Calif. high court asked to hear gay marriage cases

SAN FRANCISCO — The state attorney general and sponsors of the ballot initiative that banned same-sex marriage in California urged its Supreme Court to hear a series of lawsuits seeking to overturn the ban, saying the matter is too urgent to be unsettled.

"The petitions raise issues of statewide importance, implicating not only California's marriage laws but also the initiative process and the Constitution itself," Attorney General Jerry Brown argued in his filing.

"This court can provide certainty and finality in this matter," he said.

Proposition 8, which passed with 52 percent of the vote earlier this month, overturned the high court's May decision legalizing gay marriage in California. The measure inserts language into the constitution limiting marriage to one man and one woman.

Gay and civil rights groups, the city of San Francisco and other plaintiffs have asked the court to void the measure on the grounds that voters did not have the authority to make, what they say, is a fundamental constitutional change.

There is no deadline for the justices to decide whether they'll take the cases.

The litigation has made unwitting allies of supporters of the same-sex marriage ban and the attorney general, who voted against the proposition. Over the summer, anti-gay marriage groups sued Brown after his office changed the measure's wording to reflect that it would take away a right that same-sex couples then had.

Brown has since said that in his role as California's top public lawyer, he will fight to uphold Proposition 8 as an expression of public sentiment on same-sex marriage. The preliminary documents he filed Monday did not address that issue.

Andrew Pugno, a lawyer for the Yes on 8 campaign, said the measure's supporters are so confident the Supreme Court would uphold the initiative they want the court to take the cases and resolve the question quickly.

"There is no question Proposition 8 is exactly the type of amendment the framers of the Constitution envisioned for the people to be able to enact," Pugno said.

The Protect Marriage coalition is less confident about Brown's sincere interest in defending the gay marriage ban in court, according to Pugno. That's why the coalition asked the court for permission to intervene in the cases Monday.

"Everyone knows the AG opposed Proposition 8, did everything he could to undermine it and it still passed anyway," he said. "There is little hope he would make much effort at all to defend Prop. 8."

Both the attorney general and Protect Marriage asked the court to reject a request from gay marriage supporters for a stay that would allow same-sex couples to resume marrying in California until the broader legal issues are addressed.

Meanwhile, the interfaith California Council of Churches and the Episcopal bishops of Northern California and Los Angeles added their petition Monday to those asking the high court to invalidate Proposition 8. They argue that if voters are permitted to take away rights from a group based on sexual orientation, the same could happen to religious minorities.

Comments

[greeniefromOH]

The last sentence there is very striking. A sensible argument put forth by CHURCHES! Wow, I'm almost impressed enough to go to an Episcopalian church.

Overturn this glaring error and let people live their lives.

[Treehuggindirtworshiper]

Please come to the Episcopal Church! While not all Episcopal Churches are diverse, the church as a whole is! I live in the hate state of Missouri and a Lesbian couple with 3 boys went to California this fall to get married! They are active in the church and the boys are loved and wonderful kids! I am so proud to belong to a faith that believes that Christ died for ALL of us. It's not something you can earn. you can find a church in your area at episcopalchurch.org.

[peggyleg]

And I belong to a Luthern Church, and my church has never discriminated against gay couples or their children....why are the Christians always getting bashed for being anti-gay?

[barriosbabe]

On a completely different point, one has to wonder WHY anti-gay-marriage people are so rabid. As lawyers we are trained to put ourselves in the other person's shoes if only to be able to rebut their concerns. I have a hard time doing that. What does it really threaten? It doesn't threaten your lifestyle. The only thing it maybe threatens (maybe) is things like adoption etc but those can be ruled on separately.

For the life of me I've never understood a religious anti-gay person saying"Oh, you, you gay people cannot get married because that is between a man and a woman." How does it threaten you?

It doesn't.

Talk about mixing religion and government!

[ceasenake]

"one has to wonder WHY anti-gay-marriage people are so rabid"

Come to Southern California and your wondering would make sense only after you drop the "anti".

[RBroadfoot]

I admit, I'm probably a little rabid. To say I feel betrayed by my fellow citizens is a fair characterization of my feelings.

And I DO feel a little bad that there are people who are friendly to my rights who are put off by the shouting matches, vandalism, and general bad behavior. But I am grieving and I understand why it is happening.

My god. We're really NOT equal. It used to be easy to forget that here in California. But now we have to come to grips with it and start fighting for what we thought we already had. It's ugly and unpleasant, and nobody wanted this. But we can't trust the majority to protect us.

[NoMercy]

They're worried that with state sanction, some "impressionable minds" - like their children, or themselves - will come to think of it as acceptable. This will of course bring down civilization.

[frictionlessmatter3]

Marriage traditionally is a union meant to create a secure foundation in which a child is conceived and raised. When you change that definition, you redefine how families are created, and you sever the biological terms on which marriage is founded.

[Quaoar]

It's been changed. Marriage is primarily a legal contract.
How does changing the definition redefine how families are created?

[Lemeritus]

"...meant to create a secure foundation in which a child is conceived and raised..."

And yet, frictionlessmatter3, 50% of "traditional" (heterosexual) marriage ends in divorce -- children or not. Divorce, in fact, is mentioned more frequently in the Bible -- why not villainize and stigmatize the people who practice this? Adulterers are to be stoned. Justifying the bigotry in Proposition 8 by clinging to a religious definition of marriage is folly -- look to the beam in thine own eye.

[spartanmom]

Civil marriage is about property rights and inheritance. Nothing else.
Study some history

[LeaderofMen]

Using that argument, the logical extension is this: you must support - immediately - that all married couples with children can't serve in the military in a combat situation. The reason is obvious. Their service in a war zone threatens to sever the biological terms on which marriage is founded. If one of those parents are killed in action or in an accident during their service, they are in violation of the very principle of marriage - using your definition.

Thus, it should be unlawful - indeed, CRIMINAL - for anyone who is married with kids to EVER serve in the military. EVER.

[wmfor]

Then since thousands of gay couples are raising children, it would be logical for you to support marriage rights for them and deny them to childless heterosexual couples. Your reasoning (other than "all traditions are sacred") is illogical.

[ceasenake]

Bullwinkle: Hey, Rock! Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!

Rocky: Again? That trick never works.

Bullwinkle dramatically wiggles his fingers, reaches into the hat and pulls out a lion, which he quickly shoves back into the hat.

Bullwinkle: Guess I don't know my own strength!

Rocky: Now here's somthing we hope you'll really like!

[barriosbabe]

Anybody who has spent a couple of years in Con law lectures (sorry!) knows that these issues are really only resolved/protected by the U.S. Supreme Court. Thank goodness! How ridiculous to try and restrict such a thing from a public vote. What's next?

[buster85]

I always thought that people voting changes things. However it is apparent that if the vote turns out other than the way someone wants, just send it to the SUPREME COURT. If this is the rule, why waste money and time at the polls? We just went though a tough presidental election cycle. Anyone want to send it to the SUPREME COURT? Not me. Majority rules. Live with it.

[frictionlessmatter3]

Apparently if you can frame your political struggle as a supposed "rights" issue, you can have the will of the people overturned. This is clearly not a rights issue, and yet that propaganda is permeating every corner of our popular media.

[Apov]

If as you say "this is cldarly not a rights issue", what is you take on what type of issue this clearly is?

[barriosbabe]

Majority never rules when it comes to Con law rights. That was the whole point of how our system of government was set up.

[Chris]

Really? It takes majority votes of multiple houses in order to get a ratification.

[frictionlessmatter3]

Apparently if you can incorrectly frame your political struggle as a "rights issue" you can overturn the will of the majority.

[wmfor]

Yeah, just like those abolitionists. The people wanted to preserve traditional slavery.

[greeniefromOH]

Actually, our founding fathers designed the Constitution to protect the rights not of the majority, but of the minority suffering persecution. That is the beauty of America. A direct majority vote is not how the Presidential election is decided... it is based on electoral votes for a reason. The same ought to be true of any amendment to the state or federal constitutions.

[Chris]

Actually it is designed to protect the rights of all. Regardless of if they are in the majoirty or the minority.

And you argument makes no sense when in order to amend that constitution it must pass a vote of the people.

[siney]

my god, you are so grossly ignorant....the constitution, specifically the bill of rights and 14th amendment equal protection clause, sets forth fundamental protections and rights held by THE INDIVIDUAL, i.e., the minority, that CANNOT be taken away or otherwise violated by the majority/govt....

marriage is a fundamental right, as reaffirmed by the US Supreme Court in loving v. virginia... the equal protection clause ensures all citizens equal treatment under the law by state gov't....

one cannot debate, vote away or otherwise deprive another of one's constitutional rights and protections...that would amount to mob rule, specifically what the constitution DOES NOT PERMIT...

it is only a matter of time before the US supreme court finds that all of these insidious, vicious and misbegotten anti-gay ballot initiatives are in violation of the constitution, thus sending them to the giant dust bin of our country's ugly history of discrimination...

[frictionlessmatter3]

Marriage is a fundamental right that any adult, gay or straight, can enter into. There is no reason to redefine marriage because everyone has the right to be married.

[Chris]

Siney while facutla that is correct it is not what is occurring in CA. The case is going to the CA supreme court not the federal courts. The CA supremes shoudl be primarily concerned with its constitution. Their job is not to interpret the US Constitution.

[peggyleg]

Marriage is not a "fundamental right"....it is a privledge. If it were a right, every single person out there that wanted to marry would have a case for discrimination....please, please, usse your head.....NO ONE HAAS THE "RIGHT", only the privledge, of marrying...

[frictionlessmatter3]

Gay marriage is not a rights issue, it's a redefinition of a long held tradition. Any man or woman, gay or straight, has the right to be married. What the homosexual community is asking is for society to redefine the act of marriage to be something it is currently not. Marriage is defined as a union between a man and woman.

If the homosexual community were honest about what they want then this wouldn't be such a contentious issue. Homosexual couples in California have virtually the same privileges as married couples. What they want is for society to call their unions marriage. If they want marriage to be redefined then they should state it.

There is a reason the qualifier "gay" or "homosexual" always precedes the word marriage when this issue is discussed. That's because marriage by itself describes a heterosexual relationship. The rights argument is moot, and it causes thinking people to tune out.

Some people like to call those opposed to redefining marriage bigots, but it is quite obvious those people have never stopped to analyze the facts of the issue. It is not bigoted to uphold the tradition of marriage. It is a difference of opinion about how we define a social classification.

I have to deal with Obama as president and you have to deal with marriage still being defined as a union between a man and a woman. Protest freely all you want, but the voters have spoken.

[NoMercy]

You framed it as an equal rights issue yourself just now, when you said "virtually the same privileges". Why should gay couples only have "virtually" the same rights as straight couples?

Marriage is a traditionally a lot of things in the world, and includes polygamy and polyandry, and arranged marriages of young children.

Marriage does not have to be a legal issue if it remains purely in the religious tradition of the community. But if marriage carries with it legal obligations and privileges (i.e. the contract changes the parties' status in the eyes of the state), then those obligations and privileges should, logically, morally and legally, belong to all "persons".

[frictionlessmatter3]

1) Privileges are not rights. Homosexual couples have virtually the same privileges as married couples.

2) Any person who wants to have the privileges of marriage simply has to get married. Anyone, gay or straight, has the right to be married.

3) Marriage is traditionally and legally a union between a man and a woman in the U.S.

4) All people, gay or straight, have the right to be married.

[Scott3843]

Bravo, NoMercy.

[barriosbabe]

Con law correctness is not based on votes.

[barriosbabe]

Fallacy of circular thinking. Just because prejudiced people put the qualifier there to make their prejudiced word "work" does not "prove" that the word should only mean your prejudiced view.

====

"There is a reason the qualifier "gay" or "homosexual" always precedes the word marriage"

[frictionlessmatter3]

So you are claiming that people who use the word marriage to describe a union between a man and a woman are prejudiced? So in order to, "not be prejudiced" one must say "heterosexual marriage" when describing a heterosexual union already encompassed in the definition of the singular word marriage?

That is ridiculous!

If you want to redefine the term marriage, then protest, and advocate for that definition change. Don't sully the argument by making baseless claims of prejudice, and human rights abuse.

[Christyyyyy]

Are you serious? "Traditional" marriage used to involved dozens of wives, concubines, etc. Give me a break.

[LeaderofMen]

The more you talk the more you show how much you don't know about how law works in the US, how the gov't works, or how much marriage has changed over the last several thousand years.

I love all the church talking points. Keep talking. Expose the gross hypocrisy at work here. For everyone to see. That's what's needed and wanted in this discussion: total exposure of ALL the talking points.

[frictionlessmatter3]

I'm not part of any church.

I agree that a free and open discussion is necessary to properly vet this issue. Good luck.

[NoMercy]

Is there a legal definition of "man" and "woman"?

Isn't what prop 8 people are doing enshrining sexism in law?

Shouldn't there be such definitions, if such a law makes any sense? If a man has lost his testicles, is he still a man? Is a woman with a hysterectomy still a woman? Shouldn't the definition of "man" and "woman" be settled before this can be made law?

[NWBrunette]

Exactly. What about Trans folks, what about those whose sex is different from their gender (if only for a period of time). What about intersex people - those of indeterminate sex? Are all those not allowed to be married. Funny, because right now, many of them are already married.

[frictionlessmatter3]

Losing one's testicles does not change one's genetic makeup.

[truthforme]

Jamie Lee Curtis (and thousands of other Americans) has testicular feminization, a condition in which she was born with XY chromosomes but developed as a female. What is SHE?

[NoMercy]

This logic would seem to sometimes necessitate having chromosone testing done to ensure the sex of the parties before granting the marriage licence. That seems extreme.

[jthomsen]

This is the issue that will turn the tide back to the right..... anybody notice that O was not questioned on this?

Anybody notice that both Biden and Palin answered that they are AGAINST same sex marriage...

so is the country.... black, latino and white.

Now... you've been warned.

this issue is like abortion for the GOP ..... it's a loser and will make your independents run for their lives... and the lives of their kids...

ENOUGH already....

[Christyyyyy]

Sure, so was voting rights for people other than white mails. Enough of YOU already.

[NoMercy]

There should be no emotion at all for the legislators of this case.

Marriage should be defined as a legal contract between two consenting adults. It does not imply sexual activity or procreation (otherwise all postmenopausal women would be prohibited from marriage). The contract grants certain legal benefits, which are guaranteed to all.

To make opposite gender a necessary precondition of making the contract can only come from dogmatic bias, obviously with its root in religion (i.e. irrational).

[frictionlessmatter3]

Should be defined is not the same as "currently is defined." Marriage is currently defined as a contract between a man and a woman. If the homosexual community wants to change that definition then they should state that goal clearly instead of cloaking the disagreement as a rights issue.

[Scott3843]

It all depends on who's doing the defining, frictionlessmatter3.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

[agro23]

Article 1, Section 7b of the State Constitution:

A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges
or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or
revoked.

It's a simple equation really:

If a woman can marry a man then a man can marry a man (and vice versa) or the privilege of a citizen to enter a marriage contract with another citizen is not granted on the same terms to all citizens.

[NoMercy]

Hear hear!

[Giada]

Thank you.

[frictionlessmatter3]

Any man or woman, gay or straight can be married. The terms of marriage are the same for all citizens, and all classes of citizens.

[Scott3843]

So, what you keep repeating AD NAUSEUM is that, sure, gay people can marry just like straight people can. They just have to marry someone they're not in love with. But, still, they can do it, you say. They still have that right. No one is stopping them.

Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds? Just what we need, more loveless marriages in this world.

Yeah, gay people marrying straight people has just worked sooooo well over the centuries, hasn't it? Such solid marriages. Such wonderful environments in which to raise a child to adulthood. (Who should we poll for this? Larry Craig, perhaps? Ted Haggard? Jim McGreevey?) These can't be happy households. Long live unhappy, closeted -- but MARRIED -- households!! Because one p*nis and one v*gina equal 100% happy, successful families.

And, you're just solidifying the pro-equality argument by stating that the "terms of marriage are the same for all citizens and all classes of citizens" when CLEARLY they are NOT -- not when people can cast a vote for or against equality and other people's happiness.

[Carolab]

Mark Crispin Miller has some interesting stats on the exit poll data that indicate the early data was against Prop. 8 whereas the exit poll data later in the evening--which added just 72 more respondents--was FOR it--in almost a direct REVERSAL of the numbers. He also notes that the manufacturers of ES&S & Diebold (now Premier Election Solutions) are Christian dominionists.

[Carolab]

This is the exit poll from early in the evening of election night. There were 2,168 respondents, and they break down as follows (a "yes" vote is a vote against same-sex marriage):

Males:
Yes on Prop 8, 48%
No on Prop 8, 52%

Females:
Yes on Prop 8, 48%
No on Prop 8, 52%

This is the exit poll from later in the evening. There were 2,240 respondents -- 72 more respondents than in the earlier poll -- and they break down in a very different way:

Males:
Yes on Prop 8, 53%
No on Prop 8, 47%

Females:
Yes on Prop 8, 52%
No on Prop 8, 48%

http://www.opednews.com:80/articles/WAS-PROP-8-ACTUALLY-DEFEAT-by-Mark-Crispin-Mille-081116-228.html

[socalgal38]

Am i missing something here? Didn't they pass a law that it was illegal to discriminate against sexual orientation?

Marriage is a right granted and should have the same privileges no matter whether it's a man to a woman, a woman to a woman, or a man to a man. It has nothing to do with marriages of a man to a woman. It's time to get the gov and religion out of our personal choices. The law about not discriminating on basis of sexual orientation should have stopped all this.

Our country should be the most tolerant of all after all we are suppose to have freedom of choice as long as it doesn't infringe on other people. If someone doesn't choose to believe your religion than what they do should not infringe on your beliefs. In other words mind your own business.

[Giada]

I'd like to know who hid the Declaration and the Constitution from the students.

We're governed by secular documents that must be held in a secret safe, (Mormon Temple, Scientology Theta's, Randian Galt's Gulch).

Our politicians who are sworn in stating they'll uphold the Constitution revert immediately to, moralistic family conservative values.

No wonder I feel like an alien to the America I love.

[abbeyroad]

there is absolutely ZERO proof that any no-on-8 protester sent that white powder to the lds.

my suspicion is that the mormons planted it themselves to demonize the gays.

mormons have a long history of pointing the finger and throwing blame around
(ie: the indians after the meadow mountain mass acre)

[Curt]

I totally agree.

[wdw102]

it worked then...... cool

[Carolab]

That an admission of guilt?

[SpaceboySD]

I'm don't condone the whole "white powder" issue, but I will absolutely stop traffic when MY RIGHTS that once had are stripped away from me, like they were on November 4th. You can only understand once it happens to you, so until then, open up your arrogant mind to the bigger picture.

[SonofLiberty1]

And what if you are on the road, trying to get somewhere, to work or home after a long days work ...you are tired and some bunch of folks stops you from getting to where you want to be?

I assure you that, whatever the issue is, you probably will be against it simply because your freedom has been interupted.

[Curt]

I was on the road to marriage and a bunch of folks did stop me from getting where I wanted to be.

For SolCal traffic cleared, I however am still stuck on the road having my freedoms interrupted.

I can not believe anyone would cry over a little inconvenience such as having to sit in traffic while I live everyday knowing I am considered not worthy of every privilege my fellow citizens are given.

[frictionlessmatter3]

Indeed. Don't impede my freedoms because you lost a democratic vote.

[wdw102]

it will not happen.......i have weapons

[SoCalGuy 93065]

"I will absolutely stop traffic when MY RIGHTS that once had are stripped away from me"

Hope you never try to do that on a street where I'm driving, or you'll be singing a different tune - I guarantee you that.

[MarkBoston]

What is the next mob rule vote in CA ???? To have all gay people wear a scarlet " Q " on their clothing at all times? Separate drinking fountains? No rights to own property ... only heterosexual will be allowed to own a home ??? What if the Catholics decided to vote on ALL other religions to be illegal in the state and IT passed with by a 4% majority from mostly Hispanics... The constitution would now say ALL churches in the state are Catholic only.

[Martee]

Was it Nebraska that's denied gays and lesbians the ability to adopt kids because they aren't "married" couples?? That's the way they'll try to get around it. "We're not discriminating against gays -- we're discriminating against "married" people." They always do that -- call us promiscuous because we aren't in committed relationships -- but then deny us the ability to form recognized committed relationships. They put the legal structure in place to try and prove their hate.

[Curt]

I think what should be next is a proposition to ban divorce.
Put those same groups in the position to support that one or show how hypo critical they are.

[barriosbabe]

Here in Iowa there's a Bozo who wants to do that.

[ReHoover51]

how bout this: the constitution changed to demonize all religious groups as child abusers. PERIOD!
2000 years of torture, molestation, and murder in the name of jesus must mean something isnt right here!!!
teaching hell and damnation should be ruled as child mind abuse ... and to my fellow jews, remember this: they are teaching their kids that WE are not allowed in heaven (as if it really exists) and WE are going to hell (as if it really exists)
so, lets use group, or mob rule, to rid us of the true oppressors: the church

[peggyleg]

Wow, have YOU lost your mind, were you abused as a child? Did someone stop you from going to Sunday School?

The church is not oppressing anyone...I think it is the mob rule mentality of people like you that sream "discrimination" at every turn.....

[SoCalGuy 93065]

"What is the next mob rule vote in CA ?"

Interesting choice of words, especially considering the rabid anti-8 crowd chose that route in shutting down city streets to publicize their unhappiness with due process (and a majority of voters).