Skip to comments.California Supreme Court appears likely to uphold gay marriage ban
Posted on 03/05/2009 12:52:45 PM PST by Justaham
The California Supreme Court today appeared inclined to uphold Proposition 8, but showed obvious reluctance to void thousands of same-sex marriages already in place when voters restored a ban on gay marriage last fall.
During three hours of arguments in San Francisco, the justices peppered lawyers opposing Proposition 8 with questions that suggested they do no believe they have the authority to trump the will of the voters.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
“At the same time, even justices who voted against striking down’s California’s previous ban on gay marriage, indicated that Proposition 8 should not wipe out an estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place last year.
“Is that really fair to people who depended on what this court
said was the law?”
So when slavery was finally outlawed, it should only apply to new slaves? What a bunch of crap.
You can’t always get everything.
If the uphold Prop 8, even if they let these so-called “marriages” stand, I can live with that outcome.
It is the continued attacks on Prop 8 supporters that disturbs me more.
What a concept!
Is that really fair to people who depended on what this court said was the law?
Exactly why NO COURT should EVER “make law.”
“do no [sic] believe they have the authority to trump the will of the voters.
What a concept! “
Maybe it will catch on!!!!
...we can still hope...
When a bunch of unreasonable and illogical people get together, don’t be surprised when there work product is also unreasonable and illogical.
When I encounter a Prop 8 opponent I ask the following:
a. What makes you believe same-sex marriage is a right?
b. Have you read Federalist 84?
c. What does Hamilton say about rights in that essay?
d. Since you do not believe in the opinions of others, that makes you intolerant, right?
I hope Prop 8 will be upheld, but, it seems from past experience that is difficult to predict a decision based on the questions asked by the justices.
As I understand it the question is whether the ban on gay marriage was a revision to the Constitution, which have to initiate in the legislature, or an amendment, which can be added to the ballot by petition. It looks like they’re leaning towards the amendment view.
The Feds in concert with their state government co-conspirators burned the ballots and declared CA prop 187 illegal after the people of state held a free election and voted overwhelmingly for it. 187 would have put a stop to the endless government tax paid support of illegal aliens.
The results of that punitive government intrusion can now be seen coast to coast, in every single city and town in this country, while at the same time, forcing Americans to subsidize this violent invasion of millions with billions of tax dollars.
It is conceivable they could uphold the ban (afterall, how can a constitutional amendment be unconstitutional) but refuse to void the existing “marriages” on the grounds that voiding them under Proposition 8 would violate the ex post facto provision in the US Constitution.
I believe they're going on the idea that the change was unconstitutional because it was a "revision" instead of an "amendment," and thus the California Constitution hasn't really been amended.
They'are also challenging whether it is retroactive, which is stupid since the California Constitution now says "Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." From the plain text even if you were married, the marriage is now neither valid nor recognized in California.
What really gets me here is the support of the CA AG for overturning this, including filing a brief with the court. This now being law, the government is supposed to be supporting it in court.
Don’t underestimate the sleazy, underhanded, thuggish ability of these hard core leftists to invent a way to tell the voters to shove it. The shamelessness of the self-satisfied left knows no bounds.
And that is a false question. A revision removes existing content, and replaces it with different content. Prop 8 removed nothing. It merely added clarifying clauses.
Interesting. What is self-evident here, is that the left views little things like Constitutions and "the will of the people" merely as impediments to their agenda, and not the guiding principle that they should be.
There were some import ballot initiatives that either passed or failed based on a rather limited sampling of the voting populace.
All that the gay rights advocates have to do is wait for an off year primary election to add a ballot proposition to overturn 8.
If all of the socially conservative African Americans don't show up, then the gays will have their "right" to marry.
Courts normally don't like to apply new laws retroactively. So the likely outcome is for Prop 8 to be applied prospectively only.
That seems to make sense. In the same way that the "revision" vs "amendment" argument is uphill, trying to end those marriages would also be uphill.
What a keen, well-reasoned argument you make! By that reasoning, we should let people murder, rape and steal if it makes them happy! Please go back to DU, troll.
I sure hope they do the people of California have voted twice for this. Those marriages should have never happned in the first place and I don’t see how they could be legal if this is upheld?
By the right of the people to make their own laws, idiot. Sorry, I seldom ever name call, but you're a raving idiot. Marriage to these leftists has nothing to do with what two people do in the privacy of their own homes - how they themselves view their relationship - but how EVERYONE ELSE WILL BE FORCED TO VIEW THEIR RELATIONSHIP. No one, out of their own conscience, will be able to obey the law of their conscience toward two homosexuals living in sin if this constitutional law is not allowed to stand as valid.
The SCOTUS dissents with your opinion:
...in the early case of Calder v. Bull(1798), the Supreme Court decided that the phrase, as used in the Constitution, applied only to penal and criminal statutes.
Notwithstanding the fact this is a civil code question, an interesting question is raised. Art I, Section 9's Ex Post Facto clause applies to the Legislative branch of the Federal government, not the Judicial branch since they do not write laws, right?
When the Judicial branch ventures past the separation of powers delineated in the USC into the Legislative powers do such prohibition in Sec 9 apply to the Judicial branch.
SCOTUS may say one thing, but there’s no telling what California’s court will do.
Since Prop 8 is an amendment to the state constitution, it may be overturned only if it conflicts with a higher law. The only law higher is the US Constitution, and in that, the only clause that may be applicable is the Ex Post Facto clause. The California court could declare that voiding the “marriages” legally entered into before Prop 8 passed amounts to a punishment of the persons involved.
I don’t see how the courts could overturn Prop 8 completely, but then again I also don’t see how the 4th Amendment guarantees the right to kill a baby.
They are already threatening to riot if Prop 8 stands, and I have every reason to believe them. Homo-fascists are some of the most vicious, uncivilized anarchists that scrounge at the bottom of the societal pond. Supreme selfishness is at the center of their beings, and they will unleash their retribution in violent illegal behavior. There will be violence by their side to make the threats and vandalism perpetrated on Mormons after the election pale in comparison.
I say let them show themselves to the the rabid hyenas that they are. They're crowing about putting up an initiative in 2010 to overturn 8. Well, people are not going to be so sympathetic with savage animals. A counter-proposition will fail miserably.
The California court could declare that voiding the marriages legally entered into before Prop 8 passed amounts to a punishment of the persons involved.
If they did that the only imagined "punishment" would originate from the SCOC ruling last may that permitted homosexual marriages. At that time the SCOC knew the issue had qualified for the Nov ballot. I happen to catch some of Ken Starr's Prop 8 oral arguments and I could clearly tell some of the SCOC did not like the blame putting on them.
Starr used the precedence of polygamist marriages being declared null and void which is a fact the SCOC cannot ignore.
I dont see how the courts could overturn Prop 8 completely, but then again I also dont see how the 4th Amendment guarantees the right to kill a baby.
Nor do I, but I understand Ginsburg finds the right to kill a baby in the 14th's "Liberty" clause.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.