California Supreme Court takes on gay marriage issue

[Every Breaking Wave]

From the Associated Press

California's highest court agreed Wednesday to hear several legal challenges to the state's new ban on same-sex marriage but refused to allow gay couples to resume marrying before it rules.

The California Supreme Court accepted three lawsuits seeking to nullify Proposition 8, a voter-approved constitutional amendment that overruled the court's decision in May that legalized gay marriage.

All three cases claim the measure 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.

As is its custom when it takes up cases, the court elaborated little. However, the justices did say they want to address what effect, if any, a ruling upholding the amendment would have on the estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages that were sanctioned in California before election day.

Gay rights groups and local governments petitioning to overturn the ban were joined by the measure's sponsors and Attorney General Jerry Brown in urging the Supreme Court to consider whether Proposition 8 passes legal muster.

The initiative's opponents had also asked the court to grant a stay of the measure, which would have allowed gay marriages to begin again while the justices considered the cases. The court denied that request.

The justices directed Brown and lawyers for the Yes on 8 campaign to submit arguments by Dec. 19 on why the ballot initiative should not be nullified. It said lawyers for the plaintiffs, who include same-sex couples who did not wed before the election, must respond before Jan. 5.

Oral arguments could be scheduled as early as March, according to court spokeswoman Lynn Holton.

Both opponents and supporters of Proposition 8 expressed confidence Wednesday that their arguments would prevail.

But they also agreed that the cases present the court's seven justices - six of whom voted to review the challenges - with complex questions that have few precedents in state case law.

The lawsuits argue that voters improperly abrogated the judiciary's authority by stripping same-sex couples of the right to wed after the high court earlier ruled it was discriminatory to prohibit gay men and lesbians from marrying.

"If given effect, Proposition 8 would work a dramatic, substantive change to our Constitution's 'underlying principles' of individual on a scale and scope never previously condoned by this court," lawyers for the same-sex couples stated in their petition.

The measure represents such a sweeping change that it constitutes a constitutional revision as opposed to an amendment, the documents say. The distinction would have required the ban's backers to obtain approval from two-thirds of both houses of the California legislature before submitting it to voters.

Over the past century, the California Supreme Court has heard nine cases challenging legislative acts or ballot initiatives as improper revisions. The court eventually invalidated three of the measures, according to the gay rights group Lambda Legal.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

Wonder what sort of precedent this would set if they rule AGAINST the Proposition.

 

[ShinyFlareon]

Wonder what sort of precedent this would set if they rule AGAINST the Proposition.

It would probably start another whole controversy bit for the people who do support it: something along the lines of them saying that the ruling is denying voters rights and is therefore also unconstitutional or some shit. *sigh* I love that people are fighting this ban, but really, no matter how this turns out, it's going to be a gigantic mess of people screaming at each other and bringing up the most trivial shit just to try and prove that their side is in the right.

 

[American]

Don't be suprised if this goes all the way to the Supreme Court. They might get shot down in California, but they'll have a case to argue that such civil rights are granted in Conneticut and Massachusetts.

Hoo-hoo. The Conservative Christian Right are not going to like the gays taking over our country. This is going to get ugly.

 

[ImJessieTR]

I always thought it would actually get more tasteful.

 

[Satoshi-chan]

Hoo-hoo. The Conservative Christian Right are not going to like the gays taking over our country. This is going to get ugly.

"...taking over our country?" How does someone wishing to have the same rights as a majority of americans count as "taking over our country?"

 

[anonymous920314]

"...taking over our country?" How does someone wishing to have the same rights as a majority of americans count as "taking over our country?"

I was wondering the same thing. I hope this ruling changes history, though I don't expect it to.

I doubt that the Federal Supreme Court will hear a case in regards to gay marriage.

 

[Zeta]

"...taking over our country?" How does someone wishing to have the same rights as a majority of Americans count as "taking over our country?"

Don't you know? Legalizing gay marriage means that everyone will have to be gay, and all straight marriages will be broken up and have to marry gay people!

 

[American]

"...taking over our country?" How does someone wishing to have the same rights as a majority of americans count as "taking over our country?"

I was being facetious, my post doesn't reflect my own personal belief. The CCR sees the legalization of gay marriage as an attack on our very moral fiber and should it happen, we'll all "go gay" or something.

Completely ridiculous and unfounded, but I believe it's an accurate depiction of how the Conservative Christian Right feels.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

Don't you know? Legalizing gay marriage means that everyone will have to be gay, and all straight marriages will be broken up and have to marry gay people!

And, thus, the gay agenda is made clear.

 

[evkl]

Hopefully they see sense.

 

[Girafarig_Magcargo]

I have no idea how California constitutional law works, but could the CA Supreme Court declare a constitutional amendment illegal? They might be able to knock down the ballot initiative based on a technicality in the election process, but I don't see how the court could rule what is now part of the CA constitution unconstitutional.

 

[Satoshi-chan]

It will be interesting to see how this is done, and if it is successful or not. I really do hope that Prop. 8 is indeed overturned, because this is a true civil rights issue. I also hope that the Mormon church does lose tax exempt status in the state of California due to how much money they put toward direct advertising of this bill.

 

[Zeta]

I have no idea how California constitutional law works, but could the CA Supreme Court declare a constitutional amendment illegal? They might be able to knock down the ballot initiative based on a technicality in the election process, but I don't see how the court could rule what is now part of the CA constitution unconstitutional.

They could, if it conflicts with the basics of the Constitution which main unchanged, which the argument.

 

[Girafarig_Magcargo]

They could, if it conflicts with the basics of the Constitution which main unchanged, which the argument.

That's an interesting part of the Constitution. It'd be nice to have a safeguard in our own Constitution similar to that, but I suppose it would be problematic to interpret the "gist" of the Constitution besides obvious stuff like freedom of speech, religion, etc.

 

[TTEchidna]

Wonder how soon the National Guard gets brought in this time.

Thank you, backwards-ass, prejudiced Americans, for ruining everything this country stands for. Christian Right, go get an island to live on in the Atlantic.

 

[evkl]

They could, if it conflicts with the basics of the Constitution which main unchanged, which the argument.

The technical problem at hand is that certain people-powered amendments to the Cali constitution (like Prop 8) can't make certain types of change--I forget what the technical term is, but it's basically radical change versus incremental change. They're suing, saying Prop 8 is of the 'radical change' type which can only be approved by the legislature, not the people-powered 'incremental change.'

 

[the gadfly]

The issue is whether Prop 8 is an amendment to the state constitution or a revision of the constitution. A revision requires either a constitutional convention or passage by 2/3 of the legislature followed by a majority vote of the people.

The lawsuits contend Prop 8 is an illegal revision of the state constitution because it was a proposition put on the ballot by signature gatherers, not something passed by 2/3 of the legislature and put on the ballot.

It's all rather technical. The court will have to decide if Prop 8 is an amendment or a revision.

 

[Nomura]

Why do we even argue about these things?

1. Our constitution gives us equal rights
2. There is seperation of church and state.

Why are those 2 things important? Simple. If all U.S. citizens have equal rights, then we all have the right to marry. Also, and more importantly, with seperation of church and state, the government cannot intervene with acts of the church unless those acts are unconstitutional. Marriage is an act of the church, and there is nothing in our constitution that bans gay marriage or agrees with it, therefore the decision should be left to the church.

Also, for those who are going to use the argument of marriage being sacred, since when? The sacred part of marriage is the pact between man, woman, and god. You know, the whole "For better or worst, in sickness and in health, until death do us part". That's the sacred pact, and with so many people cheating now days, and so many divorces, that sacred pact has been destroyed, time and time again. Therefore, that sacred argument is a moot argument.

 

[Zeta]

Marriage is an act of the church, and there is nothing in our constitution that bans gay marriage or agrees with it, therefore the decision should be left to the church.

Actually, atheists can get married, so it's actually two things - an act of church and an act of state. Obviously, the government should get involved with one but not the other.