California Prop. 8 court ruling to be announced at 10 a.m. PT Tuesday

[Newsjock]

Source: California Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has indicated that the filing of a written opinion in the following case(s) is forthcoming. At the filing time designated below, the filed opinion(s) will be accessible at the judicial branch web site (www.courtinfo.ca.gov) and copies will be made available at the Supreme Court Clerk’s Office.

STRAUSS et al. v. HORTON (HOLLINGSWORTH et al, Interveners)
S168047
TYLER et al. v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al. (HOLLINGSWORTH et al, Interveners)
S168066
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al. v. HORTON (HOLLINGSWORTH et al. , Interveners)
S168078
Argued in San Francisco 3-05-09
The court issued an order to show cause in Strauss, Tyler, and City and County of San Francisco directing the parties to brief and argue the following issues: (1) Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution? (See Cal. Const., art. XVIII, §§ 1–4.) (2) Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution? (3) 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?
Opinions in the above cases will be filed on:
Tuesday, May 26, 2009 at 10:00 a.m.


Read more: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/SF052609.PDF

[Kerrytravelers]

1. I'm nervous already. I so want this horrible piece of hate overturned.

If this is upheld, who is next?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

3. Two prong approach --

attack Prop 8 again legally and put another proposition on the ballot for the next election.

The legal argument this case made was weak from the beginning -- it would be a shocker if the court ruled in the plaintiff's favor.

I'll be getting my protest gear ready for Tuesday.

[slackmaster]

8. IMO the most important prong is to educate people

I don't buy the notion that 52% of California voters are haters.

Most of them are just misinformed. They've been told all their lives that sexual orientation is always a matter of choice. The slightest self-reflection on one's own sexual awakening is enough to create massive cognitive dissonance.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

10. You are 100% correct.

There was almost ZERO outreach/education in the leadup to the election -- a huge mistake from the anti-8 groups.

A mistake that must never be repeated. :hi:

[nichomachus]

14. I don't buy this argument at all

and I haven't from the beginning.

I live in Palm Springs. Palm Springs is anywhere from 30-45% gay. It is virtually impossible for any straight person to live their lives without coming into contact with gay people. We socialize together. We serve on the same neighborhood committees. I take in my str8 neighbor's mail and trash when they're traveling and vice versa. Straights and gays work together, shop in each other's stores, play golf together -- you name it.

If there is any place outside of SF, where straights and gays know each other on a close personal basis it is Palm Springs.

Given that there is a high percentage of gay people, if you remove them from the voting mix, assuming that they all voted against Prop H8, 60 percent of the remaining voters voted in favor of Prop 8.

It would be impossible to do more "outreach" to the straight community than happens naturally in Palm Springs.

The key here was the vicious and constant lies told by the clergy.

Almost every person who was interviewed by the local media and who was in support of Prop 8 had the same story -- I don't have anything against gay people. I know a lot of them. I don't even have a problem with their being married. But I needed to protect my church and my minister, because my church could be sued or closed down and my priest or minister arrested if they didn't perform gay marriages. And I didn't want homosexuality to be taught in kindergarten. (Or variations on the theme.)

That is the problem we need to overcome. We need to convince people that their priests and ministers are serial liars -- and that is going to take more than just going door to door with fliers or holding tea parties to "get to know" each other.

[t0dd]

26. I don't find the legal argument weak

Proposition 8 sets a dangerous precedent that a simple majority is enough to strip a minority of a fundamental right (that the CA Supreme Court previously declared). Because of the far reaching implications of that, if proposition 8 is upheld, it constitutes a serious revision to the CA Constitution. Moreover, the CA Supreme Court decides what is and is not a revision. It doesn't have to be solely something that substantially alters government structure (as jurisprudence would indicate). If they want to broaden their definition of a revision, they have every right to do that. If proposition 8 is upheld, here are some equally permissible initiatives: gay people may not adopt, people with blue eyes may not vote, black and white people may not marry. Of course, some of these would be dead upon arrival under our Federal Constitution, but you get the idea (I hope). Finally, overturning proposition 8 wouldn't be unprecedented. Our own SCOTUS did that in Romer v. Evans when they struck down an amendment Voters in Colorado passed that would have prevented any city, town or county in the state from taking any type of governmental action to protect homosexual citizens from discrimination. Of course, this was under our federal constitution, but, again, for the CA Supreme Court to strike down Prop 8 is absolutely within their capacity.

[customerserviceguy]

32. I'm thinking that the problem

is that the California Constitution is subject to the whims of a mere majority of voters.

I have to say, I'm damned uncomforable about this. Given that CA's laws, as flawed as they are, require a mere 50% plus one vote to amend it's constitution, it troubles me that a state Supreme Court can throw out a vote on that constitution as "unconstitutional".

I'm saddened by the fact that 52% of CA voters just six and a half months ago voted for discrimination, and I just hope that in the near future, a majority of people in a state that historically has stood for the freedom of people to make a new life for themselves will see that their neighbors of a different orientation are still the good and wonderful people that make up the population of California.

[Ian David]

2. That's 10 AM Pacific Time? n/t

[Newsjock]

4. Fixed the title :)

n/t

[FreeState]

5. Yes- PST. K&r! n/t

[tomm2thumbs]

6. I read the court's first decision and it surprises me that...

.. they would take even this much time to review the case given how strongly they worded their 'equal rights' aspect of the first case. I may be wrong but if they change gears on this and decide against it, my guess is their two legal opinions will not gel and that alone will be an injustice, not to mention how it affects this state and country.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

12. The legal argument in the currentt court case ---

is that no one has the right to take away a person's rights via the State's ballot inititive process -- not that gay m arrige is right/wrong -- they are arguing the manner in which it was done is illegal, that something like that has to go through the Legislative process.

My understanding is that there is nothing in the State's constitution barring that.

[nichomachus]

17. The way the bigots' argument goes

Is that last year the justices ruled that the way the state constitution was written, same-sex marriage couldn't be restricted.

Now, they argue, the voters have changed the constitution -- so that restricting gay marriage is in line with the constitution, as amended by Prop H8.

The argument against that is that Prop H8 wasn't merely an amendment to the constitution -- but rather was a fundamental change to the structure of the constitution -- something that can't be done by ballot initiative and has to be done by constitutional convention.

That, in a nutshell, is what the argument is.

[tomm2thumbs]

20. thanks for the info - I get it now - much sadder to see how that game works

It's like the court said 'Oh no, you could never strangle someone - it is such a basic element of our Constitutional legacy and supported by the life clause' and then there's a PropS-for strangle on the ballot which passes and the same court says 'Oh well, the new Constitution suddenly looks completely different. Go ahead and strangle someone cuz it's okay now.'

Very strange that we'd have 2 ways to alter the constitution but no clear-cut determination of which way is legal for which issue. So that is what is at stake here I hear you saying. Thanks for the info.

[slackmaster]

7. Taggage and kickage

:kick:

[LostinVA]

9. White Night Riots Part 2

[tomm2thumbs]

11. I know I'm crazy, but with today's information age - don't leaks slip out? ever?

seems like some investigative reporter would have already found a non-shredded early draft or something and would be leaking it on wiki-leaks.

[nichomachus]

15. I think you need to cut back on the television just a little. n/t

[tomm2thumbs]

21. not before I shred the TV Guide first

<g>

[FreeState]

24. There has been a leak already that I know of...

the leak said they would announce it Tuesday and that everyone there at the court that does not know the ruling (very few do - high up clerks and the judges) were not optimistic at all. The leak refused to say which way it was going that he/she did not know anyway - but the leak was right about the date.

But that was it.

[nichomachus]

27. Well, since Tuesday was the last day they could announce it

that "leak" was kind of a gimme.

[FreeState]

28. It was not the last day - next Thursday and the next Monday were possible dates aswell n/t

[nichomachus]

30. Well, that is certainly

the last time I buy a calendar from a guy selling them off the back of a truck.

:-)

[FreeState]

31. LOL! n/t

[pfitz59]

13. Didn't Ken Starr argue this case..

for the Dark Side?

[nichomachus]

16. Oh yes, and the justices

did everything but give him a Lewinsky while they brought him tea and cookies. It was pretty disgusting. They looked like the junior high school cheerleading squad the day the Jonas Brothers came to visit.

[Aslanspal]

18. The opposition Jim Garlow said 5-2 back April 15 on "Joni" show Daystar

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=132129&mesg_id=132140



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=132129&mesg_id=132141


He seemed pretty confident it would be 5-2 in their favor...now the show was taped April 15 it has been showing on Daystar the Joni show.

[Aslanspal]

22. Link? seems as the video does not work...i apologize

and is not in archives as well...perhaps they are waiting for Tuesday to show the show on the internet...but i did see the show on tv and he seemed too confident that it would be 5-2 in their favor but the ruling on those already married would go against them.

[pinto]

19. Kick. n/t

[t0dd]

23. The big question

Ming and Baxter will most likely vote to uphold Prop 8. Moreno and Werdegar will most likely vote to strike it down. That leaves the other three: Corrigan, George, and Kennard. What will they do? Ugh, I feel sick.. haha

[FreeState]

25. Here is a pretty good hopeful analysis (4 for overturning 3 for upholding the vote)

http://www.thesweetmelissa.com/sweet_melissa/2009/05/prop-8-ruling-will-come-out-soon-.html

Keep Prop 8:
Baxter *
Chin *
Corrigan

Overturn Prop 8:
Moreno *
Werdegar *
Kennard
George

(* is defiant according to the article)

[bluestateguy]

29. That ought to be a fun day on DU

In any event, saddle up for another ballot initiative.

[Wednesdays]

33. K&R

:kick: