Prop 8 heads to Calif. Supreme Court

[Valerie]

Never said that. I actually would like government to butt out of a lot of things.

My point is this. And I am really only talking about the Prop 8 issue. The pro Prop 8 group did everything they could to get the issue on the ballot. After years of trying, they succeeded.

They finally got the issue before the population of the state.

And they lost.

So now what do they do? They didn't like how the people voted so they want it go to to court. Essentially asking the court to agree that every single person who voted against the proposition was wrong.

They use the system (get enough signatures to get it on the ballot) to have their issue voted on; then when they don't get the result they wanted/expected, they want to over-rule the entire system that enabled them to have the issue voted upon in the first place.

I will say it again. Be careful what you ask for.

Suppose the law said that you couldn't marry the person you love because of race, gender, eye color or some other type that "isn't right" according to society's norms of the day. If the people democratically passed an arbitrary law against people like you marrying whatever type of person you want, would you just give up at that point?

The group who petitioned for prop 8 got what they wanted. Their petition over ruled a California Supreme Court decision and added a new amendment to the California Constitution which says, "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California".

California Proposition 8 (2008 - Ballotpedia)

Background

California first explicitly defined marriage as a state between a man and woman in 1977.[7] That year, the California State Legislature passed a law that said that marriage is a "personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman". While no previous California legislation contained explicit language regarding sex or gender, California law prior to 1959 explicitly prohibited marriage between people of different races. Many other states prohibited interracial marriage until 1967, when the United States Supreme Court ruled this unconstitutional, in the case Loving v. Virginia. [8]

In 2000, voters passed ballot initiative Proposition 22 with a margin of 61%, which changed California Family Code to formally define marriage in California between a man and a woman. Prop. 22 was a statutory change via the initiative process, not a constitutional change via the initiative process.

In 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom performed same-sex marriages in his city, which were subsequently judicially annulled. This case, and some others, eventually led to a decision announced on May 15, 2008 of the California Supreme Court, which by a 4-3 vote struck down Proposition 22.[9]

Prior to the May 2008 state supreme court decision, opponents of same-sex marriage had already begun their efforts to qualify Prop. 8 for the ballot. Their reasoning at the time was that since Prop. 22 was only a statute, it was subject to judicial review in a way that an amendment to the constitution would not be.[10],[11],[12]

When supporters of Proposition 8 submitted their measure to the California Secretary of State in 2007 for permission to circulate, the ballot title that was given to it was the "California Marriage Protection Act." At that time, Proposition 22 was the governing law in the state with regard to gay marriage and the term "marriage protection" appears to have meant something like "adding additional protection to the idea of one man-one woman marriage by enshrining it in the constitution, not just as a statute". However, between the time that Prop. 8 got its original permission-to-circulate ballot title, and the time they turned in their signatures and became ballot certified, Prop. 22 no longer had any governing force.[13] After the proposition was certified for the ballot, the title and summary were revised by Attorney General Jerry Brown to more "accurately reflect the measure." (See Lawsuits, California Proposition 8 (2008)).

Proposition 8 adds a new amendment to the California Constitution which says, "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". Before it passed, same-sex marriage was a constitutionally-protected right in California; a majority of the justices of the California Supreme Court affirmed this understanding of the constitution in May 2008.

Arguments against Prop. 8

Notable arguments against Prop. 8 include:


* "Our California Constitution--the law of our land---should guarantee the same freedoms and right to everyone. No one group should be singled out to be treated differently."

* "Equal protection under the law is the foundation of American society."

* "Traditional Marriage" is a misleading term. Various marriage traditions, since abolished, have included: only allowing members of the upper class or nobility to marry; having marriages arranged by families without the couple's consent; only allowing white people to marry; only allowing people of the same race to marry; and allowing one man to marry multiple women.

* Current statistics show roughly 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce. So-called "traditional marriage" is doing more to degrade the institutional of marriage than any expansion of marriage could ever do.

* Voter initiatives to amend the constitutional should not be taken lightly; using them to take away rights from one group could open the door to voter initiatives to take away other rights, including religious freedoms and civil rights.

* The institution of marriage conveys dignity and respect to the lifetime commitment that a couple makes. Proposition 8 would deny lesbian and gay couples the opportunity to that same dignity and respect.

 

[garyd]

LU. I don't care frankly what you think is right or wrong. You obviously think it is perfectly all right to push your version morality down other peoples throats via the courts and that is what this is all about now. It's not about having the same rights as some one else it is about compelling everyone else to like and accept you. Sorry but that won't make things better for gays. It will in fact make it worse. Phelps right now is an anomaly and a man whom most of main stream Christians such as myself find quite odious. Keep Pushing and you'll wind up mainstreaming his sorry butt.

 

[Valerie]

LU. I don't care frankly what you think is right or wrong. You obviously think it is perfectly all right to push your version morality down other peoples throats via the courts and that is what this is all about now. It's not about having the same rights as some one else it is about compelling everyone else to like and accept you. Sorry but that won't make things better for gays. It will in fact make it worse. Phelps right now is an anomaly and a man whom most of main stream Christians such as myself find quite odious. Keep Pushing and you'll wind up mainstreaming his sorry butt.

Who are you talking to? I think you've go it backwards.

The people who proposed proposition 8 are the ones who are pushing their version of morality down other people's throats. The religious zealots proposed prop 8 to reinforce the prop 22 statute PRIOR to the supreme court ruling which stepped in and said prop 22 was unconstitutional. The state supreme court has both the authority and the obligation to defend the constitution. By the time prop 8 got to the ballot, prop 22 was no longer in effect and both sides responded in kind to legally defend their position.

OF COURSE gay people and their families and friends and an entire human rights campaign had to step in and defend themselves against such harmful discrimination which was seeking to overturn the supreme court ruling via proposition 8.

If the so called "marriage defenders" had simply dropped their petition after the supreme court ruling, any two consenting adults could have legally married in California, and no one else would have had to endure this public battle to define marriage as only "one man one woman".

So your statement "It's not about having the same rights as some one else it is about compelling everyone else to like and accept you." is completely bogus.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wrong as usual. The Supreme Court does not get to create laws, nor legislate from the Bench. A small majority chose to do JUST that by claiming Gays could marry when it was clear the State allowed no such thing.

The only solution then is by Amendment. Which REMOVES the Court from the equation. The Supreme Court has no authority to declare an amendment unconstitutional at all, which is the ONLY power it has. An amendment once approved BECOMES part of the Constitution.

The ONLY play the Court has is to rule that the Constitution does not allow the people to create and pass amendments.

You see prior to 4 Justices saying so there was NO legal right for Gays to marry in California. They created the right from whole cloth. It was clearly understood that marriage was between a man and a woman prior to those 4 robes saying otherwise.

The people have spoken, they created and legally passed the Amendment, which puts it out of the Courts authority and Jurisdiction.

Courts can only rule on the Constitutional meaning of the Constitution. The Amendment is clear and precise and leaves no room for misunderstanding. Once an Amendment is approved it BECOMES the Constitution. No Court can rule at all on parts of the Constitution. They can ONLY rule on the Constitutional meaning in regards laws proposed or on the books.

What you advocate is removing the ability of the People to Amend the Constitution. That is Fascism.

 

[KittenKoder]

Prop 8 pushes gay propaganda better than the ACLU ever did ... go ahead ... keep fighting against progress with such amendments, you people are doing is recruiting more by making it such a huge issue.

 

[Missourian]

LU. I don't care frankly what you think is right or wrong. You obviously think it is perfectly all right to push your version morality down other peoples throats via the courts and that is what this is all about now. It's not about having the same rights as some one else it is about compelling everyone else to like and accept you. Sorry but that won't make things better for gays. It will in fact make it worse. Phelps right now is an anomaly and a man whom most of main stream Christians such as myself find quite odious. Keep Pushing and you'll wind up mainstreaming his sorry butt.

Who are you talking to? I think you've go it backwards.

The people who proposed proposition 8 are the ones who are pushing their version of morality down other people's throats. The religious zealots proposed prop 8 to reinforce the prop 22 statute PRIOR to the supreme court ruling which stepped in and said prop 22 was unconstitutional. The state supreme court has both the authority and the obligation to defend the constitution. By the time prop 8 got to the ballot, prop 22 was no longer in effect and both sides responded in kind to legally defend their position.

OF COURSE gay people and their families and friends and an entire human rights campaign had to step in and defend themselves against such harmful discrimination which was seeking to overturn the supreme court ruling via p. proposition 8.

If the so called "marriage defenders" had simply dropped their petition after the supreme court ruling, any two consenting adults could have legally married in California, and no one else would have had to endure this public battle to define marriage as only. "one man one woman".

So your statement "It's not about having the same rights as some one else it is about compelling everyone else to like and accept you." is completely bogus.

I respectfully disagree with you Val. The union of a man and a woman has been the foundation of marriage since it's inception lost to the mist of prehistory and has been the law of the land in the United States since our founding. We are not attempting to change anything. We are defending what marriage already is and has always been...a union of man and woman.

And it has been proven in the ballot box that even in California, the majority agrees.

 

[KittenKoder]

LU. I don't care frankly what you think is right or wrong. You obviously think it is perfectly all right to push your version morality down other peoples throats via the courts and that is what this is all about now. It's not about having the same rights as some one else it is about compelling everyone else to like and accept you. Sorry but that won't make things better for gays. It will in fact make it worse. Phelps right now is an anomaly and a man whom most of main stream Christians such as myself find quite odious. Keep Pushing and you'll wind up mainstreaming his sorry butt.

Who are you talking to? I think you've go it backwards.

The people who proposed proposition 8 are the ones who are pushing their version of morality down other people's throats. The religious zealots proposed prop 8 to reinforce the prop 22 statute PRIOR to the supreme court ruling which stepped in and said prop 22 was unconstitutional. The state supreme court has both the authority and the obligation to defend the constitution. By the time prop 8 got to the ballot, prop 22 was no longer in effect and both sides responded in kind to legally defend their position.

OF COURSE gay people and their families and friends and an entire human rights campaign had to step in and defend themselves against such harmful discrimination which was seeking to overturn the supreme court ruling via proposition 8.

If the so called "marriage defenders" had simply dropped their petition after the supreme court ruling, any two consenting adults could have legally married in California, and no one else would have had to endure this public battle to define marriage as only "one man one woman".

So your statement "It's not about having the same rights as some one else it is about compelling everyone else to like and accept you." is completely bogus.

I respectfully disagree with you Val. The union of a man and a woman has been the foundation of marriage since it's inception lost to the mist of prehistory and has been the law of the land in the United States since our founding. We are not attepmting to change anything. We are defending what marriage already is and has always been...a union of man and woman.

Actually ... no. The original forms of marriage made no distinction. It wasn't until much later when the christian religion appeared that such a distinction was added to their version. Still, you accept the government telling you what religion is right and wrong and how to believe when you allow them control of it while keeping the religious connection to it.

 

[Valerie]

Wrong as usual. The Supreme Court does not get to create laws, nor legislate from the Bench. A small majority chose to do JUST that by claiming Gays could marry when it was clear the State allowed no such thing.

The only solution then is by Amendment. Which REMOVES the Court from the equation. The Supreme Court has no authority to declare an amendment unconstitutional at all, which is the ONLY power it has. An amendment once approved BECOMES part of the Constitution.

The ONLY play the Court has is to rule that the Constitution does not allow the people to create and pass amendments.

You see prior to 4 Justices saying so there was NO legal right for Gays to marry in California. They created the right from whole cloth. It was clearly understood that marriage was between a man and a woman prior to those 4 robes saying otherwise.

The people have spoken, they created and legally passed the Amendment, which puts it out of the Courts authority and Jurisdiction.

Courts can only rule on the Constitutional meaning of the Constitution. The Amendment is clear and precise and leaves no room for misunderstanding. Once an Amendment is approved it BECOMES the Constitution. No Court can rule at all on parts of the Constitution. They can ONLY rule on the Constitutional meaning in regards laws proposed or on the books.

What you advocate is removing the ability of the People to Amend the Constitution. That is Fascism.

I have advocated no such thing.

I'm trying to clarify some misperceptions about what really happened in California by posting some actual facts.

The passage of Proposition 8 has NOW created an amendment to the California state constitution, but prior to that the California supreme court ruled that prop 22 was unconstitutional ...what some are calling "legislating from the bench" or "creating laws" is simply not true...Prop 22 was a statute not a constitutional amendment and deeming it unconstitutional didn't create any laws at all.

 

[Missourian]

Actually ... no. The original forms of marriage made no distinction. It wasn't until much later when the christian religion appeared that such a distinction was added to their version. Still, you accept the government telling you what religion is right and wrong and how to believe when you allow them control of it while keeping the religious connection to it.

What original forms are your refering to?

 

[KittenKoder]

Actually ... no. The original forms of marriage made no distinction. It wasn't until much later when the christian religion appeared that such a distinction was added to their version. Still, you accept the government telling you what religion is right and wrong and how to believe when you allow them control of it while keeping the religious connection to it.

What original forms are your refering to?

Well .. many pagan religions had hand fasting long before the organized religions were invented. The rule was simply to love the one you are fasted to, and when that love vanishes you unfast. Simple.

 

[Valerie]

The ONLY play the Court has is to rule that the Constitution does not allow the people to create and pass amendments.

...

Courts can only rule on the Constitutional meaning of the Constitution.

...


No Court can rule at all on parts of the Constitution. They can ONLY rule on the Constitutional meaning in regards laws proposed or on the books.

 

[Missourian]

Actually ... no. The original forms of marriage made no distinction. It wasn't until much later when the christian religion appeared that such a distinction was added to their version. Still, you accept the government telling you what religion is right and wrong and how to believe when you allow them control of it while keeping the religious connection to it.

What original forms are your refering to?

Well .. many pagan religions had hand fasting long before the organized religions were invented. The rule was simply to love the one you are fasted to, and when that love vanishes you unfast. Simple.

Okay, if the homosexual community wants to hand fast, I'm totally cool with that.

 

[KittenKoder]

What original forms are your refering to?

Well .. many pagan religions had hand fasting long before the organized religions were invented. The rule was simply to love the one you are fasted to, and when that love vanishes you unfast. Simple.

Okay, if the homosexual community wants to hand fast, I'm totally cool with that.

Hand fasting IS marriage ... and is regulated by the exact same laws ....

So, while you may enjoy the government telling you what to believe and which of your religious ideals are right and wrong, I do not.

 

[Missourian]

Well .. many pagan religions had hand fasting long before the organized religions were invented. The rule was simply to love the one you are fasted to, and when that love vanishes you unfast. Simple.

Okay, if the homosexual community wants to hand fast, I'm totally cool with that.

Hand fasting IS marriage ... and is regulated by the exact same laws ....

So, while you may enjoy the government telling you what to believe and which of your religious ideals are right and wrong, I do not.

Funny that Prop 8 doesn't state that hand fasting is defined as between a man and a woman or civil unions are defined as between a man and a woman but only that marriage is defined between a man and a woman.

But the homosexual agenda doesn't include hand fasting or civil unions but only marriage.

But as far as prop 8 is concerned, based on my reading, hand fasting is legal for all in California.

 

[KittenKoder]

Okay, if the homosexual community wants to hand fast, I'm totally cool with that.

Hand fasting IS marriage ... and is regulated by the exact same laws ....

So, while you may enjoy the government telling you what to believe and which of your religious ideals are right and wrong, I do not.

Funny that Prop 8 doesn't state that hand fasting is defined as between a man and a woman or civil unions are defined as between a man and a woman but only that marriage is defined between a man and a woman.

But the homosexual agenda doesn't include hand fasting or civil unions but only marriage.

But as far as prop 8 is concerned, based on my reading, hand fasting is legal for all in California.

Here's the flaw in your thinking, you are defining it by labels and not by laws. The words "hand fasting" is actually a more viable term for human marriage, since marriage actually means the joining of two. Nuts and bolts marry when they are combined to hold things together, pieces of wood are married by nuts and bolts, etc.. That laws however treat all human marriages the same, regardless of what label you use, they are still marriages. This was done to keep the religious ideals partially separate from the law, thus allowing them to use their own labels with the same legal ties. Often those who oppose gay marriage forget this, the label "marriage" is a universal and vague label, not a specific one. "Hand fasting" is more specific, thus the rules can only apply to those with hands, meaning living beings of some sort, since animals do not recognize the meaning it generally means humans. The term "civil union" is also such a label, it means it's only of law, taking out the religious side completely. My problem is that by using this label they are completely ignoring all other religious views (again) and telling people that this is the only religious view valid by law, which goes against the very foundations of our country.

 

[Missourian]

So, while you may enjoy the government telling you what to believe and which of your religious ideals are right and wrong, I do not.

The government isn't telling anyone what is right or wrong.
There is no law that says anyone must marry.

 

[KittenKoder]

So, while you may enjoy the government telling you what to believe and which of your religious ideals are right and wrong, I do not.

The government isn't telling anyone what is right or wrong.
There is no law that says anyone must marry.

I will wait for you to read the post I made above this one I am quoting.

 

[Missourian]

Here's the flaw in your thinking, you are defining it by labels and not by laws. The words "hand fasting" is actually a more viable term for human marriage, since marriage actually means the joining of two. Nuts and bolts marry when they are combined to hold things together, pieces of wood are married by nuts and bolts, etc.. That laws however treat all human marriages the same, regardless of what label you use, they are still marriages. This was done to keep the religious ideals partially separate from the law, thus allowing them to use their own labels with the same legal ties. Often those who oppose gay marriage forget this, the label "marriage" is a universal and vague label, not a specific one. "Hand fasting" is more specific, thus the rules can only apply to those with hands, meaning living beings of some sort, since animals do not recognize the meaning it generally means humans. The term "civil union" is also such a label, it means it's only of law, taking out the religious side completely. My problem is that by using this label they are completely ignoring all other religious views (again) and telling people that this is the only religious view valid by law, which goes against the very foundations of our country.

So are you saying that a civil union between homosexuals would be illegal in California after the passage of prop 8...because I don't understand that to be a fact.

 

[Missourian]

Also...as an aside, while looking up civil unions and prop 8 I discovered this:

California already affords same-sex couples who register as domestic partners all the rights and benefits of marriage. As a practical matter, that means wed and unwed same-sex couples should not have different experiences when it comes to issues such as hospital visitation rights, filing state income taxes or suing for child support.

From this article Prop. 8 Ruling May Lead To Civil Unions For All - cbs5.com

As you can see from the title of the article, civil unions are still legal for homosexual couple, as are domestic partnerships.

Proposition 8 is only 14 words long...it states "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.".

That's is...the whole thing.

 

[Valerie]

Also...as an aside, while looking up civil unions and prop 8 I discovered this:

California already affords same-sex couples who register as domestic partners all the rights and benefits of marriage. As a practical matter, that means wed and unwed same-sex couples should not have different experiences when it comes to issues such as hospital visitation rights, filing state income taxes or suing for child support.

From this article - Prop. 8 Ruling May Lead To Civil Unions For All - cbs5.com

A California domestic partnership is a legal relationship available to same-sex couples, and to certain opposite-sex couples in which at least one party is at least 62 years of age. It affords the couple most of "the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law..." as married spouses. [1]

Enacted in 1999, the domestic partnership registry was the first of its kind in the United States created by a legislature without court intervention. Initially, domestic partnerships enjoyed very few privileges—principally just hospital-visitation rights. The legislature has since expanded the scope of California domestic partnerships to afford many of the rights and responsibilities common to marriage. As such, it is now difficult to distinguish California domestic partnerships from civil unions offered in a handful of other states.

Although the program enjoys broad support in California,[2] it has been the source of some controversy. Groups opposed to the recognition of same-sex families have challenged the expansion of domestic partnerships in court. Conversely, advocates of same-sex marriage contend that anything less than full marriage rights extended to same-sex partners is analogous to the "separate but equal" racial laws of the Jim Crow era.

Then in 2000 prop 22 was initiated as a California statute and in 2007 prop 8 was initiated as a constitutional amendment to reinforce that statute in "defense of marriage". In 2008 the California supreme court stepped in and deemed the prop 22 statute unconstitutional, but in 2009 the California ballot initiative process continued anyway and prop 8 passed, thus creating an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as between "one man, one woman" which had been established by the prop 22 statute. Now the state supreme court will review the constitutionality once again.

Make no mistake, the "defenders of marriage" are the ones who are going out of their way to make laws in California. The religious zealots felt so threatened by the domestic partnership registry that they went out of their way to enact legislation to discriminate against same sex couples. It is a serious and potentially dangerous legal precedent to amend the constitution by ballot initiative and they are using emotion to slip such religious discrimination right past you.