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."
It’s not “We the People’s” government anymore. The government has taken over and it’s our fault for letting them do it.
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.
The lesbians in Tennessee are all over this one.
How can they find an amendment of the calif. constitution unconstitutional?
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
They can do anything they want, they are The Government.
That’s a great question.
“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?
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
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.
I half-jokingly posted a while ago that the Court might rule an amendment unconstitutional, looks like I was right.
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.
So then what?
Don't let them get away with this propaganda.
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.
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.
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.
why bother voting?
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.