Prop 8 Fight Looking Grim In SCoCA

[stopbush]

The reports are not good:


California Supreme Court signals mixed response to Proposition 8

As foes and supporters of the gay-marriage ban argue before the court, the justices appear ready to uphold the ban, but they also sound reluctant to invalidate same-sex marriages already performed.

By Maura Dolan and Carol J. Williams
2:25 PM PST, March 5, 2009

Reporting from San Francisco and Los Angeles -- The California Supreme Court appeared ready today to uphold Proposition 8, the November ballot measure that banned gay marriage, but also seemed likely to decide -- perhaps unanimously -- that the marriages of same-sex couples who wed before the election would remain valid.

During a three-hour televised hearing in San Francisco, only Justices Carlos R. Moreno and Kathryn Mickle Werdegar suggested that the court could overturn the marriage ban as an illegal constitutional revision.


Chief Justice Ronald M. George, who wrote last year's historic ruling allowing same-sex marriage, noted that constitutional amendments have taken away individual rights in the past. He also emphasized that the state Constitution that allowed the court to overturn the ban on same-sex marriage has now been changed by Proposition 8.

"Today we have a different state Constitution," George said.

Justice Joyce L. Kennard, usually a strong supporter of gay rights, had voted against accepting the legal challenges that characterized Proposition 8 as an illegal constitutional revision but was willing to hear arguments on whether existing same-sex marriages should remain valid.

Here: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prop8-supreme-court6-2009mar06,0,798075.story

BTW -where are all the threads on this issue???!! A basic right of our gay brothers is about to go bye-bye in CA and no one is blogging about it. Why?

[Taverner]

1. No - they won't support it

It will fail

It HAS to

[stopbush]

2. Unfortunately, common sense, equality and decency appear to be

losing here.

I was positive this would be a slam dunk for the CASC, but it isn't looking good.

[villager]

4. I suspect we will have to overturn the bigots -- and their out of state money -- at the ballot box

n/t

[robinlynne]

3. got emails today saying it went really well.....

(but from the courage campaign, so they always say everything is going well, then ask for donations....)

[TheWraith]

5. I think there's some Prop 8 burnout.

Remember, it "went bye" last November. This is just a bit of a long shot to try and go against that. Still, we can hope.

[stopbush]

9. Since when are supreme court justices allowed to suffer from burnout

over any legal issue? I could see if it was over something that had been kicked around in CA for decades, but this horror took place only 4 months ago.

The justices are to decide these things based on the legalities, not on emotions. For some of them to say that Prop 8 has changed the CA Constitution since the election and therefore they are looking at this under a different perspective is absolutely ludicrous. To aver such means that any law or initiative passed that has the force of changing the Constitution may not be challenged as being unconstitutional.

What if we put it on the ballot to take away the rights of the religious to vote? If that passed, would their right to vote simply evaporate?

The comments of some of these judges sicken me. They're appalling.

[TheWraith]

11. I was talking about us, not the CA SC.

Re: the lack of posts. Most of us have assumed that we're going to have to go the route of another ballot proposition down the road.

[noiretextatique]

6. if this court has an iota of integrity, there is no way it can allow

prop 8 to stand, given their previous ruling. i just don't see how they can rule in favor of Prop 8.

[Idealism]

7. Precedent is one of the most often-cited reasons for judicial proclamations

I hope this is the case here, too. It would look suspicious otherwise...

[noiretextatique]

13. they seem to be parsing the amendment issue a lot

in the hearing today. still, i can't fathom how this court could vote to legalize discrimination against a minority. wouldn't that set a terrible precedent?

[EFerrari]

8. I've been looking for them.

:hi:

[chollybocker]

10. Pitchfork sales must be sky-rocketing in CA right now.

This is absolutely ridiculous. Basic citizen's rights are not to be voted on. And courts should never have to be asked twice on such basic rights issues. There's NOWAY this can be ruled constitutional. Otherwise, it's open season on teh gay. Ridiculous.

[CitizenPatriot]

12. this is VERY alarming

and now these sick fucks are trying to pull the same thing in another state.

Honestly, I've had it with them. They need to lose their tax-exempt status RIGHT now and they need to be shamed relentlessly.

I've started posting the Republican Sex Offenders website everywhere I can-- many of the Right Wing Religious Nut Jobs are on there. Passing themselves off as the family values bs is utterly absurd. Orwellian, almost. What right do they have to take rights away from a certain class of citizens? Where will it end?

If it doesn't get overturned...it's heartbreaking to even think about.

Talivangists need to be put in their place.

[Nikki Stone1]

15. What's alarming is that the Mormon church was able to override California's natural tolerance

It's just a mess.

[KamaAina]

28. Talivangelists!!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:thumbsup:

[Nikki Stone1]

14. Have the justices been threatened with recall at all?

I just wonder if political pressure might be behind this.

[stillcool]

16. How do the people in California...

put up with this? You'd think there would be some kind of organization efforts going on to get people involved.

[EFerrari]

17. All too busy being frantic about jobs and mortgages.

It's not good here.

[Nikki Stone1]

18. Lamda Legal's report:

http://www.lambdalegal.org/publications/articles/proposition-8-challenged.html

http://www.lambdalegal.org/news/pr/attorneys-urge-california.html

[Nikki Stone1]

19. Interesting webpage: CA Courts

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/prop8.htm

[Hell Hath No Fury]

20. This is exactly what I feared. :(

They hinged the case on whether the initiave process could be used to amend the Constitution, which has nothing to do with the whether gay marriage is right or not.

Shit shit shit shit.

There will be a lot of bad work to be undone.

I think it should start with a ballot initiative banning marriage between a man and a woman. Or maybe Mormons. I'll start the ball rolling. :mad:

[Nikki Stone1]

25. That's a real problem, isn't it.

Although, at this point, the initiative process has been so corrupted that maybe it's time for it to go, or at least to prohibit the process from amending the constitution.

[Nikki Stone1]

21. Maybe we could get two more recommends on this thread?

Thanks

[robertpaulsen]

22. One from me!

:kick:

[Nikki Stone1]

26. Thanks.

I think this is an important discussion.

[BuyingThyme]

23. The Justices are screwn.

They can't both uphold 8 and allow the marriages to stand because that will just necessitate another action calling for equal treatment.

[Thothmes]

33. Yes they can

they can declare the amendment process constitutional and therefore prop 8 stands and at the same time say that those marriages executed prior to the constitutional amendment remain valid, because it was not against the law at the time the couples were married. Make perfect legal sense. Stinks from a social viewpoint thought.

[writerdad]

24. Strict Constructionists

My understanding is that it's the conservative makeup of the court that will get Prop 8 tossed out... Ironically.

[Nikki Stone1]

27. How do you figure?

Thanks.

[Starry Messenger]

29. There are some threads about it in the GBLT forum.

Thank you for posting about it here. This is tragic news. This is such a stain on us if Prop 8 is upheld. This is creating a class of second-class citizens in our State Constitution. I hate hate hate fundies.

[Cha]

30. With "Milk" winning Sean Penn

an Oscar, the best screenplay Oscar going Dustin Lance Black(who came from a Mormon household and credited Harvey Milk for giving him the courage to be who he was) for "Milk", and Sean talking about this in his acceptance speech I can't help but think there's a lot of action going on in California concerning this that we don't know about yet.

It may take some time but the people of California will win out over the Morman Church.

[Starry Messenger]

32. This is about it, actually.

There isn't really much else we can do. I guess we could create a law that restricts the rights of our citizens to amend the State Constitution with a popular vote. And then hope we could make it retroactive. Some people don't have time. They are getting old and they needed this. :(

[Zhade]

31. That is so fucking unconstitutional.

I can't believe the bigots are going to win the day.

(But not the war, assholes. Never the war. We have only begun to fight your hatred.)

[Cha]

34. Exactly! Not

the War.