Test 2

Please select your preferred language.

請選擇你慣用的語言。

请选择你惯用的语言。

English
中文简体
台灣繁體
香港繁體

Login

Remember Me

New to Fridae?

Fridae Mobile

Advertisement
Highlights

More About Us

5 Mar 2009

California Supreme Court to review same-sex marriage ban

The California Supreme Court has to decide whether to defer to the voters of whom 52 percent support a same-sex marriage ban, or reaffirm their original ruling that preventing gay people from marrying is unconstitutional.

Update (Mar 6, 2009): Following the arguments heard in the California Supreme Court on Mar 5, immediate media reports say that the justices are inclined to uphold the law although the court did not vote or issue a ruling. The decision is due within 90 days. According to the LA Times, only two of the seven justices "indicated a possible readiness to overturn the initiative."

Los Angeles Times: California Supreme Court signals mixed response to Proposition 8:

The California Supreme Court appeared ready today to uphold Proposition 8, the November ballot measure that banned gay marriage, but also seemed likely to decide -- perhaps unanimously -- that the marriages of same-sex couples who wed before the election would remain valid.

During a three-hour televised hearing in San Francisco, only Justices Carlos R. Moreno and Kathryn Mickle Werdegar suggested that the court could overturn the marriage ban as an illegal constitutional revision.

Time.com: Gay Marriage: Is California's Supreme Court Shifting?:
The prospects of same-sex marriage in California grew dimmer Thursday, when two Supreme Court justices who helped create the right for gays to marry in last year's historic decision expressed deep reservations about attempts to strike down a statewide referendum passed last fall to ban the practice. "You would have us choose between these two rights: the inalienable right to marry and the right of the people to change their constitution," said Justice Joyce L. Kennard, one of those two key judges. "You ask us to willy-nilly disregard the right of the people to change the constitution of the state of California. But all political power is inherent in the people of California."

San Francisco Chronicle: Justices seem to be leaning in favor of Prop. 8:
The California Supreme Court, which last year declared the right of gays and lesbians to marry, appeared ready Thursday to uphold the voters' decision to overrule the court and restore the state's ban on same-sex marriage.

"There have been initiatives that have taken away rights from minorities by majority vote" and have been upheld by the courts, said Chief Justice Ronald George. "Isn't that the system we have to live with?"

==============================================

With some 18,000 legally married same-sex couples in California and millions of observers anticipating the outcome, the California Supreme Court will hear arguments seeking to overturn Proposition 8 on the grounds that such a constitutional change requires approval by the state Legislature on Thursday.

Last November, 52 percent of California voters approved Proposition 8 which reversed the May 2008 state Supreme Court decision to legalise same-sex marriages. The measure amended the state Constitution to declare that marriage only between a man and a woman is valid or recognised in California.

Immediately after the November election, two groups of same-sex couples and local governments led by the city of San Francisco filed lawsuits challenging Proposition 8. The lawsuits argued that a measure depriving a minority of fundamental rights is such a drastic change to the state constitution that it is a revision, which exceeds the power of initiatives. Opponents of the Prop 8 also argued that the measure violates the constitutional separation of powers by preventing the judiciary from protecting a minority group.

California Attorney General and former governor Jerry Brown has encouraged the legal challenge. Brown, who initially said his office would protect the measure, later declared that he would be unable to argue in favour of it. He says Proposition 8 is unconstitutional because the Supreme Court's 4-3 decision last year recognised gays as a minority group entitled to judicial protection and established marriage as a fundamental right. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger also opposed Proposition 8.

Media reports say the court is also expected to decide the validity of same-sex marriages that were sanctioned in the state before Proposition 8 passed if the measure is upheld. Some 18,000 same-sex couples were legally married from May to November last year.

According to the Los Angeles Times, most legal experts expect the court to uphold current marriages but also to keep Proposition 8.

The decision is due within 90 days.

The court will hear oral arguments on Thursday, March 5, 2009, from 9:00am (GMT -8 hours) to noon. The arguments will be telecast on the California Channel and will be shown publicly on a JumboTron in San Francisco's Civic Center Plaza and in several other locations. A live Webcast will be available at www.calchannel.com.

United States

Reader's Comments

1. 2009-03-05 19:50  
Proposition" 8" is religious instrument bias towards civil rights. The "Yes" vote was also a misleading about teaching gay at public school in California. The "Yes" vote was blamed on teachers in Massachusetts teaching "boys and boys" can get marry. The campaign advertisement was mis-represented to parents across the nation that California teachers would educate homosexual here in the State of California. Frankly, teachers are well-educated, well-trained individuals, they weight the balance what can teach and what cannot, in addition to conduct base on Board of Educational Codes for children.

If you love your child(ren), one day he or she turns gay and lesbian during teenage years, as parents, are you going to discriminate your kids? Kick them out from the houses and shamefully let them alone? Of course not, you will continue to support, guide, advice, and love your kids no matter their sexual orientation and your religions.

Federal laws in most states are clearly prohibiting discrimination based on sexual preference for employment. During the Oscar's night, a meaningful message spoken by Penn, "For those who saw the signs of hatred as our cars drove in tonight, I think it's a good time for those who voted for the ban against gay marriage to sit and reflect on their great shame and their shame in their grandchildren's eyes if they continue that support," Referring to anti-gay marriage protesters who had been picketing outside the theater. "We've got to have equal rights for everyone." A strong statement reflects deprive gay civil rights in society is inequality and unconstitutional. Everyone should treat equally in front of the law!
2. 2009-03-05 22:36  
The Constitution, and the Courts, are there to protect minorities from the tyranny of a sometimes prejudiced majority in a democracy, especially a majority as small as 52%.

The grounds for the Applications seem perfectly logical, so hopefully the Court will rule in favour.
3. 2009-03-05 23:23  
i not thing so...president obama be appv same sex marry in usa
Comment #4 was deleted by its author
5. 2009-03-06 01:02  
Sure or not, are you sure obama will not bow down to the religious people?

As for the marriage contract. It shouldn't be party A and party B. it should be man/ woman, marrying man/ woman. Then the marrying partners can delete the appropriate columns. That looks better.

Comment #6 was deleted by its author
7. 2009-03-06 04:53  
As a Civil Rights Activist for "Southern Poverty Law Center", I believe that the same sex couples has the rights to get married.
8. 2009-03-06 05:07  
I think we can all breath a sigh of relief. There is no way Ken Starr is winning the argument before the California Supreme Court. It's just not going to happen in Nancy Pelosi's backyard. He's a conservative Republican, the most despised breed of human being at present in the United States.

This story is just one more subtext in the greater story that America has been telling the world throughout this financial debacle: that the rule of law no longer exists in America. Money and power and position are all that matter. If California's gay population simply had the wherewithal to organize mass riots, destroying the homes and businesses of those who voted for Prop 8, we'd all have been saying our wedding vows on the sands in Malibu last year.
9. 2009-03-06 10:51  
Well, there goes the Right to marry in CA. Starr was as usual a star and we we're once again provided with inadequate council.
10. 2009-03-06 15:17  
The separation between the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary is usually called "the separation of powers". The Judiciary should be free of direct political control and interference and should work to uphold the democratically adopted laws of the country. The Judiciary can order government to make laws or implement policies to uphold the Constitution or protect the rights of citizens. (For example the Constitutional Court ordered Parliament to make laws to protect the rights of same sex partners.)

So when this Supreme Court ruling that upholds the fundamental right to ensure all citizens have equal rights under the state constitution Bill of Rights, can be suddenly challenged and then moved for a public vote in Prop 8, where is the sanctity of justice? There is a very serious breach of justice happening both in the US and in countries that persecute its gay citizens.
11. 2009-03-06 15:57  
Wow, I just watched most of the proceedings. Ken Starr was brilliant; his legal argument, solid. The issue before the Court was whether Prop 8 "amended" the Constitution or "revised" it--an initiative that merely amends the Constitution must be upheld while one that revises it must be struck down. It might seem like silly semantics to Asians, but to Americans, it was a 4-hour fight. (Remember, America is the country where Bill Clinton once infamously uttered, it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is.)

Under Starr's theory, only an initiative that attempted to change the structure of government would have met the "revision" threshold. Since Prop 8 merely dealt with rights, the Court would have been setting a dangerous precedent in overturning the result of the vote last November.

I suppose the silver lining to all this is that Prop 8 can be overturned through another initiative. The downside is who's to say that initiative wouldn't be overturned again. Ken Starr be damned, this battle isn't over.
12. 2009-03-06 17:33  
Given the current financial tsunami washing away America, if the activists are smart, they will DO THE MATH and calculate the millions of newlywed dollars that are about to fly right over their California heads to HAWAII. Now more than ever: MONEY talks and b.s. walks!
Comment #13 was deleted by its author
14. 2009-03-07 09:21  
I can't believe what I read above: as the CA Supremes deliberate, it is possible that 18,000 gay couples legally married BEFORE the sanction of Prop-8 may be granted the rights to remain legally married, but those gay couples seeking to be legally married AFTER Prop8 may not have equal rights to marry? In high school I read a book titled "Animal Farm". In this work of fiction, the animals formed a bill of rights which read: "All animals are equal. But some animals are more equal than others". The CA Supereme's inconceivable Animal Farm-esque strategy would create a rift, a gaping inequality within the gay minority. It appears we're witnessing the corruption and decline of a worn out, demented American legal system as it contemplates the old tried-and-true "divide and conquer" strategy. I still believe in the old saying "what goes around comes around". The Fundie X-tians have spread their lies, hate and treachery to the breaking point. And as pressure continues to build, the top is sure to blow off. The fundie X-tians WILL get THEIR turn once again, as they've certainly earned it. I seem to recall a moment in history that lions were satiating themselves on the flesh and bones of X-men....and perhaps history will indeed repeat itself, metaphorically speaking. We'll all surely stay tuned.
15. 2009-03-15 11:02  
Part of the difficulty is that in many of the states, Judges are elected officials. It becomes necessary for them to run campaigns . And then we see campaign contributions come in by the right wing fundamentalist. So when the Mormons spend 70 Million against 'same sex marriage' one can imagine they also spend money on Judges. They get the best Judges money can buy and what are we left with.....mostly disorganized and under funded attempts at equality.

Please log in to use this feature.

Social


Select News Edition

Featured Profiles

Now ALL members can view unlimited profiles!

Languages

View this page in a different language:

Like Us on Facebook

Partners

 ILGA Asia - Fridae partner for LGBT rights in Asia IGLHRC - Fridae Partner for LGBT rights in Asia

Advertisement