Prop. 8 Gay Marriage Ban Goes To Supreme Court (Hearing Next Year. Prop. 8 Remains In Effect Alert)

Los Angeles Times ^ | 11/19/2008 | Maura Dolan

[goldstategop]

he California Supreme Court agreed today to review legal challenges to Prop. 8, the voter initiative that restored a ban on same-sex marriage, but refused to permit gay weddings to resume pending a ruling.

Meeting in closed session, the state high court asked litigants on both sides for more written arguments and scheduled a hearing for next March. The court also signaled its intention to decide the fate of existing same-sex marriages, asking litigants to argue that question.

Today's decision to review the lawsuits against Proposition 8 did not reveal how the court was leaning. The court could have dismissed the suits, but both opponents and supporters of Proposition 8 sought review to settle legal questions on a matter of statewide importance.

Some legal challengers also sought an order that would have permitted same-sex couples to marry until the cases were resolved, a position opposed by Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown and Proposition 8 supporters. Only Justice Carlos R. Moreno voted in the private conference to grant such a stay.

[goldstategop]

The California Supreme Court agreed to accept the challenges to Proposition 8 today for review and ordered a hearing next year. Prop. 8 remains in effect and was NOT stayed by the Court.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[scripter]

Thanks for the update.

[B-Chan]

How can a constitutional amendment be unconstitutional? Isn’t the the whole point of these plebescites?

[Lx]

a position opposed by Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown

Did I read that right? Must be running for gov or something.

[Loud Mime]

Pictured en banc in the Supreme Court Courtroom in Sacramento are the court’s seven justices, from left to right: Associate Justice Carlos R. Moreno, Associate Justice Joyce L. Kennard, Associate Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, Chief Justice Ronald M. George, Associate Justice Ming W. Chin, Associate Justice Marvin R. Baxter, and Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan.

Source

[Simmy2.5]

The argument is, whether this is a constitutional amendment (that can be voted on solely by the people) or a revision (that requires a vote by 2/3rd of the California legislature).

Now, given that they didn’t stay the decision gives us some hope. After all, if they had stayed the decision, that would seem to indicate that they automatically agreed to Prop 8 opponents. Now, they have till March 8th to bitch and moan about not getting married.

[COBOL2Java]

If the Prop 8 opponents lose this round, will it then go to the 9th Circus Court - er, Circuit Court?

[longtermmemmory]

Ok Carlos Moreno is to be targeted no mater the outcome.

[PEACE ENFORCER]

Yes, the homo (haters) will not stop until the “normals” are as upset & angry & as hateful as they are....

[Dan Nunn]

I’m not a lawyer, but this is a state issue. The 9th Circus is a federal court, so no, I don’t believe so.

[SevenofNine]

Okay let see how they rule if not I am wholeheartly and for recall

[rustbucket]

The argument is, whether this is a constitutional amendment (that can be voted on solely by the people) or a revision (that requires a vote by 2/3rd of the California legislature).

I would think that the People of California trump the Supreme Court of California so long as what they passed doesn't violate the US Constitution.

[little jeremiah]

If not good news, at least “okay” news bookmark.

[BlueStateBlues]

They put this off until March, four months for everyone to cool down, or heat up.

[goldstategop]

If its upheld, then same sex marriage is banned in California. The opponents would have to go to the voters to try to get it overturned.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[Simmy2.5]

Since when did the men in black robes care about the people?

Of course, there is an issue here. If this was a constitutional revision, shouldn’t this have been judged on BEFORE the election took place?

In fact, they did decide on it before the election when the ACLU wanted the proposition off the ballot anyways (using the same argument that it is a revision and not an amendment), the court rejected that argument and allowed it on the ballot anyways (but still allowed gay marriages to continue, and, left open a possible court challenge later if it passed).

Apparently they were hoping it would fail. Which it didn’t.

[cartoonistx]

[goldstategop]

Yep. And if it really was a revision, they should have followed the logic of the ACLU's argument last summer and ordered Prop. 8 taken off the ballot for that reason. The Court can't argue now that it was a revision, for by their turning down that ACLU argument then, they implicitly accepted it was an amendment. I don't see any way they can overturn it now.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[YOUGOTIT]

Looks as though the black robed dictators have decided that they could care less what the people say and what the Constitution says and will make the the law on their own. Which is a direct violation of the Supreme Law of the nation.