Gay Marriage Ban Challenged In Calif.

Calif. Supreme Court Will Hear Lawsuits Seeking To Nullify Gay Marriage Ban

(AP)  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.

[kk217]

Tell me again why it''s important to vote

[spinproof]

Gay Marriage Ban Challenged In Calif.

If people in same-*** relationships want the same benefits as married couples then they should fight the benefits battle "only". Fighting a battle to redefine marriage to include same-*** partners is the wrong fight, a fight that challenges the religious definition of marriage as ordained by God, a battle same-*** partners should lose.

[spinproof]

Gay Marriage Ban Challenged In Calif.

If people in same-s_e_x relationships want the same benefits as married couples then they should fight the benefits battle "only". Fighting a battle to redefine marriage to include same-s_e_x partners is the wrong fight, a fight that challenges the religious definition of marriage as ordained by God, a battle same-s_e_x partners should lose.

[o2brich]

It must be real hard to get rid of these activist judges that keep abusing their position on the bench to create bad law and circumvent the will of the majority. California seems particularly plagued with this problem.

[colt8881]

Fantastic I am glad the court agreed to hear legal challenges to the state''s new ban on same-*** marriage.

The Ultra Conservative Right Wing is loosing ground and power every day and it''s about time that everybody has = rights under the law !

[o2brich]

Wow. If voters don%u2019t have the authority to enact constitutional changes who does? These people forget how this country is supposed to work. This country isn%u2019t based on the concept of the judicial branch enacting laws. It%u2019s the legislative branch. You know, the ones that represent the people. The judicial branch interprets the laws; they aren%u2019t supposed to make law. That is overstepping their authority.

[susanhelit]

It''s important to vote to set the laws of our country, to elect those who represent us. It''s not, however, a goal of voting, to remove rights from minorities - the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights exist to protect minorities from the "tyranny of the majority" - something our founding fathers were quite concerned with. If you think voting should be able to ban marriage for a group - let''s say, interracial couples, which were illegal not so long ago - you are indeed abusing your vote - and that''s not a reason it''s important to vote, to take rights away.

[spinproof]

Wow. If voters don%u2019t have the authority to enact constitutional changes who does? These people forget how this country is supposed to work. This country isn%u2019t based on the concept of the judicial branch enacting laws. It%u2019s the legislative branch. You know, the ones that represent the people. The judicial branch interprets the laws; they aren%u2019t supposed to make law. That is overstepping their authority.

Posted by O2bRich at 06:31 PM : Nov 19, 2008

There are probably G_A_Y Judges making these overreaching decisions.

[omded]

Not only is it important to vote, but it''s equally important to draft propositions that don''t create ambiguity in the Constitution. The California State Constitution gaurantees equality and bars discrimination. However, proposition 8 merely said that the State will only recognize marriages between a man and a woman. The problem is, the new language inserted by Proposition 8 is in direct conflict with the equality and non-discrimination provisions of the Constitution. So, in other words, California voters voted to re-write the State Constitution to require the State to do something that that same Constitution says the State cannot do.

The only way you can be sure to prohibit the State from recognizing gay marriages is to re-write the State Constitution to allow discrimination, and this would not be nearly as popular. The people who drafted Proposition 8 knew this, and that''s why they didn''t do it. However, you can''t "solve" the issue of g a y marriage without confronting the discrimination issue. That''s just the way it is. Perhaps you could sponsor a new proposition that prohibits schools from teaching anything about marriage. That would be the simplest way of addressing the concerns voiced in the pro-Proposition 8 advertisements.

[dronemonk]

Are all of our rights open to the mercies of a ballot vote? If a state voted to re-allow slavery, that''d be copasetic, so long as it was voted on? Tyranny of the majority...

[flexsf]

Would a constitutional ban on evangelical marriage be legal in California? In my opinion, it is they who need to suffer from their own poison!

[spinproof]

In simple terms men and women go before God to get married with a Priest acting as the intermediary. God joins man and wife together, not men, God defines marriage between a man and a women not men. Man does not have the authority to redefine marriage to include G_A_Y same_s_e_x couples. G_A_Y same_s_e_x couples need to go before God to be married and any Priest acting as intermediary for God who claims God authorized a G_A_Y same_s_e_x marriage should be removed from the clergy since God would never approve of such a union.

[mensarino]

I hope this is the death knell for this hateful proposition advanced by truly hateful people.
This is not a theocracy!

[robinadair1]

Great we have already lost our vote! I thought everyone''s vote counted...not activist judges are going to nullify the voice of the people....and this is a democracy? Dictactorship here we come.

[vivaviva44]

People want to ban this, they dislike the word"marriage "so why not change the word to say " Marriage for gay" and use other word for only gay and lesbian like "Unit as Family" and allow them to have tax reduction as much as other family people have. Marriage notion has been man and woman thing, so create new word to do so.
Also not necessary to teach "King &King", it should be option at high school or university , who are interested in.
If gay people have right, even not gay people have right to not choose gay life, I think every body gets this meaning, ?

[kansas1946]

The constitution of the United States is the law of the land. Citizens can not vote for anything that violates the constitution and not have it tossed out. If the citizens of California votes overwhelmingly to not allow Catholics to live there, then it would be overturned, no matter what the citizens voted on. To arbitrarily deny a group of Americans their civil liberties is unconstituional.

Obviously they aren''t overstepping their authority since they have the power to hear the case. The justices are selected by the governor who is elected by the people, so if you don''t approve of the justices, blame the governor. I bet if in the end the justices approve the ban on gay marriages, then you guys will want to pat them on the back, tell them they did the right thing... The law and the court system are there to be used. If the supporters of the ban don''t like the way the system works, hold some rallies, do some marches, raise some more money and change the system.

[mensarino]

We do not live in a pure democracy.We live in a constitutional republic and the purpose of the court is to make sure that the majority does not violate the rights of the minority.It is called judicial review.Anyone take civics out there?

[kansas1946]

In simple terms men and women go before God to get married with a Priest acting as the intermediary. God joins man and wife together, not men, God defines marriage between a man and a women not men. Man does not have the authority to redefine marriage to include G_A_Y same_s_e_x couples. G_A_Y same_s_e_x couples need to go before God to be married and any Priest acting as intermediary for God who claims God authorized a G_A_Y same_s_e_x marriage should be removed from the clergy since God would never approve of such a union.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by spinproof at 06:43 PM : Nov 19, 2008
**********************************************

In much simpler terms, marriage in the eyes of the law is a civil ceremony and is sanctioned by the state. Millions of Americans have been married with no priest, minister, or without going before God. That is a religious preference and has nothing to do with civil law. Your religious preferences are protected by the constitution. You should thank God for that and quit trying to force your religious views on other. There are countries where you can do that, so maybe if you don''t appreciate our constitutional protections, you should check some of them out.

[andor3]

the truth that is being discovered is most people voted for Prop8 and against marriage equality, not on moral grounds, but because they were afraid of talking to their kids about it. That is the real reason--people did not want to talk to their kids. The Yes on 8 campaign figured this out and exploited it in their TV ads. The irony is it backfired--now it is on the news nightly, it is a current events topic in schools, and everyone--including kids--is talking about it.

[kansas1946]

if that is the case then WHY NOT CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THE PREPOSTION before you put it out there for people to vote??????????????????????????????

wh
y not delcare it a violation..BEFORE THE ELECTION ..and not protest and then decide TO DECLARE IT AS UNCONSITITIONAL AFTER IT LOSES??????

its bad form..


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by obamasNUTZ at 06:48 PM : Nov 19, 2008
****************************************

Go back to school. California is one of the states that allows referendums. My state doesn''t, but California does. Citizens of California can put pretty much anything on the ballot if they garner enough signatures. You can not challenge the constitutionality of a law until it is a law. Stupid ideas can not be deemed unconstitutional, even thought that might not be a bad idea.

[mensarino]

Obamasnutz-----Take a logic class....you could use it.

[omded]

The majority of Californians who voted on November 4th hate g a y people. But you know what? You knuckle heads voted to re-write the California Constitution to contradict itself. Perhaps you should sponsor a proposition making it the voters'' responsibility to determine what part of the Constitution we follow, and which part we ignore. Face it folks, you can say whatever you like about judges. You can hate them as much as you like too. But, their job is to determine how to take this mess and make sense out of it. The next time you try to re-write the Constitution, think about how you''re doing it. Then you won''t have any problems getting your wishes turned into law. But, if you try to dodge around the difficult issues, such as anti-discrimination provisions, you''ll always have to rely on Judges to sort the whole mess out. Hate them if you wish, but they probably aren''t too happy with you either.

[andor3]

"it ISN"T a "right" to marry whoever you want."

Gay couples did (maybe do still) have the right to marriage in California. Your argument makes no sense. Of course this is isolating a group of people and selectively denying them a right they had, which is absolutely contrary to the Constitution and not allowed by a simple-majority ballot initiative.

[andor3]

"if that is the case then WHY NOT CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THE PREPOSTION before you put it out there for people to vote?"

These challenges to the validity WERE filed with the court BEFORE the election. The court decided to wait and see how the vote went since it would be a dead issue if Prop 8 lost.

[kansas1946]

You are making the case against same-s.e.x marriage - it ISN"T a "right" to marry whoever you want. I don''''t have the right to marry 2 people, or my sister, or my sister-in-law.
And because it is NOT a constitutional right, it CAN be voted on and an ammendment protecting the attacks against marriage CAN be voted on.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by ritewingman at 06:51 PM : Nov 19, 2008
+ report abuse
***************************************

Use your thinking cap here. The constituion promises equality. No, you can''t marry two people, but you can marry one person (at a time). So you are denying g a y s the same opportunity to marry one person that you have. Unconstitutional. You are arbitrarily selecting a group and denying them the same right that you have. Unconstitutional.
G a y s would have to abide by the same civil laws that you abide by. They could only marry one person at a time, just like Mormons can only marry one person at a time even though their religioun may allow for plural marriages.

[andor3]

"So you are denying g a y s the same opportunity to marry one person that you have."

Also it is important to remember that gay couples HAD the right to marry in California. There is no doubt that this is a right that exists and an attempt is being made to take it away. The court had previously decided that people had this right, and it is likely to be a little grumpy to be challenged. One of the most important jobs of the court is protecting the minority from the majority in terms of equal rights.

[cdlaferr]

What happened to separation of church and state? Isn''t this what the proponents of Prop 8 are trying to do - mix the oil and water?

"Marriage" from a civil standpoint is NOT a religious rite. It is a fundamental RIGHT of all persons (and don''t bring up marrying animals - that''s preposterous!) to be able to engage in a marriage with all of its benefits and protections by law.

Where this has gone awry is the religious bible thumpers have felt that they''re ''sanctity of marriage'' could have been violated, and that''s just illogical. I''ve had enough of this - first it was inter-relious marriages, then interracial, now US. What is UP with you scared individuals?

I could actually take to heart your concepts of ''destroying the traditional family'' if it weren''t for your own self-destruction through chronic divorcing.

[omded]

Proposition 8 definitely proved that hate is alive and well in California. However, it also proved something else: That lots of Californians aren''t very bright, or they''re not starying informed about their constitutional rights. After all, anyone who was truly aware of his/her rights would have asked the simple question: "By voting to ban the constitutional right to gay marriage, aren''t I also voting to eliminate my protection from discrimination? But wait. This proposition doesn''t ban my protection from discrimination! So how will this work? Can I say yes and no at the same time, and mean them both?" Californians, STUDY YOUR CONSTITUTION!!! If you had only done that, this mess would have never happened. Since this mess does exist, only the judges can figure it out now. Let it go. Try to do a better job next time.

[andor3]

Honestly, the religious nuts alone could not have pulled this off. It turns out a lot of people simply were uncomfortable thinking outside their world and wanted it (gay marriage) to go away. Many dreaded talking to their kids about it. Ironically voting for prop 8 did the opposite--it did not "go away."

Probably if the election were held again the result would be much different--the cat is out of the bag, most people would not care any more.

[holdfam1]

I hope it gets overturned. I want to marry my cousin. I have rights too. If marriage can be anything other than a man and a woman I should be in the clear. My friend wants to marry both his girlfriends he should have that right... sounds pretty silly heh...

[andor3]

The court already decided that the Constitution of California gives gay couples the right to marry. Then some yahoos tried to take this right away by abusing the initiative process and creating a loophole "defining marriage." A simple majority initiative can not alter the basic protections of the Constitution or selectively take away rights of a minority. The courts have never allowed that to happen and no reason they should now.

The YES on 8 people should be happy there is no penalty for a frivolous initiative like for a frivolous lawsuit--either way wasting the courts time.

[spinproof]

In much simpler terms, marriage in the eyes of the law is a civil ceremony and is sanctioned by the state. Millions of Americans have been married with no priest, minister, or without going before God. That is a religious preference and has nothing to do with civil law. Your religious preferences are protected by the constitution. You should thank God for that and quit trying to force your religious views on other. There are countries where you can do that, so maybe if you don''''t appreciate our constitutional protections, you should check some of them out.

Posted by kansas1946 at 06:49 PM : Nov 19, 2008

Man and the State can define a union between same-s_e_x humans as anything they want and give the sinful union benefits too, just don''t call it marriage. The issue for me and many other Americans is not permitting the redefinition of marriage to include same-s_e_x G_A_Y people. You don''t need to redefine marriage to have a same_s_e_x union with benefits. Marriage is the traditional domain of God and God would never approve of a same_s_e_x marriage! Marriage without God is not marriage!

[drivelphobe]

andor3...


You are completely off base with the argument that pro 8 individuals voted for 8 because they don''t want to discuss same gender marriage with their kids.

People voted for prop 8 because same gender relationships disgust the whole world. There is no valid reason for same gender "marriage".
Queers are deranged, acting out in repulsive, public displays, and openly show disrespect for society and anyone with a differing opinion.

This illness has been tolerated too long, and the recent, outrageous action of the anti prop 8 crowd marks the beginning of the end for societal tolerance of this aberrant way of life.

Quit making phony excuses for rejection by society of the same gender lifestyle. It is simply utterly revolting and as against nature as it can be.

[apotts3777]

Does that mean i can sue over Obama being elected? The people have spoken get over it.

[spinproof]

San Francisco, California has always had a reputation as the CITY OF MISFITS, California Period has always been a State of Prominence so why the heck not, now the State of Conticut has beat California reputation for it''''s unique ambiance.

Such a tragedy!

Posted by ms1-1-1 at 07:24 PM : Nov 19, 2008

California is unique, its also the only State in the Union with an official Church of Satan, attended like a normal Church!

[bud28dy]

I think it''''s pretty obvious who the real "haters" are now. It''''s the homosexuals who are rioting, invading church services, lying in their campaign ads, literally knocking down little old ladies.
Of course you don''''t hear much about this in the media, after all we can''''t have g.a.y.s looking bad. I agree nobody hears of this cause its all super secret hush hush in the media. But you and I know the truth!! And we are not afraid to state it!!!! You bad bad gaays be warned.

ritewingman
------------------------------------------------------

Yes sir, ritewingman. Those bad gaays have been knocking down little old ladies. I also heard that they beat a blind man to death with his own stick! Then those bad people raided a kindergarten and laughed as they cut the heads off the little children. It''s all been super secret hush hush in the media but you and I know the truth!!!!!! I also wake up in the middle of the night and I just know a big bad gaay is lurking under my bed with the boogeyman.

[dnamj]

drivelphobe: you are a bigot. ''nuff said.

[andor3]

"There is no valid reason for same gender marriage."

It turns out the Supreme Court of California has already decided that the valid reason is the California Constitution provides that right, and it was a wise decision. No one needs to give you more reason to do something that is their right, but interfering with a persons rights is about the most un-American thing you can do. If you want your government morality to line up with Iraq or Pakistan, moving is the way to go.

[drivelphobe]

dnamj...

You are so wrong, but that is the only response one can make when they are in the wrong and there nothing to support their opinion other than gut feelings.

''nuff said is right.

[dnamj]

Main Entry:
big7ot Listen to the pronunciation of bigot
Pronunciation:
%u02C8bi-g%u0259t
Function:
noun
Etymology:
French, hypocrite, bigot
Date:
1660

: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

See also: Drivelphobe.

[drivelphobe]

andor3....

The Supreme Court made a mistake and now they know it. The people have spoken and there is more to say if this agenda persists.

[andor3]

drivelphobe: "The Supreme Court made a mistake..."

yeah that is the argument the prop8 supporters are going to try to make, even though nothing has changed. good luck with that. If that fails, the next election will clear things up. Even churches in California are trying to distance themselves from this hateful initiative--the supporters are pretty isolated and lonely right now.

[omded]

Spinproof,
Be careful. If God and Satan were to present themselves to you and ask, "which of us is which?", would you be able to answer? If they weren''t wearing name tags?

[drivelphobe]

dnamj....

Hatred no, but intolerance yes. I refuse, as will society now that this egregious behavior continues, to tolerate "in your face" aggression from demanding, attention seeking, aberrant individuals.

That might make me half a bigot and that is okay with me if that is what you call someone who finds same gender lovers disgusting and repulsive to human life.

[hitoyou1]

I really think all the *** need to be together, That way they can kill each other off. Let them make love to each other. Hope they all DIE togethere.

[hitoyou1]

william5420 I don''t care who you love. Hope you kill your salf you gay aSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS HHHOOOOOLLL.

[drivelphobe]

andor3..

You''re dreaming. The supporters are not lonely and they are growing in numbers. The day of tolerance for these sick people is coming to an end.

[hitoyou1]

God will never ask me what I think. He already knows.

[hitoyou1]

cause_z You must be one. I hope you die. If you don''t go find a big one, take in the _________ You gay aaasss hhhoooleeee.