered in while those who decide to get married tomorrow are outta luck.
0
Betzee
If the CA Supreme Court does ultimately void the state's right to confer marriage licenses and replaces it with "civil unions" it wouldn't be the first time an emotionally charged ballot initiative resulted in unintended consequences. This is because those promoting these initiatives usually don't understand the legal consequences of what they are proposing. We don't want a mish-mash of convoluted regulations determining who can do what. This is what the founding fathers wanted to avoid.
0
Molenir
Betzee, you are right, however keep in mind, that in this particular case, it isn't the unintended consequence of the inititive that caused this, but the original ruling by the Supreme Court of California. Giving rights where none had previously existed, or were even considered. The initiative was a direct response to that decision, not the other way around.
0
Betzee
Molenir,
I've lived in California since 1988 so I've seen a good many ballot initiatives. Most focus on purely regulatory matters such as what information insurance companies can use to set a policy holder's rate. Mundane but important to the pocketbook issues.
It was a surprise to one poster above that blacks and Hispanics voted for Prop 8, which is to say against the legalization of same-sex marriage. Why the surprise? Macho cultures tend not to be tolerate of homosexuality.
But tolerance is not the issue for the judicial system to address. Rather it's equal rights under the law. In a previous ruling, the court could not find any compelling justification to deny same sex couples the right to apply for a marriage license at City Hall. Churches, by contrast, are not obligated to marry any particular couple. Any reason can be used to deny such a request, which usually elicits at least one meeting with the minister who ascertains the maturity of the two parties and their fitness for a lifetime commitment. If s/he decides "No," there's no legal redress since a church wedding is not an entitlement.
One of the reasons it was clear Prop 8 proponents didn't understand the legal terrain they were on was their effort to make passage more palatable by allowing existing same sex marriages to remain vaild. Yet that opens the door to two groups of same-sex couples being treated differently under the law, those who married prior to November 4 and those denied the right to do after Nov 4.
The state now does have a real incentive to say, "OK, we're going to get out of the marriage business altogether, henceforth the state will only confer civil unions which are open to all." Some libertarians have in fact long pushed for this; claiming the state's only interest in marriage is taxing it.
It will be interesting to watch...
0
goodDonkey
Molenir said:
Typical Molenir response to ignore reality, state how another is erroneous and give a patent answer that sounds an awful lot like the conservative line of strict construction vs. judicial activism. Molenir quoted Betzee, "Hence the judiciary was entrusted with interpreting the rights of citizens[.]" The "clued in" Molenir says, "Umm, apparently you don't have a clue about American History" but apparently he can't make any connection between the Supreme Courts authority in cases of equity and the rights of citizens. Apparently the U.S. Supreme Court should never have been involved with the "cases of Equity" with respect to humans but maybe other entities? What, Molenir, you think that "all cases in law and equity" was a typo? I can see how a conservative like yourself finds it awfully inconvenient for the courts to have judicial power in all cases of equity but that "all men are created equal" probably sticks in your craw also.
Of course the constitution states in Article III:
What on earth could the drafters of the constitution have meant by Equity. Maybe a strict constructionist can put a little spin on that one.
0
Betzee
One of the reasons it was clear Prop 8 proponents didn't understand the legal terrain they were on was their effort to make passage more palatable by allowing existing same sex marriages to remain vaild.
Correction: Laws cannot be applied retroactively. So passage of Prop 8 could not touch existing same-sex unions. Yet the law is not supposed to apply in a "window of opporunity" fashion to issues which pertain to equal rights under the law.
0
Betzee
I really haven't followed this closely so I wasn't aware that "the Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund filed legal briefs defending the constitutionality of Prop 8 and attempting to forcibly divorce 18,000 same-sex couples that were married in California last year. The California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in this case on March 5, 2009, with a decision expected within the next 90 days."
0
Molenir
Typical GoodDonkey response to ignore the truth and create his own reality out of complete fantasy mixed with a few facts.
Despite your wishes, the US Constitution says nothing about the principle of Judicial Review. Thats fact. The US Supreme Court established this precedent in 1803, some 14 years after the constitution had been ratified. Another fact. Heres what you failed to grasp from my previous post. Judicial Review is a good principle. Its a needed principle. Its served the country well until recently when yes Judicial activists on the bench decided that they had the power to create new laws. And yes, this is the problem that I and a lot of other people have with the current courts. Not the idea of judicial review, which looks at a law, and determines whether or not it meets a constitutional standard. While I disagreed with the California Supreme courts initial decision, it was acting on the basis of over 200 years of legal precedent. However invalidating the constitution itself is charting new territory. The same constitution that grants it its authority. Very scary regardless of the outcome.
No, I believe in this principle as well. I believe every man should have the right to marry a willing member of the opposite sex. Indeed, even homosexual men have this right. They just prefer to have the additional right to marry a member of the same sex. And that is where you and I disagree. I don't have any problem with what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom. Its quite frankly none of my business, but trying to give them extra rights, based on sexual preference, religion, race, or other characteristics, that I have a problem with.
0
goodDonkey
Molenir quote Betzee as saying,
Nothing about Judicial Review there, just "the rights of citizens." And I quoted the constitution as "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution…" Equity is the rights of citizens. The rights of citizens are Equity.
I wasn't even getting into the court case but check out what Molenir says, "Its quite frankly none of my business, but trying to give them extra rights, based on sexual preference, religion, race, or other characteristics, that I have a problem with."
Isn't Heterosexuality a sexual preference? If one sexual preference has a right and the other does not would that not be an "extra right" of the sexual preference group that has the additional right?
I can't continue to answer Molenir. It is so tedious. Every post he reiterates the same error in fact or reasoning and then he states new errors. It is like a ponzi scheme.
0
Molenir
O God, I can't believe you even mentioned that. Sorry, I have no response, your comment is just too stupid for words.
I know, its hard to have your idiocy pointed out and exposed for all the world to see.
Back to top