Posted on 03/04/2009 8:33:27 AM PST by BAW
Calif. high court to hear challenge.
There is little common ground between those on either side of the charged debate over marriage in California.
But on the eve of the state Supreme Court hearing in San Francisco on Proposition 8, which prohibits same-sex marriage, advocates on both sides describe the issue in similar high-stakes rhetoric.
“History swings on very small hinges sometimes,” said Jim Garlow, pastor at Skyline Church in La Mesa and one of the state's highest-profile supporters of Proposition 8.
“On a broader scale, beyond the scope of the definition of marriage, this is about whether the social fabric will be torn by decimating the concept of the consent of the governed,” Garlow said.
Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights in San Francisco, which has been at the forefront of the battle for marriage rights in the state, sees it in different but no less apocalyptic terms.
“I truly believe that the future of equality and the promise of justice for all hangs in the balance as the court considers Proposition 8,” she said.
The thrust of the attack on Proposition 8 that the court will hear tomorrow is that the measure is a revision, rather than an amendment, to the California Constitution.
Revisions alter the fundamental structure of government in the state, Proposition 8 opponents argue in their legal papers to the court. Such far-reaching changes can be done – but they must be approved by the Legislature before being put to the voters.
Supporters of the measure counter that the 14-word proposition does not change the basic structure of state government and that the court would be dangerously overstepping its power if it went against the express will of a majority of state voters.
(Excerpt) Read more at 3.signonsandiego.com ...
I’ve noticed that the media has stopped referring to it as an amendment except far down the article, instead trying to turn it back into Prop 22, and basically view it as an unconstitutional law.
These, of course, are the same media outlets that whine that people have stopped buying their stories... Personally, one would imagine that newspapers might like to occasionally be on the side of the majority, just, you know, to start selling papers again.
The irony is that George Lucas is probably one of those cheering. The state's constitution and the state's voters are perfectly clear, but the liberals want oligarchy, they want a few black-robed judges to have absolute power, in the hope that the oligarchs will always be on their side of all issues. I'd rather limit government power at all levels, in the certain knowledge that I will always make better decisions for my life than strangers will. I'm (sadly) in the minority.
The sodomites won’t stop.
If the court throws out Prop 8, it will be on a 4-3 vote. Think about that. The court would be saying—by a 4-3 margin— “Look people! When we made up the ‘fact’ that homosexual marriage is a constitutional right in CA, we really meant it!! It’s right there in the constitution that people of the same sex cna marry. It has ALWAYS been there. You just weren’t smart enough to see it. Now you think you can change that by just amending the Constitution? Fools! We have the power—not you!”
All the amendment does is to embed into the Constitution what has always been in the state code, which is the traditional meaning of marriage. What the Court did was to redefine marriage to include civil unions, since civil unions already gave homsexual couples most of the rights enjoyed by married couples and since traditional marriage has been so watered down
by the lightness with which it is held by some many men and women, it has already been defined down. The Amendment is an attempt to stop this process before it invades the core of marital rights now enjoyed by married couples. Some say it is an attempt to deny gay couples the label, but it would in effect reduce marriage to the same level as civil union.
I predict that when the court overturns the election results, the people will ho-hum it and go back to watching American Idol.
We will never get our freedom back by watching American Idol.
If they overturn this: there is no rule of law in CA, I think you all ought to find (ally w) all the black, latino pastors that also supported this and put forth your own “marriage” protest!
Will they be willing to RECALL their Sup Ct. Justices if this is overturned though?
I’m not opposed to gay rights, but I am opposed to the California supreme court overturning proposition eight, especially when the challenge is based on the state constitution (the revision vs. Amendment argument is also pretty weak). It’d be like the SCOTUS striking down one part of the Constitution. That’s an oligarchy, not a republic. (Apologies for any typos. I’m doing this on my BlackBerry.)
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Today, Thursday, March 5th, at 9:00 a.m., The Honorable Ken Starr, renowned constitutional scholar, will present oral argument on Preposition 8 before the California Supreme Court, presenting the case that the people’s right to vote on a proposition is supreme and valid and that the Justices must uphold the rule of law by not overturning the voice and will of the citizens of California.
The oral arguments will be broadcast live on the internet, www.calchannel.com. Your local cable provider may also televise the arguments. If possible, please watch. We are hopeful that justice and the rule of law will prevail. The arguments will also be available in their archives later.
I realize that only people who voted count, but the 52%+ passing rate way under-represents the people's will. Think about it. The Dems/liberals were highly motivated to get out the vote this election with unprecedented (illegal?) voter registration - California conservatives, who didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of their candidate winning, largely stayed home, demoralized by a RINO as their candidate. Still, the referendum passed with a respectable margin.
Under-represented. You better believe it.
--Does Ken Starr live in CA? I'm a California native and I think it's deplorable that CA has to bring in anyone else but our own Justices to explain to our CA noodniks what the Constitutional Law is supposed to be. The most annyoing (and perplexing) issue here is WHEN THE VOTERS VOTE ON A PROPOSITION AND THAT SPECIFIC PROPOSITION WINS IN THE VOTES, THEN THE PROPOSITION NEEDS TO STAND. Why is this basic process so difficult for the Gay community to understand?
The majority of people in CA do not want 'gay marriage'. WE VOTED. Done deal. And the State is BROKE, so why are we wasting time and money on all this hoopla? If this vote gets reversed then VOTING WILL MEAN NOTHING IN CALIFORNIA.
The gays need to come-up with another term for Marriage for themselves. Try "Civil Union", or something else. The term "Marriage" is already taken.
End of story.
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.