Posted on 02/03/2009 11:11:08 PM PST by nickcarraway
The California Supreme Court announced Tuesday it will hear arguments on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the state's ban on same-sex marriage, in San Francisco on March 5.
The high court's written ruling on whether the voter initiative should be struck down will be due 90 days later.
The measure, enacted by voters on Nov. 4, amended the state Constitution to provide that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
It overturned a decision in which the court said by a 4-3 vote in May that gay and lesbian couples have a constitutional right to marry.
The panel is now considering three lawsuits filed by same-sex couples and a coalition of cities and counties to challenge the ban.
The lawsuits claim the measure is so sweeping it is a constitutional revision, which would require approval of two-thirds of the Legislature as well as a majority of voters.
The court has said it will rule on both whether Proposition 8 is constitutional and, if so, whether it retroactively invalidates the estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages performed in California before Nov. 4.
The justices in today's order allocated an unusual three hours for the arguments in their State Building courtroom beginning at 9 a.m. on March 5. Cases are normally allotted only half an hour per side.
Lawyers for each set of plaintiffs will each get 30 minutes. The plaintiff groups are six same-sex couples and a civil rights organization, Equality California; a seventh couple that filed a separate lawsuit; and 15 cities and counties led by the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles and Santa Clara County.
The proponents of Proposition 8, represented by Pepperdine Law School Dean Kenneth Starr and Sacramento attorney Andrew Pugno, will have an hour to argue to the court.
Starr and Pugno had asked for extra time because their clients are the only party in the case fully defending Proposition 8.
In a surprise move, California Attorney General Jerry Brown, whose job is to defend the state's constitution and laws, in December submitted arguments both for and against the measure and concluded that the court should strike it down.
Brown told the court in a filing that he doesn't think that Proposition 8 is a constitutional revision or that it violates the constitutional separate of powers. But he said he believes it is unconstitutional because it violates the inalienable right to liberty.
The court gave Brown 30 minutes, but instructed him to "divide his time between his arguments in support of, and his argument in opposition to, the validity of Proposition 8."
Groups that filed friend-of-the-court briefs will not be given time to argue unless one of the official parties in the case agrees to give up part of its time.
At least 63 friend-of-the-court briefs were filed by individuals and coalitions of groups, some representing dozens of other organizations, including religious groups, law professors, business groups, labor organizations and civil rights groups.
Twenty of the friend-of-the-court briefs supported Proposition 8, while 43 favored striking it down.
Kate Kendell, legal director of the San Francisco-based National Center for Lesbian Rights, which filed the first lawsuit on behalf of same-sex couples, said, "Proposition 8 represents a tremendous threat to the rights of every minority group in California."
Related Stories One Trip to Vegas that Didn't Stay Secret Paycheck Strings Attached to Bailout? Bravo Kicks Off Nationwide Casting Call For Season 6 Of ‘Top Chef’ Kendell said, "As our legal team prepares for oral argument before the California Supreme Court, we are hopeful that the court will end the short life of this draconian measure."
Pugno and Starr have argued in court filings that Proposition 8 represents the will of the people and is well within the initiative power.
They wrote in their final brief last month, "Proposition 8 is a moderate measure that represents a deeply rooted, multigenerational judgment of the people of California about the definition of marriage."
““Brown told the court in a filing that he doesn’t think that Proposition 8 is a constitutional revision or that it violates the constitutional separate of powers. But he said he believes it is unconstitutional because it violates the inalienable right to liberty.”
So, Moonbeam is inviting...no, PLEADING for the judges to engage once again in judicial activism in order to overrule the will of the people.
Basically, there are two ways to change the constitution in CA. Amendments are meant to clarify and revisions are meant to make more substantive changes. Revisions face a higher standard to pass (must be legislative approved by 2/3 I believe before put to popular vote). This is to protect the sanctity of the constitution and avoid a tyranny of the majority. Amendments take a simple majority of the popular vote.
The debate here is whether this was passed properly as an amendment, or whether it should have been passed as a revision.
Granted, its only Kalifornia, but it is very, very frightening when the court attempts to overturn the constitution.
Do the people of California still have the right to elect judges.....? I recall that years ago they voted out Rose Bird (?), the Chief Justice of their SC, for some particularly egregious ruling. If the court overturns Prop 8, I suspect that the people will overturn the Court
Well, there is a separate line of argument which suggests that this is unconstitutional under the 14th amendment of the US Constitution. I believe the overturn prop-8 supporters have been reluctant to champion this too much, because it will get reviewed by S.Ct., and there is no telling which way the court will swing. I’m guessing that’s the position Brown is taking here.
Everybody who lives there and is reading this should think about leaving California. It has ceased to carry the republican form of government...it is a kleptocracy, taking from producers to address all sorts of fake and fashionable needs.
I’d move out of it if I hadn’t already done so! Great decision.
“Calif. Supreme Court Could Strike Down Prop 8”
The again, they could not. . .
Typical sensationalist MSM headline.
United Nations Population Fund Leader
Says Family Breakdown is a Triumph for Human Rights
LifeSiteNews | February 3, 2009 | Matthew Cullinan Hoffman
Posted on 02/03/2009 5:07:11 PM PST by MountainLoop
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2177815/posts
[California’s 58] Counties fighting back against state
SacBee: Capitol Alert | 2/4/8 | Shane Goldmacher
Posted on 02/04/2009 9:34:51 AM PST by SmithL
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2178245/posts
They haven't done so. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.
In all other cases, these foul slugs could care less about liberty, and slit your throat if you don't go along with their dictates.
Absurd challenge but it’s not the drugs, he just doesn’t care about the law.
He wants to be the champion of gay rights.
“Well, there is a separate line of argument which suggests that this is unconstitutional under the 14th amendment of the US Constitution.”
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.