California's Attorney General: Gay Marriage Ban Legal?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by 1BiGG1, Nov 18, 2008.

  1. 1BiGG1

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI
    This will add fuel to the fire …

    California court urged to review gay marriage ban - Yahoo! News

    SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – California's Attorney General on Monday urged the state Supreme Court to consider whether a gay marriage ban passed by voters this month was legal.

    The state's top lawyer, former governor Jerry Brown, said the court should keep the ban in place while it considers the issue -- and it should rule quickly.

    California's ban marked a major reversal for same-sex couples, who had won state Supreme Court approval to marry in the trend-setting state in May.

    Only a handful of states, provinces and European countries recognize same-sex marriage and gay marriage advocates have demonstrated vocally around the country since the November 4 vote.

    Gay marriage advocates have argued in court that the ban vote was improper, since it was passed in an amendment process requiring majority approval -- the ban won 52 percent support.

    A measure which takes away rights already granted to a minority needs to follow a more substantial process, called a revision, gay marriage advocates said.

    Gay marriage opponents say the process was constitutional and the losers are tying to overturn the will of the people, but on Monday they agreed California's highest court should hear the challenge to the measure, called Proposition 8.

    "Other courts addressing similar revision/amendment arguments under closely analogous constitutional provisions have rejected them," a ProtectMarriage.com statement said.

    "Proposition 8 is simple, narrow, and targeted to a single issue."

    Brown said that allowing same-sex marriage during the review process would increase uncertainty and urged the court to act promptly.

    "The public interest would be best served not by issuing a temporary stay (on the ban), but by an expedited resolution of the important issues raised," he said in a review requested by the court, which is expected to decide as early as this week whether to hear the matter.
     
  2. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    "This will add fuel to the fire" …i can agree with you on that for a change.
     
  3. JP0724

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    Messages:
    216
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New York City, NY
    Verified:
    Photo
    I hope it adds a lot of fire to the situation.. I for one am tired of being a happy gay.. doing the right thing, taking the high road, not engaging. It's gotten the gay community no where.
     
  4. faceking

    faceking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,453
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    36
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mavs, NOR * CAL
    This is not even shocking.

    It was Jerry Brown, who re-wrote the original sponsored proposition to his liking (e.g. Democratic bent).

    edit: which I find SUSPICIOUSLY odd... he stacked the deck, lost. then claims the deck was still bad. if Moonbeam is correct, why was this even on the ballot?

     
    #4 faceking, Nov 18, 2008
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2008
  5. BobLeeSwagger

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,481
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    The challenge they're referring to is whether the proposition was a "revision" to the constitution instead of an amendment. Revisions would require the legislature to pass it first by a two-thirds majority before the voters decided it. If it's ruled to be a revision, then it would be nullified on a technicality because the legislature didn't do that. (Not that this would be the end of it. It surely would be on the ballot again.) It's really more the fault of our crappy initiative process than anything else. There isn't a decent process for weeding out the potentially sketchy propositions before they end up on the ballot. Then we end up deciding them in court after the fact. It's lame, no matter what side of an issue you're on.

    By urging that it be enforced, Brown is actually doing what he's supposed to do. If people defy the new law, then the status of those new marriages and those that came before could become legally dubious. It also would have to be heard by the state supreme court before any challenge to the law could be heard, so it would really just slow things down. Then there's the matter of how, as the state's chief law enforcement official, enforcing the new law is also, you know, his job. Even if he disagrees with it.

    The rumor is that Brown is planning to run for governor again in 2010. This is the kind of move that a guy would make if he were trying to win the Democratic nomination over the ultra-liberal mayor of San Francisco. He may just come out looking more responsible for making gay marriage happen than Mr. "It's Gonna Happen Whether You Like It Or Not!"
     
  6. B_Nick8

    B_Nick8 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    11,912
    Likes Received:
    44
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New York City, by way of Marblehead, Boston and Ge
    And you just live for that, don't you, BiGG? If I have ever seen a bigger a-hole than you are, I can't remember when.
     
  7. surferboy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,182
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sunrise, Florida
    i hate when peoples say "it was the will of the peoples" when referring to something that takes away rights. we're not talking about new stadium. we're talking about peoples' right to marry the person they love. plenty of things were "the will of the peoples" - such as slavery, separate water fountains, black peoples sitting at the back of the bus, and the list goes on. just because it's the will of the peoples (and just barely, might i add) does not mean it's ethical or constitutional
     
  8. mikeyh9in

    mikeyh9in Active Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Messages:
    321
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    He did not "re-write" the proposition to his liking... he merely did his job in correctly naming the proposition for the ballot. Correctly stating that the proposition would take away the rights of individuals which they currently enjoyed -- can you tell me how that is the "Democratic bent"?
     
  9. ZOS23xy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,073
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    directly above the center of the earth
    Andy/Italian? Or is the OP the same as those two?
     
  10. Guy-jin

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    3,835
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    669
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Planet Earth
    Because clearly only Democrats are against eliminating people's rights and most everyone else is completely fine with it as long as it's under the guise of "protecting marriage".

    Wait no, that's utter nonsense and faceking is just spewing Neoconservative talk radio horse manure like always.
     
  11. 1BiGG1

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI

    Geeez …. did somebody serve you warm, unsalted peanuts today that you later found out were really Peanut M&M’s they sucked the candy shell and chocolate off or something? :biggrin1:
     
  12. OCDreamer69

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2005
    Messages:
    427
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    Verified:
    Photo
    SAN FRANCISCO – 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 did not elaborate on its decision.
    Along with the gay rights groups and local governments petitioning to overturn the ban, the measure's sponsors and Attorney General Jerry Brown had urged the Supreme Court to consider whether Proposition 8 passes legal muster.
    The court directed Brown and lawyers for the Yes on 8 campaign to submit their arguments for why the ballot initiative should not be nullified by Dec. 19. 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.
     
  13. B_Nick8

    B_Nick8 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    11,912
    Likes Received:
    44
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New York City, by way of Marblehead, Boston and Ge
    Nah, I just got a heapin' helpin' of you.

    And you know, normally I'm an easy going kind of guy, but sometimes you just stick in my craw which again, is what you live for. Now, just for today, sod off.
     
  14. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    IF they change the law there are going to be 20k legal gay marriages, what are the fundies going to do then?
     
  15. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Ain't it funny how people hide behind the "will of the people" defense whenever it's something they agree with? But as soon as the majority isn't on their side, they completely flip out. :)
     
  16. uniqueusername

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    221
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    If the amendment IS struck down in the courts, all it will do is further enrage the people who voted for it in the first place. I can definitely see recall elections against some of the justices of that court. It's happened before when they overturned voter initiatives.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted