prop 8 upheld by ca. supreme court

Discussion in 'Politics' started by D_Rod Staffinbone, May 26, 2009.

  1. D_Rod Staffinbone

    D_Rod Staffinbone Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2008
    Messages:
    858
    Likes Received:
    0
    california supreme court rules that prop 8 did amend the california constitution and stands.

    full text of decision-
    http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S168047.PDF


    this went down as many had been expected, with the marriages of the 18,000 gay couples who wed before the November vote allowed to remain valid.
     
    #1 D_Rod Staffinbone, May 26, 2009
    Last edited: May 26, 2009
  2. D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,539
    Likes Received:
    1
    From ABC News:

    The California Supreme Court has upheld Proposition 8 -- the controversial ballot question that banned same-sex marriage.


    At the same time, the ruling will allow about 18,000 same-sex couples already married, to retain the rights they attained during the brief six-month period that gay marriage was legal in the state.

    Christian groups that applauded retention of the ban say that the ruling on those same-sex marriages could create a conflict -- not only in the marital rights of Californians, but in adoption and income tax laws.

    "It's disappointing that the court will continue to uphold the legality of those who married during May to November of last year," said Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family in Action. "We don't know what the situation will be like, but it's likely to cause havoc in the courts as they try to deal with a class of individuals that look totally different."

    The contentious campaign pitted gay rights activists against Christian church groups including the Mormons, who raised a record $83 million to pass the referendum.
     
  3. Industrialsize

    Staff Member Moderator Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Messages:
    24,319
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    2,181
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    United States
    The vote to uphold prop 8 was 6-1
    Although prop 8 was upheld, the 18,000 same sex marriages already performed remain valid by a vote of 7-0.
    Although this outcome was expected it is disheartening.
     
  4. faceking

    faceking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,535
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    110
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mavs, NOR * CAL
    This isn't over, but puts back same-sex marriages in California a couple years or so.
     
  5. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    the 18k marriages left standing is the most important point in the decision handed down, this law is doomed to be repealed by the voters in the next election more than likely. nothing good ever comes easy.
     
  6. MickeyLee

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2008
    Messages:
    11,800
    Likes Received:
    1,828
    Location:
    neverhood
    [queer rage] i hate straight people *for the next 3 hours* [/queer rage]
     
  7. D_Pubert Stabbingpain

    D_Pubert Stabbingpain Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2007
    Messages:
    2,194
    Likes Received:
    8
    The religous wrong (most of them closeted but another topic!) will be taking this decision all over the country.

    Todays vote was 6-1 to uphold the Prop but this same court voted 4-3 last year that same sex couples have the "fundamental right to marry."

    Seems to me that 2 justices were influenced simply by election results instead of looking at the obvious attempt by the groups ABC mentions to keep same sex couples not only seperate but not equal as well. IMO, this is a U.S. Supreme Court issue that needs to decide this issue because courts should not be changing their minds according to always changing political movements.

    Just like abortion, regardless of the final decision, there will always be disgruntled people who feel their rights are being violated and spend their entire lives trying to re-write the nooks and crannies of law in order to get their own way because they think their way is the one and only right way.

    It has taken 40 years to finally see states recognize the existence of G/L's in a positive way. I hope they can keep the momentum going.
     
    #7 D_Pubert Stabbingpain, May 26, 2009
    Last edited: May 26, 2009
  8. HazelGod

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    7,531
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Other Side of the Pillow
    Exactly. Having two groups of people who are situationally identical, yet treated differently under the law is a clear violation of the equal protection clauses of the US Constitution.

    IMO, this was a cowardly decision my the CA SC justices. They chose not to invoke the wrath of a sizable chunk of citizens by overturning the prop itself...yet they deliberately left this doorway to a federal appeal wide open. Any first-year con-law student could argue the basis for the appeal.
     
  9. B_Stronzo

    B_Stronzo New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,730
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Plimoth Plantation
    Your critique HazelGod of the bottom line of it all seems accurate. I've been mulling the thing over since the decision was handed down. You've articulated it clearly and accurately in my view of the thing.

    I'm confident those opposing the Ca SP (actually I've read as much) are gathering momentum as we speak and will certainly hurl the thing back at the religionists in whatever politcal manner available to them to undo the unconsitiutional proposition. It's not over yet by a long shot in California.

    This amused me and saddened me simultaneously:

    *******************************************

    White House spokesman Robert Gibbs was asked if he had any response to the California Supreme Court's decision on Proposition 8.

    Said Gibbs: "I have not talked to the President about it. I think that the issues involved are ones — you know where the President stands."

    Pretty lousy dodge.

    -justifiable MickeyLee and I'll join you for that exact amount of time.
     
    #9 B_Stronzo, May 26, 2009
    Last edited: May 26, 2009
  10. Industrialsize

    Staff Member Moderator Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Messages:
    24,319
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    2,181
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    United States
    The following stories I found on DailyKos today, BOTH great reads for those so inclined
    Daily Kos: Prop 8 Decision: What Did They Decide, Exactly?

    It's an interesting read and perspective on what today's CSA decision means. Today's decision had nothing to do with Gay marriage but was a ruling on the procedure's involving amending and revising the State Constitution

    Daily Kos: Read page 36. They just cut Prop 8 to the bone..

    This author goes even further and said the ruling was actually an affirmation of gay relationships:
    In last year's landmark 4-3 decision, In re Marriage Cases, the California Supreme Court decided that same-sex couples have a fundamental right under state law to every single advantage that heterosexual couples do, including the right to call their legal union "marriage."
    Today, the court
    unanimously upheld the substantive fundamental right. Liberal to conservative, they all now accept it. They construed Prop 8 as narrowly as possible: as a initiative that addressed what we would label these relationships that we normally call marriage. The voters said that we can't call these relationships "marriage" when they involve same-sex couples. That's an insult to gays and lesbians and I hope and believe that it will not last. But note what this does not say..........
     
  11. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    Or was it ...

    By which I mean - assuming in such an appeal the Federal Supreme Court overruled the Calfornia SC ruling - on the basis that it's unconstitutional, which, on its face, it is, and so it must.

    Wouldn't that constitute a de facto Federal ruling that; ifexisting same sex marriage partners are entitled to equal protection under the clause, that a same sex marriage should therefore be afforded equal status under the law as a mixed sex marriage. By extension, any refusal by individual States to allow or recognise same sex marriage is equally unconstitutional?

    The only real alternative would be to anull the 18,000 extant marriages and that hardly seems likely.

    I imagine an argument could be made for State's rights being infringed, but ... in that sense, while it may not force state legislatures to follow, it would surely put even more pressure on them to do so. The wide majority makes me wonder if this wasn't perhaps the intention all along.
     
  12. uniqueusername

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    221
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    The California Supreme Court exists to interpret and enforce the California state constitution. Like it or not, Prop 8 was a valid amendment to the constitution of California. Their Supreme Court can no more strike it down than the US Supreme Court can strike down an amendment to the Constitution.
     
  13. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    In some ways, I think forces on either side are trying to force this to become a federal issue. if more states started to act like California on the issue, they would eventually have to step in. That is, unless you think it's OK for people to simply write amendments that do 180s on political policy every year...

    Yes, this year you're married.
    Now this year, you can't be married.
    Now this year, it's a "civil union".
    What happens in 2010? We call it "civilized sodomite matrimony" and say that lesbians are not eligible because they don't have dicks? :rolleyes:

    I think it's pretty obvious what is starting to happen.
     
  14. B_Stronzo

    B_Stronzo New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,730
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Plimoth Plantation

    Amending the Constitution to negatively impact the civil rights of a minority is unconstitional you know.

    That's why the thing will reach the Federal Level.

    This is an historical first and sets (if not put in check) an extremely dangerous precedent when the majority can vote on the rights of the minority.

    Good then. Let's get it straightened away. I agree with you.
     
    #14 B_Stronzo, May 26, 2009
    Last edited: May 26, 2009
  15. sparky11point5

    sparky11point5 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2005
    Messages:
    501
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston
    My gay and lesbian friends -- your day will come very soon, keep up the fight, marriage equality for all! In the meantime, visit Massachusetts and get hitched!

    Sparky
     
  16. B_Stronzo

    B_Stronzo New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,730
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Plimoth Plantation
    Already a proud resident of the Commonwealth sparky. Thanks for the reassuring words.

    The Old Commonwealth .. we showed 'em the way in 1776 and we will in 2009 too!
     
  17. Bbucko

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    7,413
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    58
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sunny SoFla
    Frankly, until DOMA is struck down, I'm not sure of how much the SCOTUS can really do.

    We are currently in legal limbo. My prediction is full, national equality by 2015. But there are many steps on the way from here to there.
     
  18. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    Quite correct, the role of the Californian SC is to enforce the Constitution of the State of California, just as the role of the US Supreme Court is to enforce the Constitution of the United States.

    In other words, while the California SC can endorse whatever it likes as constitutional (in context), such endorsements remain subject to overrule by the US SC if they are in material breach of the US Constitution.

    DOMA notwithstanding, that this ruling so blatantly is, [to me] begs the question ... was it intentionally so. It's the legal equivalent of a slap in the face with a glove, it asks to be challenged.
     
  19. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    was it intentionally so. It's the legal equivalent of a slap in the face with a glove, it asks to be challenged. hell yes it was intentional, the court left a hole big enough to sail the queen mary through. was kind of the chicken way out for the court but whatever.
     
  20. uniqueusername

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    221
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    You're thinking the California SC actually wants gay marriage, but upheld the amendment because they wanted it to be challenged and overturned by a higher court. I might agree, except that this decision would have been appealed either way. Were that their true intention, they would strike down the amendment and allow same-sex marriage in the interim between now and whenever their decision is upheld in the Supreme Court.

    You're forgetting that this is not your daddy's Supreme Court. Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas are GUARANTEED no-votes on national gay marriage. It might be more risky to throw it before the Supremes than it would have been to just deal with it in-house. Of course, the rewards are potentially much greater as well.

    The most interesting thing about this is that the litigants against Prop 8 were the two lead attorneys from Bush v. Gore, one of whom later became Bush's solicitor general. Talk about a heel face turn.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted