Richard
05-26-2009, 12:28
A somewhat confusing victory - of sorts - to the voters on this controversial issue. :confused:
Richard's $.02 :munchin
California high court upholds gay marriage ban
Susan Ferriss and Cynthia Hubert, Sacramento Bee, 26 May 2009
The California Supreme Court ruled today that voters' ban on gay marriages should prevail, but allowed to stand marriages that occurred in the brief window before the vote was taken.
The 6-1 majority opinion was written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George - who wrote May's opinion that paved the way for gay marriages - and was joined by Justices Joyce L. Kennard, Marvin R. Baxter, Ming W. Chin and Carol A. Corrigan. Kennard also filed a separate concurring opinion.
The 6-1 opinion rejected the challenge to Proposition 8. The judges unanimously upheld the same-sex marriages that took place during the five-month window when such unions were legal.
Justice Carlos R. Moreno agreed with the majority that Proposition 8 only applies going forward, but he dissented by concluding that the measure is an unlawful amendment to California's constitution.
Proposition 8 passed last Nov. 4 with about 52 percent of the vote. It changes California's constitution with a simple declaration that only a marriage between a man and a woman is legal and valid in the state.
A crowd of gay advocates outside the San Francisco courthouse started chanting "Shame on you, shame on you" the moment the decision was announced.
"It's what we expected based on the initial hearings," said Margie Groeninger, who is married to her partner. "The justices have been clear that even though they view this as discriminatory, it's out of their hands. I'm incredibly hurt and disappointed."
Aaron McLear, spokesman for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, said, "I think he was hoping it would go the other way. But it didn't, and he will uphold what they have to say."
"Personally, he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman," McLear said. Nevertheless, he said, Schwarzenegger voted against Proposition 8 and supports giving same-sex couples the right to marry.
"He's always said it's not his job to impose that upon others, so he believes that someday soon, either the courts or the people will give same-sex individuals the right to marry. But it's his duty as governor to carry out whatever the Supreme Court says he needs to do."
Schwarzenegger issued a statement calling on those responding to the court decision "to do so peacefully and lawfully."
The National Organization for Marriage praised the decision.
"We're grateful this court did not overturn the civil rights of all Californians to amend our own constitution," Brian Brown, the group's executive director, said in a statement. "The 7 million Californians who worked hard to protect marriage as the union of husband and wife are breathing easier today."
The liberal Courage Campaign issued a swift press release expressing its disappointment. Chairman Rick Jacobs said the group has already begun preparing for another ballot fight next year.
"While we are pleased that the court recognized the legal marriages of the 18,000 same-sex couples married in 2008, we are saddened by the Prop. 8 decision. But we don't have time to mourn the failure of the state court to restore marriage equality to California," he said.
The group said it was immediately launching a 60-second television ad "that illustrates the love and commitment between all same-sex couples and the effect Prop. 8 and the Supreme Court ruling poses to their current and future families." It said the ad, in English and in Spanish, will air statewide for the next 72 hours.
State Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, said in a statement: "I view today's decision by the California Supreme Court as a temporary setback for the cause of equality for all people."
"History shows us that prejudice and inequality diminish with time and struggle, and so it will be the case with marriage freedom," he said. "While the court represents an independent and equal branch of California's government and its decision is the law, we will not stop fighting for equal rights. The cause of marriage freedom is too important and the injustice of Proposition 8 too great to simply give up."
Equality California, a gay rights advocacy group, immediately issued an Internet fundraising appeal, saying it will need to "raise more money than we've ever raised" and will launch a grassroots mobilization and public education campaign designed to reach reach more than 300,000 Californians in the next 100 days.
In the long and twisting same-same marriage battle in California, this isn't the first time the justices have ruled on the emotionally charged issue.
In May 2008 the same justices overturned a voter-approved law banning gay marriage and issued a decision favorable to same-sex marriage rights. Suddenly, the way was paved for thousands of gay couples to wed across the state.
More than 18,000 couples were married during the months before anti-gay marriage groups mobilized, vowing to challenge the court. They placed Proposition 8 on the ballot and went on to win.
When the justices originally ruled on gay marriage rights in 2008, they were looking at a different set of circumstances.
Their decision stemmed from a review of a prior ballot measure - Proposition 22 - which voters approved in 2000.
That measure also declared marriage valid only between a man and a woman, but it differed from Proposition 8 because it was not a change to the state's constitution.
In 2008, after a length review of Proposition 22, the justices ruled 4-3 that it was unconstitutional to bar same-sex couples from the right of marriage. Chief Justice Ronald George wrote the majority opinion.
"An individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon an individual's sexual orientation," George wrote, "and ... an individual's sexual orientation - like a person's race or gender - does not constitute a legitimate basis ... to deny or withhold legal rights."
The justices' latest decision is a response to challenges filed to Proposition 8 by same-sex marriage supporters, including the county and city of San Francisco, and Attorney General Jerry Brown. Gay rights groups and Brown each had their own set of arguments challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8.
At a March 5 hearing before the court, gay and civil rights organizations argued that Proposition 8 was a sweeping revision of the constitution, and that the measure was disquieting because it strips away a basic right from a vulnerable minority.
"Relegating same-sex couples to domestic partnership does not provide them with everything but a word," said Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights in San Francisco.
"Proposition 8 changes the basic nature of our government," he said, and establishes a constitutional principle that the majority can take away the rights of any minority.
Brown's office argued that gay people have rights enshrined within the constitution to marry.
Proposition 8 supporters enlisted famed conservative attorney Kenneth Starr as their standard bearer to defend the measure. Starr, dean of the Pepperdine University Law School, gained fame by leading a sexual misconduct investigation of President Clinton.
At the March 5 hearing, Starr suggested that the power of the electorate to amend the state's constitution can rise above the power of minority rights. "Under our theory, the people are sovereign and they can do very unwise things that tug at the equality issue," he said.
He noted that the voters of California restored the death penalty in California after the state's Supreme Court justices had found it to be unconstitutional.
Editors note: Sacbee.com is disabling comments on this story to avoid hate speech and personal attacks.
http://www.sacbee.com/1095/story/1892402.html
Richard's $.02 :munchin
California high court upholds gay marriage ban
Susan Ferriss and Cynthia Hubert, Sacramento Bee, 26 May 2009
The California Supreme Court ruled today that voters' ban on gay marriages should prevail, but allowed to stand marriages that occurred in the brief window before the vote was taken.
The 6-1 majority opinion was written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George - who wrote May's opinion that paved the way for gay marriages - and was joined by Justices Joyce L. Kennard, Marvin R. Baxter, Ming W. Chin and Carol A. Corrigan. Kennard also filed a separate concurring opinion.
The 6-1 opinion rejected the challenge to Proposition 8. The judges unanimously upheld the same-sex marriages that took place during the five-month window when such unions were legal.
Justice Carlos R. Moreno agreed with the majority that Proposition 8 only applies going forward, but he dissented by concluding that the measure is an unlawful amendment to California's constitution.
Proposition 8 passed last Nov. 4 with about 52 percent of the vote. It changes California's constitution with a simple declaration that only a marriage between a man and a woman is legal and valid in the state.
A crowd of gay advocates outside the San Francisco courthouse started chanting "Shame on you, shame on you" the moment the decision was announced.
"It's what we expected based on the initial hearings," said Margie Groeninger, who is married to her partner. "The justices have been clear that even though they view this as discriminatory, it's out of their hands. I'm incredibly hurt and disappointed."
Aaron McLear, spokesman for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, said, "I think he was hoping it would go the other way. But it didn't, and he will uphold what they have to say."
"Personally, he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman," McLear said. Nevertheless, he said, Schwarzenegger voted against Proposition 8 and supports giving same-sex couples the right to marry.
"He's always said it's not his job to impose that upon others, so he believes that someday soon, either the courts or the people will give same-sex individuals the right to marry. But it's his duty as governor to carry out whatever the Supreme Court says he needs to do."
Schwarzenegger issued a statement calling on those responding to the court decision "to do so peacefully and lawfully."
The National Organization for Marriage praised the decision.
"We're grateful this court did not overturn the civil rights of all Californians to amend our own constitution," Brian Brown, the group's executive director, said in a statement. "The 7 million Californians who worked hard to protect marriage as the union of husband and wife are breathing easier today."
The liberal Courage Campaign issued a swift press release expressing its disappointment. Chairman Rick Jacobs said the group has already begun preparing for another ballot fight next year.
"While we are pleased that the court recognized the legal marriages of the 18,000 same-sex couples married in 2008, we are saddened by the Prop. 8 decision. But we don't have time to mourn the failure of the state court to restore marriage equality to California," he said.
The group said it was immediately launching a 60-second television ad "that illustrates the love and commitment between all same-sex couples and the effect Prop. 8 and the Supreme Court ruling poses to their current and future families." It said the ad, in English and in Spanish, will air statewide for the next 72 hours.
State Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, said in a statement: "I view today's decision by the California Supreme Court as a temporary setback for the cause of equality for all people."
"History shows us that prejudice and inequality diminish with time and struggle, and so it will be the case with marriage freedom," he said. "While the court represents an independent and equal branch of California's government and its decision is the law, we will not stop fighting for equal rights. The cause of marriage freedom is too important and the injustice of Proposition 8 too great to simply give up."
Equality California, a gay rights advocacy group, immediately issued an Internet fundraising appeal, saying it will need to "raise more money than we've ever raised" and will launch a grassroots mobilization and public education campaign designed to reach reach more than 300,000 Californians in the next 100 days.
In the long and twisting same-same marriage battle in California, this isn't the first time the justices have ruled on the emotionally charged issue.
In May 2008 the same justices overturned a voter-approved law banning gay marriage and issued a decision favorable to same-sex marriage rights. Suddenly, the way was paved for thousands of gay couples to wed across the state.
More than 18,000 couples were married during the months before anti-gay marriage groups mobilized, vowing to challenge the court. They placed Proposition 8 on the ballot and went on to win.
When the justices originally ruled on gay marriage rights in 2008, they were looking at a different set of circumstances.
Their decision stemmed from a review of a prior ballot measure - Proposition 22 - which voters approved in 2000.
That measure also declared marriage valid only between a man and a woman, but it differed from Proposition 8 because it was not a change to the state's constitution.
In 2008, after a length review of Proposition 22, the justices ruled 4-3 that it was unconstitutional to bar same-sex couples from the right of marriage. Chief Justice Ronald George wrote the majority opinion.
"An individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon an individual's sexual orientation," George wrote, "and ... an individual's sexual orientation - like a person's race or gender - does not constitute a legitimate basis ... to deny or withhold legal rights."
The justices' latest decision is a response to challenges filed to Proposition 8 by same-sex marriage supporters, including the county and city of San Francisco, and Attorney General Jerry Brown. Gay rights groups and Brown each had their own set of arguments challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8.
At a March 5 hearing before the court, gay and civil rights organizations argued that Proposition 8 was a sweeping revision of the constitution, and that the measure was disquieting because it strips away a basic right from a vulnerable minority.
"Relegating same-sex couples to domestic partnership does not provide them with everything but a word," said Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights in San Francisco.
"Proposition 8 changes the basic nature of our government," he said, and establishes a constitutional principle that the majority can take away the rights of any minority.
Brown's office argued that gay people have rights enshrined within the constitution to marry.
Proposition 8 supporters enlisted famed conservative attorney Kenneth Starr as their standard bearer to defend the measure. Starr, dean of the Pepperdine University Law School, gained fame by leading a sexual misconduct investigation of President Clinton.
At the March 5 hearing, Starr suggested that the power of the electorate to amend the state's constitution can rise above the power of minority rights. "Under our theory, the people are sovereign and they can do very unwise things that tug at the equality issue," he said.
He noted that the voters of California restored the death penalty in California after the state's Supreme Court justices had found it to be unconstitutional.
Editors note: Sacbee.com is disabling comments on this story to avoid hate speech and personal attacks.
http://www.sacbee.com/1095/story/1892402.html