Calif. high court weighs gay marriage ban

myway.com ^ | 3/6/9 | LISA LEFF and PAUL ELIAS

[bimboeruption]

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - The mood was somber among gay rights supporters after a bruising, three-hour hearing before the justices of California's highest court, who expressed considerable skepticism at the idea of overturning the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage.

Thursday's arguments pitted the right of the people to change their constitution against the right to wed. The California Supreme Court's seven justices indicated a wariness to override the will of voters, who approved Proposition 8 in November - 4 1/2 months after the same court had ruled 4-3 to legalize gay marriage.

Couples like Chloe Harris, 28, and Frankie Frankeny, 42, who married during the 4 1/2-months same-sex marriage was legal, said they were disheartened by the tone of the hearing and not very hopeful the justices would rule in their favor.

"We don't go vote on anyone else's rights," Frankeny said. "It's so demeaning."

Attorneys for same-sex couples took a more measured stance.

"I think they are struggling with the issues," said Jennifer Pizer, of the gay rights group Lambda Legal. "It's hard to read the tea leaves."

Gay rights advocates - including same-sex couples, local governments led by San Francisco and civil rights groups - argued Proposition 8 is such a sweeping change to the constitution's equal protection clause that it was a constitutional revision, not just an amendment. A revision requires legislative approval before it lands on the ballot.

But Associate Justices Joyce Kennard, Marvin Baxter and Ming Chin noted that voters successfully overturned a 1972 Supreme Court ruling that struck down the death penalty as cruel and unusual punishment. When the measure was challenged, the court upheld it as a properly enacted amendment.

[Repeal 16-17]

The CSC will uphold Prop 8, but will also rule that the gay marriage which took place after the CSC made its now overruled decision, but before Prop 8’s adoption, are still valid.

[Joe Boucher]

Question,
Regardless of how this is viewed, will it be challenged to any other court? Like say U.S. Supremes?
Or is it simply a calif issue?

[TheDon]

Title rewrite: “Calif. high court weighs marriage definition change”

[rbbeachkid]

But Associate Justices Joyce Kennard, Marvin Baxter and Ming Chin noted that voters successfully overturned a 1972 Supreme Court ruling that struck down the death penalty as cruel and unusual punishment. When the measure was challenged, the court upheld it as a properly enacted amendment.

_______________________________________________________

I want these justices to keep remembering the death penalty battles and removing Justice Bird for thwarting the will of the people.

[Marko413]

I’m reassured to hear they are looking at this properly. The people voted and that should stand. If they voted to have brownies delivered to their doors everyday, then so be it.

[bimboeruption]

Question,

Regardless of how this is viewed, will it be challenged to any other court? Like say U.S. Supremes? Or is it simply a calif issue?

Joe, I think the losing side will carry it forward.

[Being-And-Time]

The court has the right to strike down a law as unconstitutional, I don’t deny that; but it is unethical to do so unless the constitution is in clear, black-and-white opposition to the law WHEN STRICTLY INTERPRETED.

There’s nothing in the constitution about gay marriage. The voters made their wills known; they should be respected.

Although, if I could have my way, I’d simply get the government out of people’s personal affairs and keep it from meddling in the institution of marriage altogether. Whether two people of the same sex can be wed in holy matrimony should be the private decision of a church or family, not a legislator’s or a judge’s. If the government just stopped meddling where it doesn’t belong, we wouldn’t have to waste time with this stuff.

[fwdude]

LOL! But the dwarf-kings were more intelligent and moral than these intellectual dwarves.

[fwdude]

Remember there is NOTHING stopping the homosexual advocates from going to their legislator and having a new pro-homosexual based marriage put on the ballot.

Lest we forget, we came a hair's breadth away from that happening through legislative action - twice! Only Arnold's veto pen stopped it. (I can't say anything else nice about that brain tumor.)