Skip to comments.LIVE WEBCAST - California Supreme Court Oral Arguments on Proposition 8 - Same Sex Marriage
Posted on 03/05/2009 8:31:22 AM PST by CounterCounterCulture
LIVE WEBCAST - 03/05/09
California Supreme Court Oral Arguments on Proposition 8 - Same Sex Marriage
The California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Thursday, March 5, 2009, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., in three cases challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8, a statewide ballot initiative that was passed by a majority of California voters in November 2008.
The California Channel will broadcast this event live via your local cable provider and on our website*.
*Due to the high demand we expect for this event, if you have problems connecting then the server has reached its limit. Please try back later or watch the video in our archvie when it concludes.
Seems that this would require an "anal argument" as well.
Yikes, they really get into details, don’t they?
Is there really any doubt about where this decision will fall?
These freakin’ liberals, they have to cheat to get everything. The public voted it down...Not one, but TWICE!!
WTF, why even bother your freakin’ babies!
"We will not mince words," Starr wrote in his court papers. "The attorney general is inviting this court to declare a constitutional revolution."
No doubt at all. Any given judicial body will favor the wrongdoer everytime.
At least we’re being spared anal arguments.
Then, assuming Prop 8 does jive with CA Constitution, does it apply retroactively (prior to Nov. 4)? Or does it nullify gay marriages prior?
But, yes, generally they are just being sore losers.
Raymond Marshall, Strauss Petitioner, up now.
Raymond Marshall finishes. Marshall, an African-American, compares this phony argument about an oppressed minority, homosexuals in this case, puts other opprressed minorities at risk of losing their equal protections.
There has also been talk with the first two petitioners about Revision (via Article 18) vs Amendment.
Your vote is unconstitutional in california for the second time take that you normal people.
Michael Maroko, Tyler Petitioner, up. Talk of domestic partnership... one justice (Chin) says Prop 8 did not affect that status. Talk of religious origins and definition of terms, marriage vs something else. Maroko continues the equal protection nonsense. Article 1, Section 1. If gay couples don’t have the right to marry, then neither should heterosexual couples.
Justice Kennard asks Maroko to cite one case; cites Mulkey case (prop 14). Prop 8 is unique. Maroko has tendency to say “heterosexual” when he means “homosexual.”
Another Justice (female, didn’t catch her name): The answer is no, there has been no case of a constitutional amendment taking away “rights” from a minority. This is a unique case.
Chief Justice George: Prop 209 (”on affirmative action”), bussing written into equal protection clause. Maroko argues those cases were “remedies.”
Maroko makes phony anti-inter-racial marriage proposition hypothetical.
“Suspect class” often refered to in these arguments today regarding perported oppressed minority.
Justice Kennard asks about Validity of marriages perform before passage of Prop 8. Only a marriage between a man and woman is valid or recognized in California. Maroko claims Prop 8 wouldn’t void the homosexual marriage already performed. But the language is ambiguous regarding this.
Your vote is unconstitutional in california for the second time take that you normal people.
Pretty much. Sacramento refuses to do much, so EVERYTHING goes to a PROP. Then if the results are different than what the libs want, there is a challenge and it is overturned.
It is never challenged if it goes the lib way.
Politics in CA strikes again.
Justice Moreno jokes about what the meaning of “is” means (in the Prop 8 text)
Theresa Stewart, City and County of San Francisco petitioner, now up.
Talk about voters intent regarding retro-invadility of homo-marriages. Steart claims voters didn’t contemplate that issue.
Stewart: Prop 8 is a revision. Alters our core protection.
Justice hypothetical: what is there was a measure to repeal Prop 209 or eliminate same-sex schools?
Another Justice: How has the structure of our Constitution been changed?
Ugh, Stewart sounds and looks like Ellen DeGeneres on speed. I need to take a break.
Christopher Krueger, representative for the Attorney General’s office. Justice asks him which side he’s on. Representing the challengers’ side (i.e., anti-8).
Justice: Do you agree that it’s a revision?
Krueger: No. It’s an amendment. Under case law, it’s not a revision.
The Raven case from 1990 keeps getting brought up today.
Justice: You disagree with the challengers on revision vs amendment.
Krueger: The AG takes position that it’s not a revision; it’s unconstitutional.
Talk of “Inalienable”
Justices: Can the people amend their constitution? What are the limitations? What is the extent of that limitation?
Justice: What does “inalienable” include?
Justice: “Right of privacy” was added in 1972.
The people also have a right to fish.
Justice Baxter: Talk of death penalty and cruel and unusual punishment and the Anderson case and the people reinstituted the death penalty via the Amendment process... was that valid (Kruger: Yes). Then why not Prop 8?
Krueger is stymied by the double-standard.
Justice: Article 18, Sec 3. (amending the Constitution vis initiative).. is amendment the constitution an inalienable?
Krueger reluctantly agrees, then tries to justify the AG office’s opposition to Prop 8.
Justice Kennard: The right of the people to change or alter has been a basic, fundamental, “inalienable” right. But you would have us choose between these two rights, the “inalienable right to marry” and the people’s right to change the constitution via amendment. The people establish the constitution and the judges’ powers are limited.
“Draconian” finally uttered by Krueger.
Judges keep pressing on what are inalienable rights.
Is there a difference between inalienable rights and fundamental rights?
How do we determine which amendments are OK and which are not?
Fun seeing Krueger squirm throughout all this.
Ken Starr up now (heaven help us)
I haven’t seen one judge that seems to be leaning toward supporting Prop 8, have you?
As history, I looked up how they voted when they redefined marriage:
Starr finishes. Rebuttals begin with Shannon Minter
Hard to tell. Kennard seems to be asking the plurality of questions and they generally had Jerry Brown’s toady on the ropes.
Kennard and George are clear votes to uphold prop eight. Their questions make it clear that they think this is an amendment, not a revision.
That is when I tuned in. He seemed to be floundering but I got a phone call and couldn't watch much of it.
I'm watching on the SacBee feed. In addition to seeing these dufuses, I have to look at Gloria Allred in her front row seat.
The other question which is harder to protect is how they rule on the homosexual marriages already performed.
Kennard’s retort to Theresa’s rebuttal makes me feel even better. Even though she doesn’t regret her prior concurrence on the May 15 ruling, she might actually go with the power of the poeple on the constitutional amendment we voted on.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
Who is the blonde (errrr) woman with the whiny voice that is now making a rebuttal?
“The matter is submitted and we are adjourned.”
Live video link Prop8
Ellen Dwarfgeneres on speed
Yup. They were given three hours, and it wrapped up a little over three hours.
Now we await the decision. May not happen for weeks.
Ahhh... the irony. ;-)
Proposition 8 rebuttal language coming back to haunt opponents
10:47 AM | March 5, 2009 California Supreme Court justices pointed out to opponents of Proposition 8 today that their rebuttal warning on the ballot initiative that a “yes” vote would deprive gay marriages of legal recognition “regardless of where or when performed” seemed to concede that the vote retroactively invalidated the 18,000 same-sex marriages.
BTW, even if Prop 8 is ruled valid and stands, opponents have already submitted an initative in which they’ll circulate and hope to qualify for the June 2010 election.
Where’s the replay video link ?
I missed the beginning. These comments are encouraging.
Of course, they already applied “excessive use of judicial power” in their first ruling (IMO).
State justices speak to people’s initiative power
11:18 AM | March 5, 2009
Justices of the California Supreme Court seemed reluctant today to override the will of the people as expressed by the narrow majority vote to effectively ban gay marriage with Proposition 8.
Before supporters of the November ballot measure even got their chance to speak to the court in San Francisco, the justices appeared to be warning Proposition 8 opponents that their arguments that the vote should be invalidated could be viewed as an excessive use of judicial power.
The state Constitution talks about “the great power of the people” and their right to amend the guiding principles, said Justice Joyce L. Kennard. “As judges, our power is very limited. We would like to hear from you why this court can willy-nilly disregard the will of the people to change the Constitution.”
Chief Justice Ronald M. George observed that the court’s decision on whether Proposition 8 deprives gay citizens of an inalienable right “is going to have implications for future efforts if everything that could conceivably be characterized as an inalienable right is outside the people’s initiative power.”
It’s seems absurd (of course, it’s California) that they could disqualify an iniative because voters don’t read all the rebuttals. What are we to do, ask them on polling day if they’ve read all the arguments for and against? That would be ruled a violation of election law.
That doesn’t surprise me. They’ll probably try once a year until they get their way.
The California Channel usually posts archives a day or so after live broadcasts.
The Sacramento Bee was also streaming the hearings live (which I’ve never seen before).
They may also archive the video for viewing (I’m guessing, here).
Check back with the California Channel (link at top). It’ll be a Video On Demand eventually.
Well, if they can undo initiatives based on misleading ballot language, can we just void all the other nonsense that has passed recently? (silver lining, lol)
Did I miss Pugno or did he not speak (leaving Ken Starr as the only one defending Prop 8)?
Thanks for info.
Yeah, it was just Starr.
Ya mean this one?
An overwhelming majority of states have passed a definition of marriage act, and this backdoor attempt by 2 states to sabotage the sovereignty of the rest, while at the same time putting them on the hook for billions of tax revenue for new paid benefits which will have NO return for future generations is a true “tyranny of the minority.”
And it is unnecessary. But I’m glad you brought it up, because it proves the point that none of this is about “equal rights.” At the end of the day it all comes down to MONEY and the culture of entitlement. Live your lives, love your partners, and stop screaming for handouts of other taxpayers’ money, and no-one would CARE if you called yourselves “married.”
Posted by: Captain Obvious | March 05, 2009 at 03:27 PM