Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Calif. Supreme Court Could Strike Down Prop 8
NBC11 ^ | Tue, Feb 3, 2009

Posted on 02/03/2009 11:11:08 PM PST by nickcarraway

The California Supreme Court announced Tuesday it will hear arguments on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the state's ban on same-sex marriage, in San Francisco on March 5.

The high court's written ruling on whether the voter initiative should be struck down will be due 90 days later.

The measure, enacted by voters on Nov. 4, amended the state Constitution to provide that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

It overturned a decision in which the court said by a 4-3 vote in May that gay and lesbian couples have a constitutional right to marry.

The panel is now considering three lawsuits filed by same-sex couples and a coalition of cities and counties to challenge the ban.

The lawsuits claim the measure is so sweeping it is a constitutional revision, which would require approval of two-thirds of the Legislature as well as a majority of voters.

The court has said it will rule on both whether Proposition 8 is constitutional and, if so, whether it retroactively invalidates the estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages performed in California before Nov. 4.

The justices in today's order allocated an unusual three hours for the arguments in their State Building courtroom beginning at 9 a.m. on March 5. Cases are normally allotted only half an hour per side.

Lawyers for each set of plaintiffs will each get 30 minutes. The plaintiff groups are six same-sex couples and a civil rights organization, Equality California; a seventh couple that filed a separate lawsuit; and 15 cities and counties led by the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles and Santa Clara County.

The proponents of Proposition 8, represented by Pepperdine Law School Dean Kenneth Starr and Sacramento attorney Andrew Pugno, will have an hour to argue to the court.

Starr and Pugno had asked for extra time because their clients are the only party in the case fully defending Proposition 8.

In a surprise move, California Attorney General Jerry Brown, whose job is to defend the state's constitution and laws, in December submitted arguments both for and against the measure and concluded that the court should strike it down.

Brown told the court in a filing that he doesn't think that Proposition 8 is a constitutional revision or that it violates the constitutional separate of powers. But he said he believes it is unconstitutional because it violates the inalienable right to liberty.

The court gave Brown 30 minutes, but instructed him to "divide his time between his arguments in support of, and his argument in opposition to, the validity of Proposition 8."

Groups that filed friend-of-the-court briefs will not be given time to argue unless one of the official parties in the case agrees to give up part of its time.

At least 63 friend-of-the-court briefs were filed by individuals and coalitions of groups, some representing dozens of other organizations, including religious groups, law professors, business groups, labor organizations and civil rights groups.

Twenty of the friend-of-the-court briefs supported Proposition 8, while 43 favored striking it down.

Kate Kendell, legal director of the San Francisco-based National Center for Lesbian Rights, which filed the first lawsuit on behalf of same-sex couples, said, "Proposition 8 represents a tremendous threat to the rights of every minority group in California."

Related Stories One Trip to Vegas that Didn't Stay Secret Paycheck Strings Attached to Bailout? Bravo Kicks Off Nationwide Casting Call For Season 6 Of ‘Top Chef’ Kendell said, "As our legal team prepares for oral argument before the California Supreme Court, we are hopeful that the court will end the short life of this draconian measure."

Pugno and Starr have argued in court filings that Proposition 8 represents the will of the people and is well within the initiative power.

They wrote in their final brief last month, "Proposition 8 is a moderate measure that represents a deeply rooted, multigenerational judgment of the people of California about the definition of marriage."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: activistjudges; homosexualagenda; homosexualmarriage; jerrybrown; lawsuit; moonbeam; prop8; proposition8; samesexmarriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-53 next last

1 posted on 02/03/2009 11:11:09 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

It’s not “We the People’s” government anymore. The government has taken over and it’s our fault for letting them do it.


2 posted on 02/03/2009 11:16:36 PM PST by FlingWingFlyer (I wish it was 20 January 2013. I've had enough of this crap already.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Let’s see... the court is going to decide if it is constitutional for the people to ammend the constitution? Now that’s a slippery slope.


3 posted on 02/03/2009 11:17:31 PM PST by kjam22 (see me play the guitar here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noHy7Cuoucc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

The lesbians in Tennessee are all over this one.


4 posted on 02/03/2009 11:19:19 PM PST by eyedigress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

How can they find an amendment of the calif. constitution unconstitutional?


5 posted on 02/03/2009 11:19:28 PM PST by Der_Hirnfšnger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Brown told the court in a filing that he doesn't think that Proposition 8 is a constitutional revision or that it violates the constitutional separate of powers. But he said he believes it is unconstitutional because it violates the inalienable right to liberty.

Which liberty? The liberty to rewrite the laws and language that have stood for thousands of years for a political agenda?

Or the liberty to queer off?

Because they have the liberty to hump each other.

They don't have the liberty to rewrite the language and destroy society.

/johnny

6 posted on 02/03/2009 11:19:55 PM PST by JRandomFreeper (God Bless us all, each, and every one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Der_Hirnfänger

They can do anything they want, they are The Government.


7 posted on 02/03/2009 11:20:29 PM PST by thecabal (Keep The Change)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Der_Hirnfänger

That’s a great question.


8 posted on 02/03/2009 11:22:30 PM PST by FlingWingFlyer (I wish it was 20 January 2013. I've had enough of this crap already.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

“Calif. Supreme Court Could Strike Down Proposition 8”

Or, it could uphold it. But that wouldn’t make such a pleasurable headline for the MSM, would it?


9 posted on 02/03/2009 11:24:11 PM PST by Marie2 (Ora et labora)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

I really don’t think the radical left in this country understands that they can push things, but only so far...and then it will break.

So lets see a court can mandate sweeping changes, but millions of voters can’t....in AN AMENDMENT???

God help us all.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

—Thomas Jefferson


10 posted on 02/03/2009 11:27:23 PM PST by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Der_Hirnfänger

They could strike it down if it is deemed a Constitutional “revision” - that would require a convention. An amendment can be done by statewide vote.


11 posted on 02/03/2009 11:28:26 PM PST by Chet 99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
But he said he believes it is unconstitutional because it violates the inalienable right to liberty.
I don't care who you have sex with, I don't even care who you leave your Mini Cooper too. But guess what you can't get married. If I can't apply for minority scholarships then you can't get married its as simple as that.
12 posted on 02/03/2009 11:30:58 PM PST by pennyfarmer (Shiite Muslim named Bob.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kjam22

I half-jokingly posted a while ago that the Court might rule an amendment unconstitutional, looks like I was right.


13 posted on 02/03/2009 11:31:04 PM PST by LukeL (Yasser Arafat: "I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
There is absolutely no violation to liberty. They can have their faux marriage ceremonies and celebrations, and they can will to whomever they choose.

On the contrary, overturning Prop 8 is a violation of our liberties. Our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, association, and religion, as well as thought and conscience are under attack from the radical homosexual movement. It is also a assault on our voting rights for a second time in this matter. Do we live in a Republic or an Oligarchy? We'll determine the state of our Republic shortly.

14 posted on 02/03/2009 11:31:14 PM PST by CounterCounterCulture
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
You know they will do it. They've already done it once... and they are poising to do it again. They have their agenda, and by golly, they are going to get it in "whether you like it or not". (Newsom's recent declaration)

So then what?

15 posted on 02/03/2009 11:32:38 PM PST by BigFinn (isa 32:8 But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

NOT a civil rights organization. A homosexual advocacy organization.

Don't let them get away with this propaganda.

16 posted on 02/03/2009 11:34:36 PM PST by CounterCounterCulture
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer
Just because "we the people" want something does not mean it's legal. The constitution must be followed.

What if 'we the people' decide that free speech should be banned? Or the right to petition? Or, in this case, want to scrub the equal protection provision?

"We the people" are ignorant of the constitution. Just look at the last election.

17 posted on 02/03/2009 11:34:57 PM PST by ex91B10 (So many opinions, so little time...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture

How can Jerry Brown clain it’s unconstitutional? He was governor of this state for 8 years and he never even mentioned this being a great injustice.


18 posted on 02/03/2009 11:35:43 PM PST by nickcarraway (Are the Good Times Really Over?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ex91B10

Sorry pal. I guess I goofed up when I thought this was an AMENDMENT to the Constitution! That’s what “we the people” do. We do it by engaging in the democratic process at the polls. There was a time in this dump when the majority ruled. If the majority decides we shouldn’t have freedom of speech, then so be it.


19 posted on 02/03/2009 11:39:24 PM PST by FlingWingFlyer (I wish it was 20 January 2013. I've had enough of this crap already.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

why bother voting?


20 posted on 02/03/2009 11:39:55 PM PST by sten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-53 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson