California's Attorney General: Gay Marriage Ban Legal?

1BiGG1

Sexy Member
Joined
May 13, 2008
Posts
1,942
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
123
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
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.
 

faceking

Cherished Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Posts
7,426
Media
6
Likes
277
Points
208
Location
Mavs, NOR * CAL
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
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?

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.
 
Last edited:

BobLeeSwagger

Sexy Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2003
Posts
1,455
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
258
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
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!"
 

surferboy

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Posts
2,976
Media
17
Likes
105
Points
193
Location
Sunrise, Florida
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
Gay marriage opponents say the process was constitutional and the losers are tying to overturn the will of the people,

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
 

mikeyh9in

Cherished Member
Joined
May 31, 2004
Posts
322
Media
4
Likes
341
Points
293
Age
55
Location
San Francisco (California, United States)
Gender
Male
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?

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"?
 

Guy-jin

Legendary Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2007
Posts
3,836
Media
3
Likes
1,367
Points
333
Location
San Jose (California, United States)
Sexuality
Asexual
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"?

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.
 

1BiGG1

Sexy Member
Joined
May 13, 2008
Posts
1,942
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
123
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
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.


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:
 

OCDreamer69

Sexy Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Posts
421
Media
5
Likes
62
Points
263
Age
64
Location
Orange County, CA
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
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.
 

B_Nick8

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Posts
11,403
Media
0
Likes
298
Points
208
Location
New York City, by way of Marblehead, Boston and Ge
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
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:

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.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
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

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. :)
 

uniqueusername

Just Browsing
Joined
Dec 3, 2006
Posts
218
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
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.