California Supreme Court appears likely to uphold gay marriage ban

The Mercury News ^ | 3-5-09 | Howard Mintz

[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.

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.

[Hebrews 11:6]

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.

[chris_bdba]

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?

[Chaffer]

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.

[fwdude]

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.

[fwdude]

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.

[TheFourthMagi]

Who are you to say that the government should force recognition of 'gay marriages' on everybody else?

[TeleStraightShooter]

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.

[bobjam]

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.

[fwdude]

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.

[TeleStraightShooter]

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.