Posted on 03/06/2009 8:06:59 AM PST by BAW
The state Supreme Court seemed ready yesterday to allow Proposition 8, the voter-approved measure banning same-sex marriage, to remain part of the state constitution.
A clear majority of the court also was reluctant to invalidate an estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages recorded before the proposition became effective in November.
After three hours of arguments from both sides of the marriage debate, it was apparent that a majority of the seven justices was not convinced that Proposition 8 was an improper revision to the constitution that made sweeping changes to the core structure of state government.
That was the thrust of arguments from Proposition 8 opponents. But at least four justices, including Chief Justice Ronald George, seemed to reject that view to uphold the broad initiative powers state citizens have to change their constitution and how their government works.
Associate Justice Joyce Kennard, who in May joined a majority of the court in striking down state law that banned same-sex marriage, indicated she would let the proposition stand. She and George formed half of the four-vote majority last year, and if either vote changes, the proposition would survive.
The opponents argued that the proposition allows a simple majority vote to strip fundamental rights of equal protection from a minority group. They said such a sweeping change can't be done so easily and it would open the door to other minority groups being targeted through initiatives.
George said their argument boils down to the fact that it is “too easy” to amend the state constitution. But he said that was largely a political question, not a legal issue.
“Maybe that shouldn't be the case,” he said, “but isn't that the system we have to live with unless and until it is changed.”
We’ll see. This has implications beyond homosexual marriage if judges were to nullify a legally approved constitutional amendment. Maybe these judges have enough respect for the rule of law and our legal processes that they will let it stand.
That has been a big frustration for me with this whole homosexual marriage movement, that they decided to try to force it through the courts. The whole social/political debate about it would be different if state after state weren’t voting to ban it in their constitution, so that judges couldn’t have the power to change the definition of marriage. Even liberal California has voted to define marriage in the traditional way.
What to do with the second issue.....how to handle the marriages already done....is difficult.
I am against same sex marriage, but invalidating all those marriages would seem to be a retroactive law, and that’s bad, even if the intent is good.
I just don’t know. I would lean toward keeping those valid and just no longer allowing any more.
It really is frightening to hear the far Left arguing that the people have no right to vote about this issue. They are profoundly anti-democratic. They are totalitarians in embryo; dictator larvae, if you will.
Left Angeles Times also says Prop 8 will stay so will the marriages from the gimic they did after prop 22 was killed by the court.
Even Bill Handle on KFI says the same and I am no fan of handle.
So, if 8 is upheld, against whom will the riots be directed?
They have latched onto the fiction that defining marrige somehow connotates discrimination. If you read lefty rants on this subject it’s always framed as ‘the taking away of rights’ even though none of them will produce evidence of such an act...because it doesn’t happen.
Were they ever really legal to start with?
Just because some judge pulled a law out of his a$$ and said it was OK doesn't make them legal.
I vote they just tell the sick freaks that there never was a law written that said it was legal, so they can just go pound sand.
If it is let go long enough it will wind up in the USSC and get ruled that every state must recognize the queer marriages of other states.
That would make it national law.
You are right. They fully subscribe to "one man, one vote, one time". "Keep counting the votes until we win -- then shut up and do what we say".
Why?
Are you ‘feeling pity’?
These couples can reconfigure their ‘relationship’ under provisions for domestic partnerships and in so doing they will receive all rights accorded married couples.
The same-sex marriage ploy is nothing other than an attack on the Church, to gain law in which to persecute those that bar homosexuality from their norms. ‘Hate Speech’ and ‘Hate Crime’ are the tools they seek to persecute the Church.
And they do this because they hate the Church.
The State’s role in marriage was born from the religious contract of marriage between a man and a women. That marriage had to be viewed as a contract by the State was necessary as couples sought dissolution. But marriage was always in the realm of religion, always.
Therefore, to attack the definition of marriage is to attack a fundamental cornerstone of the religious establishment.
It is true that in some cases that the Church has persecuted homosexuals because they represent a distortion of the most sacred underpinning of religious belief, marriage and the creation of children. And in this context the homosexual war against the Church can be seen as reaction to a perceived past injustice. But in this day and age there is no debate about ‘rights’ as domestic partnerships fulfill all rights requirements except that of having the Church destroyed.
It would be advisable for homosexuals to sue for peace and settle for domestic partnetships whle Churches are allowed to continue to teach familes to outcast the perverse nature of homosexuality, including the Boy Scouts.
The judges in my opinion have no choice but to uphold Prop 8. To overturn it would be Judicial tyranny and a radical disregard for the Constitution and people’s votes.
And your point is...?
It has been done in the past. When Utah wanted to become a state all polygamist marriages were null and void. Sorry folks. This is a no brainer. They could call it civil union if they so decide but IF the court rules that prop8 is valid then all so called same sex marriages are history
Thus the ball will go to the legislature with predictable results.
Man wants to deny God's definition of Marriage found in Genesis also with predictable results.
“We’ll see. This has implications beyond homosexual marriage if judges were to nullify a legally approved constitutional amendment. Maybe these judges have enough respect for the rule of law and our legal processes that they will let it stand.”
I don’t see why this Court should suddenly discover respect for the rule of law.
I really don’t think there are many “new implications” to a ruling that 8 is unconstitutional. The courts’ rule has always pretty much been, “if we don’t approve of a law on policy grounds, it’s unconstitutional.”
So a ruling upholding 8 would be the change with implications. The implication may be the Court is suddenly starting to remember Rose Bird.
“I just don’t know. I would lean toward keeping those valid and just no longer allowing any more.”
If you do that, the homosexual lobby is going to try to cram those “marriages” down the throats of all the other states. What happens when a “married” couple moves to Mississippi and gets a divorce? If the Mississippi courts are forced to adjudicate it as a real divorce (which I believe they are under the Supremacy Clause), the CA supreme court has just forced Mississippi to recognize a homosexual marriage.
True......definitely not an easy one here. I think it comes down to retroactive laws vs. good faith and credit/Supremacy Clause.
I guess I would have to urge voting down all previous marriages since that issue is more significant than being retroactive.
I am against same sex marriage, but invalidating all those marriages would seem to be a retroactive law, and that’s bad, even if the intent is good.”
I predict that within 10 years, less than half of these ‘marriages’ will exist.
One partner or the other will die of Aids, or they will get a divorce.
Also anxiously awaiting this ruling:
Polygamists, pedophiles, and proponents of incest, beastiality, necrophelia, etc.
They, too want their FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS!
I don’t understand for the life of me how they allowed marriage certificates to be issued legally when they had already voted once no ne the issue and then monhs later voted again NO? Those certificates should’ve never been issued until the law was settled.To me they were issued in error and therefore should be invalid. The marriage isn’t cancelled because it never existed in the first place, am I wrong?
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.