California Supreme Court to Hear Challenges to Same-Sex-Marriage Ban
SAN FRANCISCO—The California Supreme Court announced today that it will hear legal challenges to Proposition 8, a newly passed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in the state. The court also announced that it had denied a request to put the law on hold while it deliberates, so gay couples will not be allowed to marry in the state until the court has ruled.
As soon as Proposition 8 passed two weeks ago—with 52 percent of the vote—three lawsuits were filed challenging the legality of the law. Among the petitioners were the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles, along with several counties in the Bay Area and 44 members of the state Legislature. Earlier this week, Jerry Brown, the state's attorney general, who is tasked with defending the new law, agreed with the petitioners that the case merited the court's attention.
Many legal experts have said the law's passage has tied state law in knots, creating what some consider to be a constitutional crisis. Earlier this year, the state Supreme Court declared a law with wording similar to Prop 8's unconstitutional, saying gays and lesbians had a fundamental right to marry and that denying them that right violated the state's equal-protection laws. When Prop 8 passed, it eliminated those rights by amending the Constitution through a simple majority vote.
Lynn Holton, a spokesperson for the Supreme Court, said the court had asked the parties involved to begin preparing briefs on whether Prop 8 should be considered invalid. Oral arguments could begin as early as March 2009.
- Click here to read more by Justin Ewers.
- Click here for more on Proposition 8.
- Click here for more on gay rights.
Reader Comments
Rights, Government 101, Courts and Religion
There is confusion about rights, religion, and the CA Supreme Court's job. RLP posts “please help me understand your definition of a RIGHT.” Most commonly discussed are the rights afforded to marriages sanctioned by the State and Federal gov’ts. E.g., wedded spouses have the right to receive Social Security benefits of their late husband/wife. A domestic partnership (DP) or civil union is not afforded that same right.
Chris posts "People say that the GLBT comm. has the same legal rights in California because of domestic partnerships", but that is a common misconception. Because of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), DPs anywhere are *not* afforded equal legal rights. After DOMA passed in 1996, the US Gov't Acctg Office (GAO) reported 1,049 federal rights that *were not* granted to DPs as compared married couples. A 2004 revised list put that number at 1,138 (see www.gao.gov/products/OGC-97-16 & ...products/GAO-04-353R). The lists include many Federal social programs; Veteran’s and Federal Civilian & Military benefits; employment, commerce, and crime & family violence law, and more. Do not believe that DPs have the same legal standing. They do not.
Paul posts “the [CA] constituion [sic] never gave Gays the right to marry. Prop 8 corrects the amendment back to what it was before the courts wanted to change the Constitution.” Paul, courts do not change the constitution. They interpret it. The CA Supreme Court does not “want” to change the constitution; in fact, they cannot. Their duty is to interpret it as written & amended and to rule on the constitutionality of laws & amendments. To state that Prop 8 “corrects” constitution is ludicrous. Prop 8 *amends* the document, and the court will rule if it does so in a constitutional way.
RLP also posts “The issue in CA is whether a state can define marriage.” Wrong! The issue is whether a simple majority vote of CA citizens can define marriage **in such a way as to exclude individuals based on their gender**.
Due to separation of Church and State, virtually all religion-based arguments have no weight here. They *do* have real social meaning, but the courts are based in law, not religion. To see it otherwise dangerously invites a religion-based government (like many in the Middle East, where the US fights wars allegedly to bring Democracy to the region). With marriage, the line between Church and State is very blurry. The fundamental issue is that the institution of marriage has legal, social, AND religious meanings. The courts’ job is to isolate the legal meanings. Society as a whole must deal with the social and religious aspects.
The social and cultural recognition of my marriage is deep and profound. Yet I would gladly call it a Civil Union if all State and Federal laws were equal for civil unions and marriages. Then marriages could be a religious ceremony performed by clergy, and the State would sanction civil unions, as is done in many other countries.
Happy Holidays to all!
John of NY
NO calling it gay marriage is not marriage. Again it comes to down to seperate but equal. ITS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL!!!! PERIOD!
There is no such thing as BORN GAY!!!!
"Born gay" is an attempt projected by the GLBT community in an effort to justify their attachment. This attempt not only lacks validity, but also fails to be logically entailed by its premise, the very same which is in turn not true. With all due respect, I really feel obligated to implore my brothers and sisters in GLBT group to challenge your beliefs, to determine whether they are warranted, and whether they have good reasons for holding them. If their reasons for believing that they are "BORN GAY" are not as good as the reasons for not believing that they are "BORN GAY", then they might need to either come up with better reasons for believing so or to accept that "BORN GAY" is not true! IT'S A RUMOUR!!!!!
As in the words of Barack Obama,"Our destiny is not written for us.Our destiny is written by us". So let us ask ourselves; how are we writing it? Think about our descendants; what will they be thinking about us if GAY is the picture we want to bequeath them???
advertisement
