California Supreme Court to rule on Proposition 8 Tuesday//

This just in:

The California Supreme Court announced today that it will rule Tuesday on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the November ballot measure that resurrected a ban on same-sex marriage, or in other words, the people defined marriage as only between 1 man and 1 woman.

The ruling, which will be posted at 10 a.m., will also determine whether an estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages will continue to be recognized by the state.

The Supreme Court has posted their “Notice of Forthcoming Filing” {here} . Click on the pdf link to see the actual document.

Source: latimesblog.latimes.com, California Supreme Court Website

California Supreme Set to Reject Gay Stance on Prop 8//

constitutiondaypic1

Thanks for keeping my blog warm everyone!!!! Moving is a total fiasco. Thankfully I’m not a pack-rat and I have no problem throwing things away. We’re finally in the new house, but unpacking is another story. The internet got hooked up today and I’m anxious to see what I’ve been missing on the marriage front this past week.

This was the first bit on info I came across. The liberal Washington Post is of course trying to put their slant on the the Prop 8 issue and the pending Supreme Court ruling, likely in favor of Prop 8, but if you look past the slant and bias, you’ll see that although they are trying to give gays hope that they can take over marriage and whatever else they feel like, we as citizens still ultimately have the power. We can continue to affect the outcomes of the ballot measures and express our wants and needs to our representatives. And we can still expect the CA Supreme Court to respect our wishes, and not trample on our rights.

Here are some highlights from the article:

It is ordinarily the better part of wisdom not to predict court decisions on the basis of questions asked by judges at oral argument. But the California Supreme Court left little doubt that it would reject the contention of gay rights advocates that it should ignore the results of the ballot initiative that, in effect, reversed the same court’s opinion recognizing same-sex marriages.

Yet, as difficult as the likely outcome of the case will be for those of us who support gay marriage, the court’s rationale will almost certainly strengthen a fundamental tenet of the progressive movement: the right of ordinary citizens to maintain authority over their state constitutions.

That means US… marriage supporters and defenders. Should gay marriage supporters ever get an initiative of  their own on the ballot, we can always vote again, and again, and have our voices heard in favor of real marriage, again!!! As long as we stand together and stay focused on what we want, and get out there and vote, they won’t be able to reverse this.

Early 20th-century progressives had a deep distrust of state judicial authority for the very good reason that many decisions were antithetical to a more just and humane society. The relative ease with which Californians — and residents of other states — can amend their state constitutions owes much to the “direct democracy” reforms led by progressives.

When Theodore Roosevelt, the Progressive candidate for president in 1912, proposed the recall of state court decisions to enable “the people themselves” to decide constitutional issues, he was responding to our democracy’s inherent tension between judicial authority and democratic legitimacy. And when Larry Kramer, the preeminent progressive scholar of “popular constitutionalism,” criticized William Rehnquist’s Supreme Court, he noted, “The Supreme Court is not the highest authority in the land on constitutional law. We are.

The author writes:

The idea that judicial authority is not ultimate constitutional authority can be particularly unsettling when citizens choose to amend their state constitutions to limit rather than expand rights.

That’s too bad. We, the majority, have just as much right to our vote as the gay minority. Everyone gets one vote!!!!! Just because they don’t like how we voted, does not make our votes any less valid, although they are trying to make it seem that way because they don’t like the outcome. Majority rules in our State Constitution.

The methods by which voters may amend state constitutions, although varying from state to state, are far more flexible than the process by which the U.S. Constitution may be amended. A decision of the U.S. Supreme Court may be “overturned” by constitutional amendment, but that event is rare. It has happened only four times in our nation’s history, and once, it required a civil war. In contrast, in the past decade, citizens in more than two dozen states have amended their constitutions through popular vote to reverse or forestall favorable consideration of gay marriage claims.

This is a nice sentiment, but I’m all for state’s rights! People should have control over their government, not the government having control over the people. I think that the legislators need to take some history refresher courses. The citizens of California are the ultimate constitutional authority, not the court and not the legislators.

Check back for more marriage info this weekend. Thanks for reading!!!


Prop 8’s Day In Court// justices skeptically grilled lawyers seeking to overturn the state’s ban on gay marriage…

Shannon Minter, standing, speaks to the California Supreme Court in San Francisco, Thursday, March 5, 2009 on the constitutionality of the state's voter-approved Proposition 8 that bans gay unions. The court will decide whether to uphold the same-sex marriage ban and whether same-sex couple marriages will remain valid. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma, pool)

Shannon Minter, standing, speaks to the California Supreme Court in San Francisco, Thursday, March 5, 2009 on the constitutionality of the state's voter-approved Proposition 8 that bans gay unions. The court will decide whether to uphold the same-sex marriage ban and whether same-sex couple marriages will remain valid. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma, pool)

California Supreme Court Justices heard arguments today from both sides on the validity of Proposition 8.

Kenneth Starr was amazing today, representing the Yes on 8 campaign in front of the Supreme Court! The definition of marriage as only between 1 man and 1 woman may remain in tack! Supreme Court Justices may actually remember they don’t have authority to dictate voter’s rights. Here’s the scoop from today’s Prop 8 Supreme Court oral arguments. Things are looking good so far!!!

“What I am picking up from the oral arguments is that this court should willy-nilly disregard the will of the people,” said Kennard, who just 10 months ago voted that prohibiting same-sex marriages violated the civil rights of gays. “The people established the constitution; as judges, our power is very limited.”

According to the SF Associated Press, thousands of demonstrators showed up to chant and wave signs outside of the CA Supreme Court building today, as the Justices geared up to hear and question oral arguments from parties on both sides of the gay marriage ban issue.

Attorney’s for gay couples and supporters of SSM argued that gay civil rights are being violated and tried to,

persuade the California Supreme Court that the public’s right to change the constitution doesn’t extend to depriving an unpopular minority of the right to wed.

But the court’s seven justices indicated a wariness to override what Associate Justice Joyce Kennard called the people’s “very, very broad, well-wrought” authority to amend the state’s governing framework at the ballot box.

Couples who married during the short 4 1/2 month period in which the ban on SSM was lifted, were disheartened by the tone of the hearing and not very hopeful that the justices would strike down the ban that voters put in place with a 52% vote in favor of Proposition 8 last November.

Bad news for gay couples, but amazing news for those of us who voted Yes on Prop 8 and want to see the traditional definition of marriage preserved, as was the entire reason for the ballot initiative in the first place.

Gay rights advocates argued the proposition is such a sweeping change to the constitution’s equal protection clause that it was a constitutional revision, not just an amendment. A revision requires legislative approval before it lands on the ballot.

Chief Justice Ronald George, who also ruled last year to strike down a pair of laws that limited marriage to a man and a woman, echoed Kennard’s qualms about denying voters their voice.

The Supreme Court acknowledged today that the voters were well withing their rights to vote to amend their state constitution and place a ban on gay marriage. It has happened hundreds of times before, 500 times to be exact, compared with just 27 amendments to the United States Constitution. Chief Justice Ronald George noted that it is up to the Legislature and the voters to make the amendment process more difficult, not the job of the court.

“It seems what you are saying is, it is just too easy to amend the California Constitution,” George told Raymond Marshall, an attorney representing the NAACP and other civil rights groups trying to overturn the ban. “Maybe the solution has to be a political one.”

Too easy or not, the amendment, revision, or whatever, is already done, and if some think it’s too easy to amended our state constitution, then that is an issue to be addressed outside of the court and  should not be related to the Constitutionality of Prop 8.

Minutes into Thursday’s proceedings, the justices peppered a lawyer representing unwed same sex couples with tough questions over how the 14 words of Proposition 8 represent a denial of fundamental rights when same-sex couples still have the legal benefits of marriage through domestic partnerships.

“Is it your argument in this proceeding that the passage of Proposition 8 also took away in addition to the label of marriage, the core of substantive rights of marriage this court outlined in its decision last year?” asked Kennard.

Supporters of the gay marriage ban, represented by former Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr, said it would be a reversal of the Supreme Court’s own precedents for the court to overturn the results of a fair election.

“Under our theory the people are sovereign and they can do very unwise things that tug at the equality principle,” Starr said.

He also argued that California voters have an “inalienable right” to amend the constitution and that taking away rights through the initiative process is not a revision that alters the structure of government.

The question about what will happen to the 18,000 same-sex marriages that were preformed before the passage of Prop 8 still stands. Many of the justices appeared skeptical that Prop 8 could be applied retroactively. However, from my standpoint, just because the marriages were legal when they were performed, if the court upholds Prop 8, and the Constitution of California defines marriage as only marriages between one man and one woman are valid and recognized in CA, then it looks like even if SS marriages may remain legal, they won’t be recognized by the state. That is what the amendment says.

The justices have 90 days to issue a ruling.

The crowd outside the court grew steadily throughout the hearing, with many watching the proceedings on a giant television screen erected across the street in front of City Hall. Demonstrators were evenly split over the gay marriage issue and took turns drowning out each others chants after the hearing.

Visit my friend Beetle Blogger for her personal account of the hearing today. She also posted the video of the hearing if you want to watch that. Check out her post, she’s got the inside scoop.

Pearl Diver also has a great write-up of today’s events!

Rally in Person, or Watch the Hearing on TV// Prop 8 goes to court on Thursday…

Well to everyone but homosexuals, the CA Supreme Court and the Legislature

Well to everyone but homosexuals, the CA Supreme Court and the Legislature

Prop 8 oral arguments begin this Thursday at the California Supreme Court in Downtown San Francisco.

If  you can attend, make some signs and get out there in support of real marriage!!!!! Help send a message to the court.

Time: March 5, 2009 from 9am to 12pm
Location: California Supreme Court – San Francisco, CA

Call your local newspapers and news stations! Let them know that the will of the people will be represented, whether at the courthouse or at individual residences across the state. We are still here. We are California. California has voted!

Coverage of the hearing will be broadcast on The California Channel and can also be viewed in a live stream online at…

http://www.calchannel.com/
Info courtesy of Pearl-Diver!

CA Supreme Court Set to Hear Prop 8 Arguments on Thursday// here’s the cliff notes version…

showdown

WHAT: The California Supreme Court will hold three hours of oral arguments from 9.am-noon Thursday on three lawsuits seeking to overturn Proposition 8, the ballot measure that amended the state constitution to reinstate the ban on same-sex marriage the court threw out last year.

WHO: Lawyers representing same-sex couples and a group of local governments led by the city of San Francisco will get 90 minutes to present their arguments. The lawyers are Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights; Chief Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart and Michael Maroko, a partner of Los Angeles lawyer Gloria Allred.

The sponsors of Proposition 8 will have an hour. They are being represented by Pepperdine law school dean Kenneth Starr, the former independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown has taken the unusual step of declining to defend the initiative. Deputy Attorney General Christopher Krueger will have half an hour to explain the state’s position.

WHO ELSE: A record number of 62 friend-of-the-court briefs have been filed in the case, more than two-thirds of them in support of striking down the same-sex marriage ban. They are available for viewing at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/prop8.htm#casefilings

Source: mercurynews.com

{ The Supreme Court Has Spoken…..aren’t we lucky… }

CA Supreme Court

CA Supreme Court

It looks like the saga continues, and how upstanding of the court to not let gays marry until after their ruling on the three law suite. I mean, the people did vote and majority has already ruled on the issue. Give me a break, these law suits are rediculous….

Nov 19, 5:07 PM (ET)

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) – California’s highest court has agreed to hear legal challenges to a new ban on gay marriage, but is refusing to allow gay couples to resume marrying until it rules.

The California Supreme Court on Wednesday accepted three lawsuits seeking to overturn Proposition 8. The amendment passed this month with 52 percent of the vote. The court did not elaborate on its decision.

All three cases claim the ban 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.


Defamer.com says:

BREAKING: Six of seven CA Supreme Court agreed today to review the legal challenges to Prop 8 brought by married same-sex couples. Until they rule, all further same-sex marriages are suspended, and the status of those already wed remains to be determined. What are the chances they’ll overturn the challenge? Slim, but they have done so in the past: “In 1966, the California Supreme Court struck down an initiative that would have permitted racial discrimination in housing. Voters had approved the measure, a repeal of a fair housing law, by a 2-to-1 margin.” Hang in there, D.L. Hughley—we realize how confusing all of this can be!