Proposition 8, California Gay Marriage Ban, Faces Next Legal Hurdle Before State Supreme Court

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- California's highest court seems inclined to side with backers of the state's same-sex marriage ban in thinking that the state Constitution gives ballot initiative proponents legal authority to defend their measures in court.

The California Supreme Court heard more than an hour of arguments Tuesday on that question, which could prove pivotal to the future of the voter-approved ban, known as Proposition 8.

Several justices noted that the court has never refused to allow the sponsors of ballot questions to appear before it when measures were challenged.

The Supreme Court is considering the matter at the request of a federal appeals court that is weighing whether the ban violates the constitutional rights of same-sex couples.

Comments

[Charles Queen]

01:25 AM on 09/10/2011

OK,I already covred the gay thing now for something else thats not remotel related to gay's.The high sped rail system.Their saying it should be handled by the states and I'm saying it hould be done by the governmkent much as it is in other country's that already have and use it

[Ioan Lightoller]

04:10 AM on 09/10/2011

Beyond the fact that you don't seem able to use apostrophes approprately. It's "gays" and not "gay's" and "countries", not "country's", this is a thread on gay rights and not a thread on high-speed rail system "(by the way, it is "speed", not "sped".). Sorry "the gay thing" bores you but then, you are not the one having your rights curtailed.

[Charles Queen]

01:15 AM on 09/10/2011

Personaly,I have no problem with the gay thing.If they wanna get married,let them do so.Being gay as we all know is not just something the majority of them just want to do but it is more a genetic thing if I'm not mistaken and I knoow that I'v read about it here and there in the past which I do not find that hard to believ in.Mke it legal and be done with it instead of dragging out obver all of these very many years.I'v known many gays both male and female here and while I was in the servie and they did just fine.However not everyone in the armed forces is as open minded such as myself,so I do warn those in the miltary and those who seek to join the military especialy the army and the marines.There are many people in both branches that do not bilieve in this and do mean you harm and I do not mena verbal harm.They had to lay low when I was in the military and I would advise them to do so even now.I do not wish to see any of you hurt at all.So use discretion whenever you think and or feel that you need to.Better to be sfae that sorry and I wish all of you the best

[Volantiad]

05:58 AM on 09/09/2011

What I don't understand is why the State of California would tolerate anyone putting an initiative up for vote on something that is apparently illegal. I mean, you can't get a bunch of your Church of Latterday Saints funded friends together and form a ballot measure that the state must pay for chocolate cake for all your friends. That, of course, is a silly example, but just because a person feels strongly in their intellectually inferior, cowardly view doesn't mean that it can become a law. A law permitting LGBT people to legally wed extends legal protection to those people where it has been (illegally) denied before.

[LeftRight]

12:22 PM on 09/09/2011

Actually, it's not that silly of an example, because it's basically what happened here!

[American in Taipei]

07:56 PM on 09/11/2011

Actually, in California that's completely okay. In the Cali Supreme Court case on Prop 8, they said "the measure carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights."

So in California you could ban Mormons from eating chocolate cake if you wanted, because that's a pretty narrow exception to their rights.

Gotta love their Supreme Court's absolute cowardice.

[HermaO]

08:27 AM on 09/08/2011

It's happening, whether they like it or not. If it's not this year, it will be the next. We are not going anywhere.
They should just get over it and move on, saving themselves and us a lot of energy and money.

[Angel1999]

10:03 AM on 09/08/2011

Just imagine if all the money they had spent on this proposition had actually been put to the sort of use that Jesus might have approved of...

[Volantiad]

05:47 AM on 09/09/2011

Right, Angel1999? I'm not sure why they call themselves 'christians' since they seem to bear absolutely no resemblence to Jesus (mirroring his wisdom, not his image, of course). I wonder how bad a shape christianity would be in now if Jesus had been such a hateful coward. Instead of the Prince of Peace, he might've been known as the Prince of Peevishess.

[talkstocoyotes]

03:52 PM on 09/09/2011

Jesus has become about as significant for the political branch of conservative Christianity as Ronald McDonald.

[Angel1999]

10:03 AM on 09/08/2011

What are you talking about?

[lacrosselamore]

03:14 PM on 09/09/2011

Just a random thought from a random hater.

[onnozol]

05:16 PM on 09/09/2011

We preferred to be called guano filchers, thank you very much. Like you prefer to be referred to as an irksome half wit with a heart mired in feculence.

[Just Breathe]

07:28 PM on 09/07/2011

Let them have their standing...I'd love to see this case (and all the faulty logic of the proponents of Prop. 8) be put before the U.S. Supreme Court. I understand that no new evidence can be introduced and Judge Vaughn Walker made a well-written ruling. So, let's go through those facts at the national level and see what happens.

[lacrosselamore]

03:15 PM on 09/09/2011

I agree, that wes the best written decision I have ever read. I was actually cheering while I was reading it.

[Forester]

01:52 PM on 09/07/2011

When states unevenly enforce our constitutional rights, we end up with Bloody Kansas and civil war.

[David N Taiwan]

09:41 PM on 09/07/2011

Although I agree, I can't help but wonder what specific constitutional rights you have in mind in this particular case.

[Eileenla]

08:12 AM on 09/08/2011

Equal protection comes quickly to mind.

[LeftRight]

07:14 PM on 09/08/2011

Equal protection, Full Faith and Credit, right to assemble....

[TraceyMichelle]

11:01 AM on 09/08/2011

but enforcing the constitutional rights helps to remind people of what gives them the opportunity to feel the need speak up in the first place. the civil war was necessary to show people that the constitution does not has favorites among class, gender, ethnicity, religion, or even sexuality for that matter. one group of people always think that they are superior over others and think the laws do not apply to anyone else who are different.

[anthonybrown]

05:50 AM on 09/09/2011

Right. The big in this country think they are superior to our youngest and smallest brothers and sisters, despite what the Constitution says.

[IndependentMeans]

12:12 PM on 09/07/2011

This is an easy out. Legally, the proponents do not have standing. Hence it's getting thrown back to the CA Supreme Court. Spineless that they are, it might go on to the SCOTUS. They should let the current ruling stand as is.

[Douglas Campbell]

09:44 PM on 09/16/2011

When do we get to vote on the legality of your marriage?

[proudcalib]

09:18 AM on 09/07/2011

Personally, I'd like to see Olson and Boies argue this before the US Supreme Court. We'll never have better legal representation for the cause of marriage equality.

[xenas mom]

11:09 AM on 09/07/2011

Absolutely agree on that. They are extraordinarily accomplished attorneys. I'd like to see the PvS tapes released just so I could actually see them work.

[Ioan Lightoller]

04:38 AM on 09/08/2011

Fanned and faved. I can't think of any other attorneys who would be able to argue our case better than Olson and Boies. They are simply the best.

[SteveHansen]

07:09 AM on 09/07/2011

The CA Constitution says that the Governor and AG have standing to defend the laws of the state, not every citizen. The Governor and AG also have discretion to decide which suits they will defend, and may choose not to defend a suit.

While that may seem undesirable, that really is what the CA Constitution says.

If the citizens want to change it, they have the power to amend that Constitution.

So, under the actual current law, the proponents really do not have standing. If they had wanted to, they could have amended the CA Constitution to give themselves standing. If they want to in the future, they still can amend, but that would be for future cases.

Personally, I would like to see this case get a decision on the merits in the Federal appeals court, and even in the Supreme court. I don't live in CA. The only way MY state is ever going to repeal its Constitutional DOMA provision, is if the Federal Courts make the decision.

[ddanimal]

10:48 AM on 09/07/2011

Where does the CA constitution say that citizens do not have standing? it doesnt.

[LeftRight]

06:24 PM on 09/07/2011

That's not in the Constitution, that's in law. If you cannot prove that you've been harmed or will be harmed by an action, then you cannot sue.

For example, if the people in the town I live in voted to rezone my property as commercial, I could sue because I could show harm. If, after suing, I won, and the town attorneys chose not to appeal, my neighbors would have to show that NOT rezoning my property harms them before THEY could appeal the decision.

SAME thing in California. The AG and Governor chose not to appeal the decision, and these people are trying to appeal the decision. If they cannot prove that they are harmed or will be harmed by the ruling then they cannot carry on the appeal.

[SteveHansen]

07:11 AM on 09/08/2011

The CA constitution assigns that power to the Governor and AG.

[MrStat1]

11:25 AM on 09/07/2011

You don't make the decision. The Ca. Supreme Court does. They are the ones legally authorized to decide what the state constitution means, not you and not me.

[Angel1999]

03:43 PM on 09/07/2011

It doesn't appear that Steve was trying to "make the decision".

[Lona Tucker]

02:34 AM on 09/07/2011

Human rights now!

[MrStat1]

11:25 AM on 09/07/2011

What does that mean?

[Ioan Lightoller]

04:39 AM on 09/08/2011

What do you think it means? Nimrod.

[EducatedWoman]

01:34 AM on 09/07/2011

The proponents of Prop 8 were allowed to intervene at the trial level and now are fighting to keep the video/audio record of the trial from the public. What if the 9th Circuit told them, you can defend the initiative on appeal, but the video/audio will have to be public if you do.

If they had to, I wonder which the proponents would choose: a fully public trial record or the right to appeal the trial judgment?

[xenas mom]

11:10 AM on 09/07/2011

What's that called...being caught between the devil and the deep blue sea? Yeah, it would be interesting.

[MrStat1]

11:26 AM on 09/07/2011

The would initially appeal that decision to the US Supreme Court for a ruling.

[ddanimal]

12:07 AM on 09/07/2011

I hate prop 8, but I think its outrageous that the courts could rule that the conservative groups dont have standing. The SCOTUS conservatives (scalia et al) have denied access to the courts of many seeking justice by arguing that parties seeking to sue dont have "standing", i.e., that they are unaffected by whatever it is they are suing about.

The conservatives on the court have used this dishonest tactic to deny court access to citizens and activists seeking justice. In general, strict requirements for standing favor the rich and powerful in society. So its ironic that such rules for standing are now biting conservative activists.

Everyone should have access to the courts, including the conservatives in this case.

[JakeHanson]

02:45 AM on 09/07/2011

I disagree and I hate Prop 8, too. Proposition 8 should have never qualified as a ballot initiative; our Government systems are in place to ensure that a tyrannical majority never holds power or decisions that involve civil rights over a minority. If the judges were to open their eyes to this case, they would see that (based on other states and countries that have legalized same-sex marriage) that there is absolutely no harm done to the Proponents of Proposition 8, and allowing the public to strip away the rights of its citizens is completely un-American and goes against the very principles that our Constitution was founded on. The Judges shouldn't give standing to ballot measures that violate equality.

[lacrosselamore]

03:21 PM on 09/09/2011

The real proble m is the COnstitution of the State of California which allows majority rule by ballot. What a nutty system.

[norepublicanleftbehind]

03:09 AM on 09/07/2011

What standing should they have? How are any of their opinions relevant to anybody's marriage if they themselves are not partners in the marriage?

[ddanimal]

10:42 AM on 09/07/2011

Thats not the issue. The issue is whether citizens should have access to the courts.

[rinomanfroni]

11:27 PM on 09/06/2011

In the Internal Revenue Code, for each section of the federal taxation code, there is at least one paragraph that it titled "Definitions." Many times, the definition of a word for tax purposes does not correspond with the common sense definition. Our 235 years of legislatures changed the meaning of thousands of English words for legal purposes for as long as a Congress existed. Please don't come to me and say that the word "marriage" is defined as only between a man and a woman, because our legislative body has already changed that meaning several times... from "so long as ye both shall live" to "until divorced," from "of same faith and belief" to "separation of state and religion" and from "between people of same race" to "every citizen is equal when faced with the law." In no way I will ever believe a marriage, for tax purposes--and thus for legal purposes--is between a man a woman. Changes to definitions were made for the sake of fairness. In today's context, we mean public fairness when we talk about recognition of same-sex marriage.

[bannorhill]

08:28 AM on 09/08/2011

"Our 235 years of legislatur­es changed the meaning of thousands of English words for legal purposes for as long as a Congress existed."

Then let Congress do it again.

[amaranthian]

11:27 PM on 09/06/2011

fine. let the proponents of prop 8 defend themselves in court. the more they try to justify their ridiculous views, the more the public will see them for what they are - backwards, bigoted, and motivated simply by fear. the sooner their cause crumbles, the better.

[bannorhill]

08:37 AM on 09/08/2011

The proponents of prop 8 did not defend themselves.

Attorney General Brown chose not to defend the lawsuit, saying that Proposition 8 violates the 14th Amendment and should be struck down.

So prop 8 was defended by those who opposed it.

[TBJ]

09:12 AM on 09/08/2011

The proponents could and did defend it at the bottom level of the court system. They don't have the standing, however, to appeal the ruling on the constitutionality of a state law.