- 6,823
- 10
- Joined
- May 25, 2003
This is absurd if you ask me... the PEOPLE spoke. Why should the California Supreme Court potentially overturn what the PEOPLE voted for.
I don't care if you are FOR or AGAINST the gay marriage band...
This goes past that... so what now the vote of the people may not matter??
IT'S ON: California Supreme Court to take up gaymarriage ban...
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - California's highest court agreed Wednesday to hear several legalchallenges to the state's new ban on same-sex marriage but refused to allow gay couples to resume marrying before it rules.
The California SupremeCourt accepted three lawsuits seeking to nullify Proposition 8, a voter-approved constitutional amendment that overruled the court's decision in Maythat 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 justicesdid say they want to address what effect, if any, a ruling upholding the amendment would have on the estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages thatwere sanctioned in California before Election Day.
Gay rights groups and local governments petitioning to overturn the ban were joined by themeasure's sponsors and Attorney General Jerry Brown in urging the Supreme Court to considerwhether Proposition 8 passes legal muster.
The initiative's opponents had also asked the court to grant a stay of the measure, whichwould 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 submitarguments by Dec. 19 on why the ballot initiative should not be nullified. (?????, maybe because the VOTE PASSED?????) It saidlawyers 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 LynnHolton.
"This is welcome news. The matter of Proposition 8 should be resolved thoughtfully andwithout delay," Brown said in a statement.
Both opponents and supporters of Proposition 8 expressed confidence Wednesday that theirarguments would prevail. But they also agreed that the cases present the court's seven justices-six of whom voted to review the challenges-with complexquestions that have few precedents in state case law.
Although more than two dozen states have similar amendments, some of which have survivedsimilar lawsuits, none were approved by voters in a place where gay marriage already was legal.
Neither were any approved in a state where the high court had put sexual orientation in thesame protected legal class as race and religion, which the California Supreme Court did when it rendered its 4-3 decision that made same-sex marriage legal inMay.
Opponents of the ban argue that voters improperly abrogated the judiciary's authority bystripping same-sex couples of the right to wed after the high court earlier ruled it was discriminatory to prohibit gay men and lesbians frommarrying.
"If given effect, Proposition 8 would work a dramatic, substantive change to ourConstitution's 'underlying principles' of individual equality on a scale and scope never previously condoned by this court," lawyers for thesame-sex couples stated in their petition.
The measure represents such a sweeping change that it constitutes a constitutional revision asopposed 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 theCalifornia Legislature before submitting it to voters.
Over the past century, the California Supreme Court has heard nine cases challenginglegislative acts or ballot initiatives as improper revisions. The court eventually invalidated three of the measures, according to the gay rights group LambdaLegal.
Andrew Pugno, legal counsel for the Yes on 8 campaign, said he doubts the court will buy therevision argument in the case of the gay marriage ban because the plaintiffs would have to prove the measure alters the state's basic governmentalframework.
Joel Franklin, a constitutional law professor at Monterey College of Law, said that eventhough the court rejected similar procedural arguments when it upheld amendments reinstating the death penalty and limitingproperty taxes, those casesdo not represent as much of a fundamental change as Proposition 8.
"Those amendments applied universally to all Californians," Franklin said."This is a situation where you are removing rights from a particular group of citizens, a class of individuals the court has said is entitled toconstitutional protection. That is a structural change."
The trio of cases the court accepted were filed by six same-sex couples who have not yet wed,a Los Angeles lesbian couple who were among the first to tie the knot on June 16 and 11 cities and counties, led by the city of San Francisco.
I don't care if you are FOR or AGAINST the gay marriage band...
This goes past that... so what now the vote of the people may not matter??
IT'S ON: California Supreme Court to take up gaymarriage ban...
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - California's highest court agreed Wednesday to hear several legalchallenges to the state's new ban on same-sex marriage but refused to allow gay couples to resume marrying before it rules.
The California SupremeCourt accepted three lawsuits seeking to nullify Proposition 8, a voter-approved constitutional amendment that overruled the court's decision in Maythat 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 justicesdid say they want to address what effect, if any, a ruling upholding the amendment would have on the estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages thatwere sanctioned in California before Election Day.
Gay rights groups and local governments petitioning to overturn the ban were joined by themeasure's sponsors and Attorney General Jerry Brown in urging the Supreme Court to considerwhether Proposition 8 passes legal muster.
The initiative's opponents had also asked the court to grant a stay of the measure, whichwould 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 submitarguments by Dec. 19 on why the ballot initiative should not be nullified. (?????, maybe because the VOTE PASSED?????) It saidlawyers 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 LynnHolton.
"This is welcome news. The matter of Proposition 8 should be resolved thoughtfully andwithout delay," Brown said in a statement.
Both opponents and supporters of Proposition 8 expressed confidence Wednesday that theirarguments would prevail. But they also agreed that the cases present the court's seven justices-six of whom voted to review the challenges-with complexquestions that have few precedents in state case law.
Although more than two dozen states have similar amendments, some of which have survivedsimilar lawsuits, none were approved by voters in a place where gay marriage already was legal.
Neither were any approved in a state where the high court had put sexual orientation in thesame protected legal class as race and religion, which the California Supreme Court did when it rendered its 4-3 decision that made same-sex marriage legal inMay.
Opponents of the ban argue that voters improperly abrogated the judiciary's authority bystripping same-sex couples of the right to wed after the high court earlier ruled it was discriminatory to prohibit gay men and lesbians frommarrying.
"If given effect, Proposition 8 would work a dramatic, substantive change to ourConstitution's 'underlying principles' of individual equality on a scale and scope never previously condoned by this court," lawyers for thesame-sex couples stated in their petition.
The measure represents such a sweeping change that it constitutes a constitutional revision asopposed 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 theCalifornia Legislature before submitting it to voters.
Over the past century, the California Supreme Court has heard nine cases challenginglegislative acts or ballot initiatives as improper revisions. The court eventually invalidated three of the measures, according to the gay rights group LambdaLegal.
Andrew Pugno, legal counsel for the Yes on 8 campaign, said he doubts the court will buy therevision argument in the case of the gay marriage ban because the plaintiffs would have to prove the measure alters the state's basic governmentalframework.
Joel Franklin, a constitutional law professor at Monterey College of Law, said that eventhough the court rejected similar procedural arguments when it upheld amendments reinstating the death penalty and limitingproperty taxes, those casesdo not represent as much of a fundamental change as Proposition 8.
"Those amendments applied universally to all Californians," Franklin said."This is a situation where you are removing rights from a particular group of citizens, a class of individuals the court has said is entitled toconstitutional protection. That is a structural change."
The trio of cases the court accepted were filed by six same-sex couples who have not yet wed,a Los Angeles lesbian couple who were among the first to tie the knot on June 16 and 11 cities and counties, led by the city of San Francisco.
