Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
California High Court to Rule Tuesday on Prop. 8
SAN FRANCISCO -- The state Supreme Court will rule Tuesday on a challenge to Proposition 8, the ballot measure that reinstated California's ban on same-sex marriage.
Two men walk hand in hand outside the California Supreme Court during a Proposition 8 demonstration in San Francisco, California in this file photo from March 5, 2009.
REUTERS/Robert Galbraith The court announced the impending decision today in lawsuits by same-sex couples and local governments, led by San Francisco, seeking to overturn the measure that 52 percent of California voters approved in November. If the court upholds the measure, it must also decide how the proposition affects the marriages of about 18,000 same-sex couples who wed before the Nov. 4 election.
Prop. 8 amended the state Constitution to declare that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. It followed the court's 4-3 ruling in May 2008 that declared the previous marriage law violated the rights of gays and lesbians to marry the person of their choice and discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation.
The ruling made California the second state, after Massachusetts, to legalize same-sex marriage. Since then, the Supreme Courts of Iowa and Connecticut have issued similar rulings, and legislatures in Vermont and Maine have also authorized same-sex weddings, although the Maine law faces a likely voter challenge. Another such law is pending in New Hampshire.
Plaintiffs in the California lawsuits argue that Prop. 8 made such fundamental changes to the rights guaranteed by the state Constitution that it amounted to a constitutional revision, not merely an amendment. A revision requires approval by two-thirds of the Legislature or by delegates to a new state constitutional convention to reach the ballot.
Attorney General Jerry Brown, who ordinarily defends state laws in the courts, joined the opponents of Prop. 8 and argued that the voters lack the power to eliminate "inalienable rights."
Supporters of the measure argued that the voters have the right to amend their Constitution and are entitled to deference from the courts. Most of the justices appeared to agree at a hearing in March, and gay-rights advocates are already making tentative plans to return to the ballot in 2010 or 2012 if the court upholds Prop. 8.
At the same hearing, the justices' questions seemed to indicate that the court was likely to uphold the 18,000 marriages that were conducted between mid-June 2008, when their ruling took effect, and the passage of Prop. 8.
28 Comments so far
Show AllYou know if you're against gay civil rights, why don't you try to bring back segregation while you're at it? You could try to re-instate Jim Crow. Maybe you can take away women's voting rights as well. Heck, maybe we can start burning witches too! (They do it in Kenya) You can make signs that say "America is a Christian Nation" and march to ban all other religious organizations. Once you've taken away all of America's freedom, you can rename it "Jesusland".
The religious fundamentalists that are working so hard to stop gay marriage are following the same road Jim Jones did. Once they realize their "utopia" isn't so cool, they'll all blame everyone else and drink the Kool-Aid.
TheLorax, true post, to the letter. It is true also though that many Gays of course are very spiritual, and of those, some are Christians and their beliefs as a whole integrate.
But these are quiet prayers usually, not jackasses with large Bibles, NRA stickers on their bumpers and hatred in their hearts. They are not real Christans, servants of Christ's teachings, anymore than our politicians are real servants of the people.
With love I want to tell you--I think we all need to move beyond stereotypes.... my dad is one of the most socially progressive people I know--gay rights, women's rights, has never once voted republican, and you name it--and he is card-carrying NRA member, has a sticker on his old GTO (window, not bumper!, and has some cool belt buckles). Not everything is black and white and we don't do any real issue justice (like gay/civil rights here) by marginalizing others... or making stereotypical comments. Namaste.
Don't give them any ideas!
As it is, I suspect that there are a still a few warehouses around filled with surplus "Colored" and "Whites Only" signage-- their owners are no doubt rubbing their hands together in anticipation.
The "tyranny of the majority" is SO passé, dontcha know?
· Yr Obd't Servant
President obama, vice president joe biden and secretary of state hillary clinton all have the same view that was approved by prop 8 which is marriage is between a man and a woman. I would bet that you voted for them, what a bunch of morons the anti prop 8 opponents are.
gay rights aside, it's no wonder the american public does not vote any more. vote once, court strikes it down, vote again go to court again to strike it down.
only 30% of californians showed up to strike down Arnie's tax and spend bills last weekend. voting is now just a scam to make feeble minded people think democracy is in action...
So we are morons because we don't agree with 100% of our candidates platform? Were we supposed to vote for McCain and Palin? Obama is at least willing to listen and empathize with the other point of view. The Republicans are explicitly anti-gay.
Two groups helped pass prop 8 we should not forget, the racist sexist Voo-Doo mormon, "church," (sic), a more creepy bunch of child molesters being hard to find this was not a surprise.
But Northern Californians, San Franciscans, all have to use the monopoly utility PG&E if we want gas or electricity and this backward corporation donated a quarter million dollars to pass 8 when 1/2 it's customers in the city it's headquartered in are Gay.
This is so immoral, this should be illegal, utilities are regulated, what next, they donate 10 million dollars to attack Roe vs Wade? Of largely women's money?
I understand PG&E is a private power company - can you opt for public power?
lb, hello, pg&e is a huge for-profit corporation, only 199 corporations in the US are larger, they enjoy a monopoly status. A movie was made about them even-knowingly leaching a chemical, hexa something, into a small California town's groundwater causing birth defects, cancers and deaths in babies and others.
Last year on the Billions grossed their pure profit after all costs well exceeded 50% of revenues. Only a monopoly utility raping it's customers does that.
PG&E helped bankrupt california in the Enron scandal.
The appreciation we have for it is expressed in the class action law suits it fights.
1% wind and solar.
A Nuclear power plant polluting an Oregon river.
BUT, a PR campaign, heavy and hard, with a theme of "Green," they are "Green".....mf's, pg&e is green like putrifying meat.
Again, $250,000 they donate against human rights. Gay human rights in particular.
But it's okay, it's all over SF, they are one with the wind, with God, they are Green...so everything is okay.
lb, I got a few freinds use generators. But it's a noisy, costly hassle. peacebro.
Courts are not supposed to thwart the will of the people. This was voted on by the population, that should be the end of it.
"The Republicans are explicitly anti-gay."
Thats a silly thing to say. All gays are explictly anti marriage between a man and a woman? All Democrats won't serve their country if called?
Sweeping blanket statements are always false.
"The religious fundamentalists that are working so hard to stop gay marriage"
They are people just like you that happen to hold a different view.
Thomas More, actually courts are supposed to thwart the will of the people in some cases. Was not the Supreme Court put in place for that purpose, it being easy to predict people would attempt to create unconstitutional legislation that would have to be struck down.
The people voted for it so that should be it? No. Way. Better hope you never become part of the 2% of the population that is group-X, and find 98% of the people just voted to extirpate group X.
Just for fun TM, your 3rd to last statement reads, "There are no absolutes," which is a stone cold truth while being an intrinsic contradiction,
Few of them laying around in life I've noticed, takecare, joe.
misread on my part. deleted
"They are people just like you that happen to hold a different view."
No. They WANT TO IMPOSE THEIR VIEWS on people. They WANT TO DENY EQUAL RIGHTS OF OTHER CITIZENS.
I wouldn't be surprised to hear you say that the KKK "happen to hold a different view".
I have to disagree with you on the last statement, Thomas. While they may hold a different view, for the fundamentalist, it's the view of head of the church they belong to and it's been programmed into them. I've know several people who's views have changed after they left the church and regained the ability to think for themselves.
For those who think for themselves, regardless of what they're told to think; most will see the gay rights issue as being nobody's business but the gays, and that as human beings, their rights should be no different from any one elses.
You know, I've tried for years to find an opponent of gay marriage who can invoke an intelligent, rational argument against it that does not boil down to one of these three premises:
1 - Tradition, or "we've always discriminated against that group;"
2 - Intolerance, or "we hate gays therefore that justifies discrimination;" or
3 - Religion, or "our religion tells us to discriminate against gays."
Nearly all arguments against gay marriage are a whitewashed version of one (or more) of the three principles above, none of which are either necessary or sufficient to warrant discrimination. The rest are either completely nonsequitur, or else not topical. (For example, I've heard a few try to argue that children raised by gay parents are somehow damaged or neglected, but this argument fails because 1) the evidence for their claims never holds up to even casual scrutiny, and 2) its not an argument about gay marriage, it's about gay parents. Not topical.)
I tell anyone who argues against gay marriage that I will abstain from voting in favor of gay marriages if they can give me one valid, topical argument that does not boil down to tradition, intolerance, or religion. If they hesitate, I add that if they can provide proof that my marriage to my wife is diminished in any real, material way then I will actually vote with them.
None have ever succeeded in either challenge. None have even come close. Oh, plenty will try and tell me that some intangible quality of marriage will be lost, but when I ask them to define that intangible quality, they revert to religious talk *every* *single* *time* without exception. But very, very few even understand what I'm saying, and launch right into an argument based on religion, intolerance or tradition, or parenting. And then get pissed off when I tell them they've failed.
The only new premise I've heard over the years has come in the wake of the CASC Constitutional Rights ruling, and subsequently Prop 8 - the three wolves and a sheep premise. Specifically, they claim that a majority of citizens have the right to enact any legislation they wish, including stripping an entire class of the population of their rights, based on nothing but religion, intolerance, and tradition.
This may be a new tactic, but it's not any more valid than the others, because even if you accept this "right" the next logical question is "what justifies this sort of extreme measure?" Oh yeah... Religion. Intolerance. And Tradition.
Nice post. Let's face it: for tribes to cohere, they need The Other. Sad, but true. The Right likes to keep as many options open as possible in case someone starts feeling their fingers on the wallets.
I wonder how people hear would feel if the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that the "right to life" is an "inalienable" basic human right, like gay marriage, and therefore is non-negotiable, no law legalizing abortion will be upheld.
"I wonder how people hear would feel if the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that the "right to life" is an "inalienable" basic human right, like gay marriage, and therefore is non-negotiable, no law legalizing abortion will be upheld."
I would feel like they are as stupid as the person hypothetically making this argument. While the first clause would be cause for celebration, the second assumes the metaphysical position of anti-abortionists. The reason abortion is so controversial is precisely because of the disagreement both legally and morally over what constitutes "life".
Now go out there and protest the death penalty! At least there you could possibly preserve the sanctity of actual people! Somehow I wouldn't expect such a result though.
I am making the point to all of the morons out there insisting that the court overturn the will of the people that somewhere, someday, the makeup of the court is going to change. But the precedent will have been set.
As to the death penalty, I look forward to its eventual(hopefully soon) demise.
fair enough. i'm a radical democrat myself (small d) so I despise the reliance on courts to make policy. i also think marbury v madison was a crappy decision.
sorry for getting hung up on your example. thought you were squeezing out a troll point. i apologize.
I'll say it once again, psychology's a very exact science: the most virulent opponents of gay marriage are themselves closeted homosexuals. There are no ifs, ands or buts about the matter. Of course, these freaks prefer to be seen as "traditional", or "intolerant" or "religious". They hide behind these labels.
A sophomore in psychology can see through their pathology. It's not as bad as it used to be, and in 20 years gay marriage will be legal in the 50 states. Choke on that, "Religious" Right.
What my penis does is not your business! Defining marrige based on what body parts rub togeher is stupid folks.
It wasn't the special interest groups or the mormon church that cost the homosexual marriage activists the election on prop 8 it was gavin newsom. In my opinion the only thing worse than a bad loser is a bad winner. But at least for now gavin is a loser again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55cG7EytB7M
Hate fueled the passage of Prop 8, Gavin had little to do with it because people have a "disgusting feeling" when they think of 2 penises playing together or a penis entering a man's anus. Truth be told "being gay has nothing to do with sex, it has everything to do with love but that is not the way society looks at it." Interesting issue is how 70% of black folks voted against LGBT civil rights in California. Why is the black community so homophobic?!!!
"people have a "disgusting feeling" when they think of 2 penises playing together or a penis entering a man's anus."
No shit sherlock. But the only hate I see is from the homosexuals who cannot accept anyone else's opinions.
Christianity, like bigotry, is a lifestyle choice. The rest is set by God.
We have one group of people that wants to be equal -- those are working for marriage equality in the eyes of the state.
We have another collection of groups that want to be special -- those affiliated with most flavors of institutional religion. People in these groups project mythical, mystical, or righteous order onto "marriage".
Let there be two types of marriage then, a secular marriage for any two people, and a religious marriage, for those who want to be even more specially blessed. The state does not have to recognize the religious marriage. The religious orders can have their marriage certificates, and the state can have its own. Everyone who marries gets the state's certificate. If others want to be especially special, they can collect marriage certificates from multiple, religious organizations. The Mormon's certificate might be in the form of a gold tablet. The Muslim's certificate could be a stone (for if/when the wife commits adultery). The Catholic certificate could just say it's the one and only true marriage certificate... and so forth.
I'm fine with it all being called marriage. I am not fine with people using their religion to make me something less than them. If they want to use their religion to make themselves something more than me in their eyes -- well, poor things miss the point of religion...