California Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8//

marriage

The voters, and now the California Supreme Court, have spoken.

Marriage = 1 Man + 1 Woman. That’s it!!!!!

Today, the California Supreme Court announced their decision to uphold Proposition 8, and the will of the voters, in a 6 to 1 decision!!! Only 1 dissenting vote. Marriage in California is now legally defined in our Constitution as only between 1 man and 1 woman. I totally agree with my blogger friend Pearl, when she said:

I am immensely relieved that this state’s judiciary was inspired to reaffirm the right of the people of California to amend our own Constitution as we see fit.

Society, families and children will benefit from this  preservation of marriage! As for the 18,000 same-sex couples who got married last year during a small window when it was legal, the court has ruled that they will remain valid. I find it interesting though, that these folks think they are married, in a state where our constitution clearly says their marriages aren’t “valid or recognized.” Married or not, homosexual couples retain the same rights under California’s domestic partnership laws,  so hopefully they will learn to be happy with that. They aren’t being deprived of any civil rights like they try to convince everyone they are. I’m just happy that the court didn’t let them hijack real marriage.

The Supreme Court’s website is most likely overloaded, so I haven’t been able to read the justices’ opinions yet. I’ll post more info later! Prop 8 made history today for a 2nd time. I hope that now all of the other states will follow suit…it seems like a lot of them have been willy-nilly passing pro SSM laws lately, but since we know that the nation watches, and often follows, California, hopefully today’s decision will have a positive influence when it comes to preserving marriage in other states.

{p.s.} Pearl, I stole tags from your post! They was awesome! Thanks!!!!


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!

Judicial Activism Continued// reminder to all californians, the supreme court works for us

Judicial

Activism

“Judicial activism” describes an approach where judges impose their own policy preferences rather than interpret the law as written.  When judges act in this manner, they usurp the role of the legislators, whom the citizens elect to represent them in deciding disputed, difficult policy issues.  Thus, judicial activism undermines the very basis of our representative democracy. [Government 101 folks! Think back to the lesson on the roles of the 3 branches of government, yep. . . that’s the one]

The chief modern example of judicial activism is Roe v. Wade, where seven members of the Supreme Court invented a right to abortion that was nowhere found in the Constitution. [ hmm. . . neither is a right to homosexual marriage] Justice Byron White, who dissented in the case, said that the majority of the Court had engaged, “not in constitutional interpretation, but in the unrestrained imposition of its own, extra-constitutional value preferences.” There are examples of judicial activism in other areas of the law as well.

The Family Research Council promotes public education about the danger of judicial activism and calls for the return of a judiciary with more limited powers, according to the design of our nation’s Founders, so that the American people can once again govern themselves on the most important issues of our day. [Californians voting yes on Proposition 8 is an example of the American people governing themselves. This needs to be upheld and supported].

I wanted to do a little post with some info about jucidial activism. I’m always fascinated my people thinking that they can over step their bounds, and in the process, step on the rights of others. Maybe it’s been the 3- year-long legal battle with my husband’s crazy ex; she’s always trying to thwart his parental and legal rights, that coupled with my Political Science degree and the many lectures I heard on judicial activism. But either way, these behaviors are annoying.  I also find it highly interesting that most government employees just do the bare minimum, nothing more, but then these judges seem to want to go above and beyond their job description, so much so that they want to do their job, along with that of the entire legislature as well.

I came across this great post about the CA Supreme Court from a fellow blogger over at Does My Vote Really Count. It’s time to write letters folks and tell the Supreme Court why you think they should uphold our vote on Proposition 8. The great blogger over at “Does My Vote Really Count” posted the mailing address for everyone.  Thanks! Put your real info on the letter, speak up and be proud of your convictions. Just like I said the other day about Obama and other government workers, the Supreme Court Justices also work for us! We have every right to let them know how we feel and ask that they just stick to their job, interpreting the constitution, not changing it. Check out the post and start drafting your letters. The Supreme Court is set to hear anti-Prop 8 arguments in March.

Send your letters to:

Chief Justice Ronald M. George and the
Associate Justices of the California Supreme Court
350 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102

Pearl-Diver wrote a great letter to the Supreme Court in a post on her blog. Check it out here!

Source: Family Research Council


{ Thanksgiving Post From Pearl Diver… }

My new blogger friend Pearl-Diver wrote an amazing Thanksgiving post and I wanted to direct my readers to it. It’s definitely worth a read. She’s an amazing writer a really knows how to articulate things well. She makes some great points about the real condition of the fight over marriage in California. Let us know what you think about the gay rights campaign and how they are presenting the “issues.” Here’s a snippet of Pearl’s post. Click here to read the entire Thanksgiving Post.

The gay “rights” movement is steam-rolling forward powered by blood-lust and rage, leaving in its wake a carnage the likes of which this country has not seen since Blacks were sent to the back of the bus. While this new, millennial movement claims love and equal rights as its objectives; lying in its wake is the antithetical and conspicuous reality – the tattered remains of freedom of speech and religion.  At the end of the rigidly pointing homosexual fingers stand the Mormons, being sent to the back of the bus for equally unfair reasons as their beloved African American brothers – they voted.