BREAKING: California Supreme Court Uphold Same-Sex Marriage Ban

LifeSiteNews.com -- Your Life, Family and Culture Outpost ^ | Tuesday, May 26, 2009 | By Peter J. Smith

[topher]

Tuesday May 26, 2009

---

BREAKING: California Supreme Court Uphold Same-Sex Marriage Ban

18,000 same-sex "marriages" obtained under Supreme Court ruling allowed to stand

By Peter J. Smith



SAN FRANCISCO, California (LifeSiteNews.com) - The California Supreme Court has struck down a constitutional challenge to Proposition 8, the voter-approved constitutional amendment to the state constitution that upholds marriage as the union between a man and a woman. However the ruling does not apply to the 18,000 homosexuals who received marriage licenses from the state of California before November 5, 2008.



The justices voted 6-1 to uphold the amendment, which effectively bans same-sex "marriage," reversing a course that began last year in May, when the justices had voted to invalidate a California voter referendum passed in 2000 by a wide 61% to 38% majority, defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

In their decision, the justices argued that the issue at hand in Proposition 8 was "the scope of the right of the people, under the provisions of the California Constitution, to change or alter the state Constitution itself through the initiative process."

The high court rejected the challenges to Proposition 8 which argued that it did not constitute an "amendment," but a "revision" to the state constitution, which would require the involvement of the state legislature.



The justices also rejected Attorney General Jerry Brown's theory that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional on the basis that it violated inalienable rights such as "fundamental liberty" or a "right to privacy" without compelling interest.

However, Justice Werdegar, in her concurring opinion, said that although Proposition 8 did not bring about "such a broad change in the principle of equal protection," she insisted that all branches of the state government "continue to have the duty … to eliminate the remaining important differences between marriage and domestic partnership, both in substance and perception."



In the meantime, the decision lets stand all marriage licenses given to same-sex couples between June 16 and November 4, 2008 under the authority of the May 2008 Supreme Court decision. That part of the decision has been criticized by defenders of Proposition 8, who point out that applying constitutional amendments only prospectively and not retroactively is not the norm nor supported by well-established legal principles, as the high court insists.



"This part of the ruling makes little sense, because a constitutional amendment like this one means that going forward, that which happened in the past is no longer recognized," said Mat Staver, the founder of Liberty Counsel, which helped represent the Campaign for California Families in defending Proposition 8. "When the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, slavery was abolished. Slave holders could not claim grandfather rights to own another person."

"If the licenses that were issued in this limited time frame remain valid, then what about licenses outside the state that were issued in this same period? If a person with such a license moves to California, can their license also be recognized? Of course, the answer to both questions should be 'No!'"

URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/may/09052605.html

---

Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.

[topher]

As Gomer Pyle would say:

Surprise! Surpise! Surprise!

[ButThreeLeftsDo]

Dear FRiends,

In light of what is transpiring in our nation’s capitol, more than ever, we need to ensure that places like Free Republic and other like-minded places continue to speak the plain truth. Newspapers are dying and the current administration will either bail them out or allow them to fail. If they are bailed out, they will be even more beholding to the coming socialist agenda. If they are allowed to fail, the powers that be will force the remaining electronic media to fill the void. Local coverage only. No national syndicated news/talk. The “Fairness Doctrine”, like it or not.

After that, the internet. Free Republic. And others.

We need to get this FReepathon over and right now. We need to show that we are serious and will continue forward and thrive, not just survive.

If you can spare a couple of bucks, that would be great...If not, God bless you and please stop by the FReepathon thread and give it a bump.

We’re all in this together.

[brooklyn dave]

Now does that mean those marriages are totally invalidated (because the law for that period of time said that same-sex marriages were legal) or will California just not perform any more same sex marriages?

[bdeaner]

Wow!

[FLDemocracker]

I’m surprised. Although they made it clear that it could be struck down through another “initiative”.

[CounterCounterCulture]

The official breaking news thread about the Prop 8 ruling...
California Proposition 8 ruling: PROP 8 UPHELD (faux marriages to remain)

[topher]

From the article:

In the meantime, the decision lets stand all marriage licenses given to same-sex couples between June 16 and November 4, 2008 under the authority of the May 2008 Supreme Court decision.

Some gay domestic couples are allowed be considered as "married"...

This article has probably the most information...

[topher]

Doesn’t have much info... Have to dig into the replies on the thread to get any information...

[Allegra]

They're actually letting the will of the people stand???

What's going on here?

(Excellent news.)

[river rat]

".....it could be struck down through another “initiative”.

Not likely anytime soon...

It will be even less likely if the perverts riot upon hearing the news..

[brooklyn dave]

The way the decision seems to be written sounds just...because it was ok for short period of time.

[Miykayl]

So, perhaps it was not a perfect outcome. I’m sympathetic to it not being retroactive... That’s complex and extremely disruptive to people’s lives. That’s my opinion.

I believe that marriage IS between a man and a women. There might be other partnerships, but they are not marriage.

So I am pleased for the ruling mostly because it recognized the will of the people, and the judges did not attempt to force their “view” of the law on the people.

Had they ruled in favor of the opposition, it would be a tragic wound on the democracy.

IMO

[river rat]

".....it could be struck down through another “initiative”.

Not likely anytime soon...

It will be even less likely if the perverts riot upon hearing the news..

[cartervt2k]

The people have spoken. Maybe there is hope for this republic.

[Always Right]

Now does that mean those marriages are totally invalidated (because the law for that period of time said that same-sex marriages were legal) or will California just not perform any more same sex marriages?

They are still valid somehow.

[longtermmemmory]

Years ago many states had common law marriage where a couple became married by their actions holding themselves out to be married. Most all states have done away with common law marriages. The way it was done was by setting a “no more” date. Thuse after a set date, no more establishment of common law marriage.

Those that could LEGALLY show a common law marriage existed prior to the “no more” date would still be allowed to be married.

I think this is what the judges were considering. The problem is that these 18k marriages were 100% a judicial created fiction. ADDITIONALLY this constitutional amendment was SPECIFICALLY set about in order to reverse the court.

When the court was reversed, then the judicial fiction should have also been reversed.

[Nosterrex]

Homosexual marriage is either legal or not. Allowing these perverse marriages to remain valid is like saying slavery is wrong, but those slaves bought prior to the ruling are still valid and enforce.

Anyone that thinks that the courts are based upon logic, commonsense, or precedence are getting a lesson on the fact that courts are little more then political trials.

[DesScorp]

They should have voided the “marriages”. They’re not really marriages. Only a man and a woman can be married.

Over at DU, they’re all talking about how they’re going to start burning stuff down, churches included.

[freekitty]

I don’t understand why the libtards keep screaming equal or civil rights. Nothing could be further from the truth. None of this is about either.

This is really about giving a small number of elistists power over you as an individual to decide how your life is run.

Do they not understand they will be governed under this same power?

[windsorknot]

Finally! A good decision based on reality and common sense.