Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

California Supreme Court appears likely to uphold gay marriage ban
The Mercury News ^ | 3-5-09 | Howard Mintz

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 ...


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: caglbt; homosexualagenda; prop8; samesexmarriage; scoc

1 posted on 03/05/2009 12:52:45 PM PST by Justaham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Justaham

“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.


2 posted on 03/05/2009 12:55:08 PM PST by icwhatudo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Justaham

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.


3 posted on 03/05/2009 12:55:24 PM PST by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Justaham
do no [sic] believe they have the authority to trump the will of the voters.

What a concept!

4 posted on 03/05/2009 12:55:30 PM PST by antiRepublicrat (Sacred cows make the best hamburger.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo

“Is that really fair to people who depended on what this court said was the law?”

Exactly why NO COURT should EVER “make law.”


5 posted on 03/05/2009 12:56:28 PM PST by Grunthor (All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Justaham
Which begs the question, how does an amendment to the California Constitution get ruled "unconstitutional" by the California supreme court?
6 posted on 03/05/2009 12:56:45 PM PST by Big_Monkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

“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...


7 posted on 03/05/2009 12:57:21 PM PST by AuntB (The right to vote in America: Blacks 1870; Women 1920; Native Americans 1925; Foreigners 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo

When a bunch of unreasonable and illogical people get together, don’t be surprised when there work product is also unreasonable and illogical.


8 posted on 03/05/2009 12:59:43 PM PST by Big_Monkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

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?


9 posted on 03/05/2009 1:01:46 PM PST by Loud Mime (The IRS collectes $1 trillion in taxes each year. Why not forgive all taxes for a year? Stimulus!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Justaham

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.


10 posted on 03/05/2009 1:01:51 PM PST by Binghamton_native
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Justaham

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.


11 posted on 03/05/2009 1:02:05 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Justaham
History of other government intrusion.

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.

12 posted on 03/05/2009 1:03:45 PM PST by dragnet2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

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.


13 posted on 03/05/2009 1:04:04 PM PST by bobjam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
Same sex marriages don't have a very good track record as for as longevity is concerned.
14 posted on 03/05/2009 1:12:06 PM PST by ontap (Just another backstabbing conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Big_Monkey
Which begs the question, how does an amendment to the California Constitution get ruled "unconstitutional" by the California supreme court?

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.

15 posted on 03/05/2009 1:17:18 PM PST by antiRepublicrat (Sacred cows make the best hamburger.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Justaham

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.


16 posted on 03/05/2009 1:24:27 PM PST by Oldpuppymax (AGENDA OF THE LEFT EXPOSED)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
"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"

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.

17 posted on 03/05/2009 1:25:02 PM PST by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
"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."

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.

18 posted on 03/05/2009 1:25:22 PM PST by Big_Monkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
We just had a rather poorly attended election to re-elect Villaraigosa.

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.

19 posted on 03/05/2009 1:29:00 PM PST by who_would_fardels_bear (The cosmos is about the smallest hole a man can stick his head in. - Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
If the uphold Prop 8, even if they let these so-called “marriages” stand, I can live with that outcome.

Courts normally don't like to apply new laws retroactively. So the likely outcome is for Prop 8 to be applied prospectively only.

20 posted on 03/05/2009 1:42:03 PM PST by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bobjam
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.

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.

21 posted on 03/05/2009 1:50:23 PM PST by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Comment #22 Removed by Moderator

To: popnfresh

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.


23 posted on 03/05/2009 3:14:03 PM PST by Hebrews 11:6 (Do you REALLY believe that (1) God is, and (2) God is good?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Justaham

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?


24 posted on 03/05/2009 5:05:05 PM PST by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Justaham
If Prop 8 is upheld, watch the level of vulgarity and hatred against Christians and Mormons increase in California.

Gays will never rest until all of us are forced to define their perversion as normal.

25 posted on 03/05/2009 5:07:38 PM PST by Chaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Justaham
Now that the arguments are over and submitted, this battle is far from over. These justices will be bombarded daily, and possibly illegally, with bribes, threats, blackmail, and any other method of coercion that the homo-mafia can muster until the decision is finalized. The T.V. ads will come out with sob stories of “families” torn asunder, of being relegated to “second class citizenship,” all the usual bilge we can expect from the homo-leftists.
26 posted on 03/05/2009 6:55:06 PM PST by fwdude ("...a 'centrist' ... has few principles - and those are negotiable." - Don Feder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: popnfresh
who are you to tell someone they cant get “married”

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.

27 posted on 03/05/2009 7:03:15 PM PST by fwdude ("...a 'centrist' ... has few principles - and those are negotiable." - Don Feder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Comment #28 Removed by Moderator

To: popnfresh
Who are you to say that the government should force recognition of 'gay marriages' on everybody else?
29 posted on 03/05/2009 7:55:28 PM PST by TheFourthMagi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: bobjam
It is conceivable they could uphold the ban definition of marriage (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.

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.

30 posted on 03/05/2009 9:46:12 PM PST by TeleStraightShooter (Barack Hugo Obama - has he ever criticized Hugo Chavez?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TeleStraightShooter

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.


31 posted on 03/06/2009 4:58:29 AM PST by bobjam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Chaffer
If Prop 8 is upheld, watch the level of vulgarity and hatred against Christians and Mormons increase in California.

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.

32 posted on 03/06/2009 5:12:56 AM PST by fwdude ("...a 'centrist' ... has few principles - and those are negotiable." - Don Feder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: bobjam
SCOTUS may say one thing, but there’s no telling what California’s court will do.

True

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 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.

Nor do I, but I understand Ginsburg finds the right to kill a baby in the 14th's "Liberty" clause.
Bizzare.

33 posted on 03/07/2009 12:53:24 PM PST by TeleStraightShooter (Barack Hugo Obama - has he ever criticized Hugo Chavez?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson