California Supreme Court looks unlikely to kill Proposition 8

[DKRC]

Cross post from GD

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prop8-supreme-c...

State justices appear unwilling to overturn the gay-marriage ban but suggest that pre-vote weddings are valid.
By Maura Dolan
March 6, 2009

Reporting from San Francisco -- The California Supreme Court strongly indicated Thursday it would rule that Proposition 8 validly abolished the right for gays to marry but would allow same-sex couples who wed before the November election to remain legally married.

The long-awaited hearing, which came as dueling demonstrators chanted and carried banners outside, was a disappointment for gay rights lawyers.

They had hoped the same court majority that overturned the state's previous marriage ban would conclude that Proposition 8 was an impermissible constitutional revision.

Two members of that majority -- Chief Justice Ronald M. George and Justice Joyce L. Kennard -- expressed deep skepticism toward the gay rights lawyers' arguments. Without their votes, Proposition 8 appeared almost certain to survive.

[t0dd]

1. It's horrible, but true..

But Minter and Stewart argued their cases beautifully. They deserve a lot of praise, no matter what happens. Stewart especially. In her rebuttal, she spoke with such passion and conviction; unfortunately, not even that was enough to reach the apparently hardened heart of Justice Kennard, who is far and different from the woman that wrote a concurring opinion in "In Re Marriage Cases".

Our next hope is to get a initiative on the ballot in 2010, which if passed would nullify proposition 8. Same-sex marriage will happen, and the fight has only just begun. I personally won't quit until all my gay brothers and sisters enjoy the same rights as everyone else.

[damonm]

2. Well, shit.

And airtight the S.O.B. as well - put in a rider that any vote to remove a right enumerated in the state constitution or by state SC decision requires a 2/3 majority for passage. That'll keep abominations like this from succeeding in future.

[t0dd]

3. That's what we need to do.

After we get prop 8 repealed, we need to make it more difficult for the CA constitution to be amended. But only AFTER we get prop 8 overturned. I'm afraid the "Yes on 8" people will fight for an initiative in 2010 to do this. That way, if we don't repeal prop 8, it will be even more difficult for us to legalize same-sex marriage again.

[NorthCarolina]

9. I would venture to huess that this is precisely what the Fundies will attempt to do

if Prop H8 is upheld. They will seek to change the laws to make it harder to Undo their dirty work.

[AntiFascist]

4. Uh, what does this mean for the equal protection clause?

If the inalienable right of the people to amend the state constitution is so important, what is to keep them from creating further amendments to deny illegal immigrants basic human rights? Better yet, what if the broader population, suffering from the economy, decides that the wealthy don't have certain rights where it comes to wealth that is considered excessive? This is a powerful double-edged sword that can cut in many different directions. In order to create additional state revenue, the people can decide that cultish religions, such as Mormonism, should not be considered tax exempt in the state of California.

[damonm]

5. And guess what?

Ken Starr would argue our case for it.
When asked hypothetically by one of the justices if freedom of speech were to be restriced by majority vote, Starr said he would defend that position if that won the vote. According to him, the voters are sovereign - never mind Madison and the Federalist Papers...:grr:

[AntiFascist]

6. Try to amend the Constitution in that way, and he may see the oppressed people revolt...

the Judiciary can only go so far. Some people were getting really scared during the LA Riots.

[damonm]

7. And well he SHOULD!

[DKRC]

13. Any church should be stripped of tax exempt status

when they preach politics, and/or provide financial support for political agendas. The separation of church & state needs to be reinforced.

[imdjh]

21. Don't we want the court to rule against us?

If the California court rules against us, won't it then go to the USSC so that the ruling would apply to the entire country? Don't we really need the USSC to rule that laws which discriminate against gay people anywhere in the US are void?

[Jamastiene]

8. Then the CA Supreme Court is DTM.

Here begins my California boycott. Goodbye, carrots. I'll miss you...until I find carrots from other states for sale locally.

[cboy4]

15. The California Supreme Court is made up of nothing but

right-wingers.

So don't boycott us!!

How many electoral votes can we be counted on to give the Democrats every election cycle?

We would most likely never win another election without California.

That alone should be worth your carrot support.

CARROTS!

[Jamastiene]

16. I would miss carrots so much...and some of my favorite musicians...

I do love carrots an awful lot.

I'll still boycott the California Supreme Court though. :P

[cboy4]

19. OK, as long as you only boycott the Supreme Court's

carrots and oranges and grapes. :P

[LeftHander]

10. This issue will never be settled at the state level....

Even if California prop 8 is nullified as stated the haters will try again and again. As long as the Feds do nothing the states will adopt increasingly draconian measures against LGBT people.

Numerous states have already passed iron-clad Constitutional Amendments banning not only same sex marriage but also the recognition of any other institution that is similar to marriage. This effectively removes the possibility of any equality for same sex couples. They simply do not exist.

It will take a a major U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the right challenge to guarantee equal rights and marriage equity for LGBT persons. The same held true in the past for women and blacks. Eventually the SCOTUS had to provide national leadership and overturn racist, bigoted, misogynistic and hateful laws passed by majorities across the country.


What is excellent is the visibility of Prop 8 and it has helped expose the effects of those bans in other states. Many people are beginning to realize the Christian Right has taken this too far.

[TEmperorHasNoClothes]

17. Agreed, but we have to push marriage in states to get to the supremes

I've been saying tghe same thing all along. Overturning h8 would be great, but it doesn't help the people in the other 47 states that don't give us marriage rights.

[HillWilliam]

11. I've got one word of warning to the supporters of Prop H8

Just remember, before you take glee in removing any civil right from any group of people, that you are setting a precedent that can and will at some point be used against you.

Any time there is precedent for removing a civil right from any group of people, it lays the foundation for removing any right from any other group of people.

Prop H8 supporters, be careful what you ask for. You'll get it. Good and hard.

[dickthegrouch]

12. Two things I don't understand

Why was everyone so unwilling to say

"Yes, it should be harder to take away a right that has been enjoyed"?

and what is so difficult to understand that the language of PropH8 does not just take away the nomenclature? It says "shall be valid or recognized", that affects a whole hell of a lot more than nomenclature.

I didn't even hear anyone enumerate the rights conferred by the state as a result of marriage, as a rebuttal to the "single issue" objection. In fact, I don't believe any part of California law explicitly ties marriage to words such as Husband, Wife, Spouse but the law contains those words throughout. By barring same-sex couples from access to those concepts (as a result of propH8) is how we are excluded from the rights and benefits pertaining thereto.

D

[dbackjon]

14. Time for a recall

[xchrom]

18. yeah -- we're going to lose.

it was interesting to watch the arguments -- but you could see -- it was obvious -- what was on the supremes minds.

they don't want to 'upset' the people by overturning their 'will'.

[cboy4]

20. Even though our lawyers argued why it's a revision, and

therefore unlawful to change the constitution by means of an initiative.

Bastards.

[imdjh]

22. I don't understand

If the California Supreme Court legalized marriage because the discrimination was a violation of equal protection or similar constitutional principle, then wouldn't Prop 8 have had to REPEAL that constitutional protection or principle to be valid?

It seems to me that if Prop 8 is allowed to stand, then the people could vote to make being a Mormon illegal even though the constitution protects freedom of religion.

[totodeinhere]

23. IMO it will take a repeal of Prop 8 in 2010. And I am very optimistic that it can happen.

Prop 8 opponents were too complacent last time around. That won't happen again.

[Mike 03]

24. I keep seeing this headline everywhere, but I don't understand how this

is possible.

Didn't they just a year ago rule on this precise issue, and rule in favor of Gay marriage as guaranteed in the Constitution? How then can they go back and vitiate their own opinion on the basis of a proposition that probably wasn't even legal in the first place?

I would have bet my house and everything in it that this was a slam dunk. How is it possible there is anything to deliberate about?

This is so dis-spiriting and disappointing.

[Eryemil]

25. It's riot time.

I will even fly down if something starts.

[IntravenousDemilo]

26. I have a fond but unattainable wish...

... that all who oppose full and equal rights for gay people, throughout the world, should quietly and painlessly pass away in their sleep within the next year or so, which is a better fate than many of them would wish upon us.