The Black Vault Message Forums

Discover the Truth!        

General Discussion Topics

California Supreme Court upholds gay marriage ban

The Black Vault Message Forums has a considerable number of niche forums to place your post. If you can not find a home for it, and the topic doesn't fit anywhere else, then post it here.

Postby greeney2 » Tue May 26, 2009 10:29 am

All the details are not in but the State Supreme Court decided to honor the rights of the voters to ammend their State Constitution, over the rights of Gays to marriage.



California Supreme Court upholds gay marriage ban
Buzz Up Send
Email IM Share
Delicious Digg Facebook Fark Newsvine Reddit StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Bookmarks Print AP – People wait in line for a decision from the California State Supreme Court on the legality of a voter-approved …
Slideshow:Same-Sex Marriage Issues Play Video Video:State Supreme Court To Rule On Prop. 8 CBS 2 / KCAL 9 Los Angeles Play Video Video:Prop 8 Decision Expected ABC News By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer Lisa Leff, Associated Press Writer – 15 mins ago
SAN FRANCISCO – The California Supreme Court has upheld a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, but it also decided that the estimated 18,000 gay couples who tied the knot before the law took effect will stay wed.

The decision Tuesday rejected an argument by gay rights activists that the ban revised the California constitution's equal protection clause to such a dramatic degree that it first needed the Legislature's approval.

The announcement of the decision caused outcry among a sea of demonstrators who had gathered in front of the San Francisco courthouse awaiting the ruling.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The nation's most populous state stood poised to recapture the spotlight in the debate over gay marriage as California's highest court prepared to rule on the legality of a voter-approved ban on same-sex unions.

The California Supreme Court planned to hand down its decision Tuesday in a series of lawsuits seeking to overturn November's Proposition 8. Gay rights advocates maintain the ballot measure so dramatically revised the state constitution's equal protection clause that it needed the Legislature's approval before it could be put to voters.

If the seven-member court upholds the initiative as a constitutional expression of the electorate's will, it also will be deciding whether to sustain the marriages of an estimated 18,000 gay couples who wed before the measure passed with 52 percent of the vote.

Proposition 8 superseded the Supreme Court's May 2008 ruling that legalized same-sex unions by changing the state constitution to outlaw them. In that 4-3 decision, the court majority invalidated California's marriage statutes, holding that denying same-sex couples the right to wed amounted to state-sanctioned discrimination.

But based on the skeptical questions raised during oral arguments, legal experts have doubted the same four justices would undermine California's powerful citizen initiative process by invalidating the new ban.

Since that March hearing, however, three other states — Iowa, Maine and Vermont — have joined Massachusetts and Connecticut in making same-sex marriage legal. The trend has offered gay rights advocates hope that the court might elect to make California the sixth state to extend marriage to gays and lesbians.

"Many of us are heading into Tuesday filled with both hope and determination," said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. "And we need to be clear that regardless of how the court rules, we will need both for whatever the next steps are."

Gay rights advocates have scheduled marches throughout California and in several other states for Tuesday evening. Organizers say the gatherings will be celebratory if the court rules in their favor and angry if Proposition 8 is upheld.

Activists in the San Francisco Bay area, including several clergy members, said they planned to block the street outside the courthouse and to be arrested in a mass show of civil disobedience if the justices do not invalidate the measure.

"Words are not enough right now. We believe it's time to put our bodies on the line to show that separate is not equal," said Kip Williams, an activist with One Struggle, One Fight, a group that was launched in response to Proposition 8's passage.

In tense anticipation of the news to come, about 400 same-sex marriage supporters attended an interfaith prayer service held Monday night at San Francisco's Episcopal Grace Cathedral.

The Rev. Roland Stringfellow, with the Pacific School of Religion, said the service was meant to show how many communities of faith stand with gay couples on this issue. Among those to offer prayers were a Sikh mother, a Buddhist nun, a Jewish rabbi and Episcopal Bishop Marc Andrus.

Proposition 8's supporters, meanwhile, have not planned any organized events to accompany the decision. If a court majority invalidates the measure, angry voters would funnel their energy into unseating the justices who went along with the decision, predicted Frank Schubert, who managed the successful Yes on 8 campaign.

"If the court were to go as far as throwing it out, saying the people do not have the power to amend their constitution, then they are going to have to ultimately answer to the people," Schubert said.

One couple who will be anxiously awaiting the ruling are Karen Strauss and Ruth Borenstein, the lead plaintiffs in one of the lawsuits challenging Proposition 8.

The two women, partners for 17 years, had wanted to marry in the presence of their parents, who live in Florida. But Strauss' 84-year-old mother is dying of cancer, and they now realize she won't live long enough to attend their dream wedding no matter what.

"People who don't know us, who have nothing to lose by our decisions, had the opportunity to decide for us this most private and personal decision," said Strauss, 51, who will be across the country at her mother's bedside when the decision comes down. "That is a personally painful position to be in, whichever way it goes."
greeney2
 
Posts: 9588
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby Tairaa » Tue May 26, 2009 10:40 am

"People who don't know us, who have nothing to lose by our decisions, had the opportunity to decide for us this most private and personal decision,"


Exactly.
"George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd."
Tairaa
 
Posts: 2940
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby greeney2 » Tue May 26, 2009 11:52 am

There are many issues decided by Constitutional ammendments that always affect someone unfairly, from use of land to tax laws in California. Someone is always a victim. This is not a gay rights issue, it is the right to ammend the Constitution of the State of California by 50% majoriety, and upholding the rights of every Californian. If they overturned this, than many other addmendments passed by 50% would be in jeopardy.
greeney2
 
Posts: 9588
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby Tairaa » Tue May 26, 2009 12:02 pm

It is infact a gay rights issue.

Just because you look at it differently doesn't chance anything. It may well be a constitutional issue also, but it is a gay rights issue.
"George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd."
Tairaa
 
Posts: 2940
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby greeney2 » Tue May 26, 2009 12:12 pm

When rights conflict with each other, than which should prevail? That is the issue here, 2 different conflicting rights. The rights of some Californians who choose to be gay and choose to marry, or the rights of all Californians who have the right to ammend their Constitution with 50% majoriety.
greeney2
 
Posts: 9588
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby Tairaa » Tue May 26, 2009 5:42 pm

It is people telling other people who they have to live, and what legal privileges are they allowed is what it is. Define it whatever way you want, above noted action is still the end result.
"George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd."
Tairaa
 
Posts: 2940
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby Wing-Zero » Tue May 26, 2009 8:03 pm

It's Democracy, since it was left to the states and, subsequentially, to the people of said states.
War is an extension of economics and diplomacy through other means.

Economics and diplomacy are methods of securing resources used by humans.

Securing resources is the one necessary behavior for all living things.

War = Life
User avatar
Wing-Zero
 
Posts: 3227
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: California Uber Alles

Postby Tairaa » Tue May 26, 2009 8:19 pm

Yeap, it's a democratic process, but
It is people telling other people who they have to live, and what legal privileges are they allowed is what it is. Define it whatever way you want, above noted action is still the end result.
"George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd."
Tairaa
 
Posts: 2940
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby Wing-Zero » Tue May 26, 2009 8:53 pm

Tairaa wrote:Yeap, it's a democratic process, but
It is people telling other people who they have to live, and what legal privileges are they allowed is what it is. Define it whatever way you want, above noted action is still the end result.


Yes yes, I get what you're shooting for.

It's messed up.

But thats how it works here, and while a lot of people don't agree with it, it's still the law.

Currently, at least.
War is an extension of economics and diplomacy through other means.

Economics and diplomacy are methods of securing resources used by humans.

Securing resources is the one necessary behavior for all living things.

War = Life
User avatar
Wing-Zero
 
Posts: 3227
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: California Uber Alles

Postby greeney2 » Tue May 26, 2009 10:50 pm

Like I said there are many laws and ordinances where someone can not do something and others can. There are other Constitutional ammendments that do the same thing, granting one right to someone that another doesn;t have. Prop 13 property taxes are a good example in California. It allows different property tax rates for older homeowners who were being taxed out of their homes. The Jarvis Ammendment limited the tax increase and rolled back taxes, as long as you still lived in the home, but new buyers had a different tax rate. Nobody did anything to ban gay marriage, it always was defined this way, and the voters ammended the Constitution to read the way it has always been, becasue the gays tested the extreme ends of the law. We have many rules and laws that are unfair, some concern age restrictions, or income restrictions, but it results in someone left out. Nobody cares much the drinking age is 21, but your son or daughter can enlist in the military at age 18. You can go to war and kill for your country, but can't buy a beer according to the Constitution.

Problem is if you raise the limit of % to amend the Constitution, that makes it even harder for the Gays, because they couldn't even get 48%, let alone raising it to 2/3rds majoriety. So even with the standard only being 50%, the gays did not have enough support.
greeney2
 
Posts: 9588
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Next

Return to General Discussion Topics

  • View new posts
  • View unanswered posts
  • Who is online
  • In total there are 5 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 5 guests (based on users active over the past 10 minutes)
  • Most users ever online was 292 on Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:19 pm
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests