Posted on 03/05/2009 8:31:22 AM PST by CounterCounterCulture
LIVE WEBCAST - 03/05/09
California Supreme Court Oral Arguments on Proposition 8 - Same Sex Marriage
9:00AM (PST)
The California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Thursday, March 5, 2009, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., in three cases challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8, a statewide ballot initiative that was passed by a majority of California voters in November 2008.
The California Channel will broadcast this event live via your local cable provider and on our website*.
*Due to the high demand we expect for this event, if you have problems connecting then the server has reached its limit. Please try back later or watch the video in our archvie when it concludes.
Seems that this would require an "anal argument" as well.
“....oral arguments....”
Yikes, they really get into details, don’t they?
Is there really any doubt about where this decision will fall?
These freakin’ liberals, they have to cheat to get everything. The public voted it down...Not one, but TWICE!!
WTF, why even bother your freakin’ babies!
"We will not mince words," Starr wrote in his court papers. "The attorney general is inviting this court to declare a constitutional revolution."
No doubt at all. Any given judicial body will favor the wrongdoer everytime.
At least we’re being spared anal arguments.
Then, assuming Prop 8 does jive with CA Constitution, does it apply retroactively (prior to Nov. 4)? Or does it nullify gay marriages prior?
But, yes, generally they are just being sore losers.
sfgov.org (SFGTV2)
Raymond Marshall, Strauss Petitioner, up now.
Raymond Marshall finishes. Marshall, an African-American, compares this phony argument about an oppressed minority, homosexuals in this case, puts other opprressed minorities at risk of losing their equal protections.
There has also been talk with the first two petitioners about Revision (via Article 18) vs Amendment.
Your vote is unconstitutional in california for the second time take that you normal people.
Michael Maroko, Tyler Petitioner, up. Talk of domestic partnership... one justice (Chin) says Prop 8 did not affect that status. Talk of religious origins and definition of terms, marriage vs something else. Maroko continues the equal protection nonsense. Article 1, Section 1. If gay couples don’t have the right to marry, then neither should heterosexual couples.
Justice Kennard asks Maroko to cite one case; cites Mulkey case (prop 14). Prop 8 is unique. Maroko has tendency to say “heterosexual” when he means “homosexual.”
Another Justice (female, didn’t catch her name): The answer is no, there has been no case of a constitutional amendment taking away “rights” from a minority. This is a unique case.
Chief Justice George: Prop 209 (”on affirmative action”), bussing written into equal protection clause. Maroko argues those cases were “remedies.”
Maroko makes phony anti-inter-racial marriage proposition hypothetical.
“Suspect class” often refered to in these arguments today regarding perported oppressed minority.
Justice Kennard asks about Validity of marriages perform before passage of Prop 8. Only a marriage between a man and woman is valid or recognized in California. Maroko claims Prop 8 wouldn’t void the homosexual marriage already performed. But the language is ambiguous regarding this.
Your vote is unconstitutional in california for the second time take that you normal people.
Pretty much. Sacramento refuses to do much, so EVERYTHING goes to a PROP. Then if the results are different than what the libs want, there is a challenge and it is overturned.
It is never challenged if it goes the lib way.
Politics in CA strikes again.
Justice Moreno jokes about what the meaning of “is” means (in the Prop 8 text)
Theresa Stewart, City and County of San Francisco petitioner, now up.
Talk about voters intent regarding retro-invadility of homo-marriages. Steart claims voters didn’t contemplate that issue.
Stewart: Prop 8 is a revision. Alters our core protection.
Justice hypothetical: what is there was a measure to repeal Prop 209 or eliminate same-sex schools?
Another Justice: How has the structure of our Constitution been changed?
Ugh, Stewart sounds and looks like Ellen DeGeneres on speed. I need to take a break.
Christopher Krueger, representative for the Attorney General’s office. Justice asks him which side he’s on. Representing the challengers’ side (i.e., anti-8).
Justice: Do you agree that it’s a revision?
Krueger: No. It’s an amendment. Under case law, it’s not a revision.
The Raven case from 1990 keeps getting brought up today.
Justice: You disagree with the challengers on revision vs amendment.
Krueger: The AG takes position that it’s not a revision; it’s unconstitutional.
Talk of “Inalienable”
Justices: Can the people amend their constitution? What are the limitations? What is the extent of that limitation?
Justice: What does “inalienable” include?
Justice: “Right of privacy” was added in 1972.
The people also have a right to fish.
Justice Baxter: Talk of death penalty and cruel and unusual punishment and the Anderson case and the people reinstituted the death penalty via the Amendment process... was that valid (Kruger: Yes). Then why not Prop 8?
Krueger is stymied by the double-standard.
Justice: Article 18, Sec 3. (amending the Constitution vis initiative).. is amendment the constitution an inalienable?
Krueger reluctantly agrees, then tries to justify the AG office’s opposition to Prop 8.
Justice Kennard: The right of the people to change or alter has been a basic, fundamental, “inalienable” right. But you would have us choose between these two rights, the “inalienable right to marry” and the people’s right to change the constitution via amendment. The people establish the constitution and the judges’ powers are limited.
“Draconian” finally uttered by Krueger.
Judges keep pressing on what are inalienable rights.
Is there a difference between inalienable rights and fundamental rights?
How do we determine which amendments are OK and which are not?
Fun seeing Krueger squirm throughout all this.
Ken Starr up now (heaven help us)
I haven’t seen one judge that seems to be leaning toward supporting Prop 8, have you?
As history, I looked up how they voted when they redefined marriage:
YAY
Ronald George
Joyce Kennard
Kathryn Werdegar
Carlos Moreno
NAY
Ming Chin
Marvin Baxter
Carol Corrigan
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.