CA Supreme Court Hears Gay Marriage Case

[AZRedhawk44]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090306/D96OF1R82.html

FYI:  Let's keep it civil, please.  I'm bringing this story forward because I like the contrasting political goals of all interested parties:
1.  Democratic-style (mob rule) ballot initiative that amends the CA Constitution;
2.  Libertarian/Conservative ideal that government shouldn't have its nose in this issue in the first place... marriage is just another form of contractual agreement between consenting parties, regardless of gender;
3.  Conservative struggle against declining morality.

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.

"It would appear to me that life is, at least in my view, a fundamental right," Kennard said. "The court said that particular initiative restoring the death penalty in California was not a revision."

To same-sex marriage supporters listening to the arguments, Justice Kennard's outspoken wariness proved particularly unsettling. Just 10 months ago, she was part of the court majority that held that prohibiting same-sex marriages violated the civil rights of gays.

Yet Kennard made it clear Thursday that her position in last year's gay marriage ruling would have no bearing on how she rules this time around. She repeatedly pointed to the public's "very, very broad, well-wrought" authority to amend the state's governing framework at the ballot box.

"It appears to me that what some of these briefs have been trying to get across is that those of us who were in the majority in the marriage cases last year would of course have to agree that Proposition 8 is invalid," she said. "I don't see it that way."

Chief Justice Ronald George, who also ruled last year to strike down a pair of laws that limited marriage to a man and a woman, echoed Kennard's qualms about denying voters their voice.

George noted that the state constitution has been amended at least 500 times compared with the 27 times the U.S. Constitution has been altered, and said it was up to the Legislature or voters - not the court - to make the process more difficult.

"It seems what you are saying is, it is just too easy to amend the California Constitution," George told Raymond Marshall, an attorney representing the NAACP and other civil rights groups trying to overturn the ban. "Maybe the solution has to be a political one."

Supporters of the gay marriage ban, represented by former Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr, said it would be a reversal of the Supreme Court's own precedents for the court to overturn the results of a fair election.

"We are asking you simply to stay the jurisprudencial course, not to stray on a new course," Starr said.

Associate Justice Kathryn Werdegar, however, felt compelled to point out that none of the previous Supreme Court cases that dealt with the amendment-versus-revision question in the context of minority rights.

Minutes into Thursday's proceedings, the justices peppered a lawyer representing unwed same-sex couples with tough questions on why Proposition 8 represents a denial of fundamental rights when same-sex couples still have the legal benefits of marriage through domestic partnerships.

"Is it your argument in this proceeding that the passage of Proposition 8 also took away, in addition to the label of marriage, the core of substantive rights of marriage this court outlined in its decision last year?" Kennard asked.

"One of the core constitutional rights is to be treated with equality, dignity and respect," replied Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

In an unusual move, California Attorney General Jerry Brown sided with same-sex marriage advocates and refused to defend Proposition 8, which narrowly passed with 52 percent of the vote.

Arguing on Brown's behalf, Senior Assistant Attorney General Christopher Krueger told the justices that prohibiting gays and lesbians to marry infringes on "inalienable" rights to liberty and privacy.

The court also heard arguments on how Proposition 8, if upheld, affects the 18,000 same-sex marriages performed before it passed. Many of the justices did appear reluctant to invalidate the existing marriages.

"Is that really fair to the people who depended on what this court said, upended their lives ... to throw that out?" asked Justice Chin.

Starr, the dean of Pepperdine University law school, replied that the married couples had to have known "there was a swirl of uncertainty" surrounding their unions.

George said if there was indeed uncertainty, the benefit of the doubt should go the newlyweds.

Outside the courthouse, thousands of people chanted slogans and waved placards, with many watching the proceedings on a giant television screen erected across the street in front of San Francisco City Hall. Demonstrators were evenly split over the gay marriage issue and took turns drowning out each others chants after the hearing.

Robin Tyler, who along with her wife, Diane Olson, brought one of the challenges heard by the justices, said afterward that gay and lesbians cannot afford to get discouraged, no matter how the court rules.

"If this court rules to uphold Proposition 8, there will be a million of us on the streets marching," Tyler said. "We are not going away. We will not be invisible. We have had it."

The Supreme Court has 90 days to issue a ruling.

If you can't frame the discussion in terms of one of the 3 talking points above, please don't participate.  Thank you.

[Perd Hapley]

This is how you plan to keep the forum civil?  Theriouthly?   

[makattak]

One of the core constitutional rights is to be treated with equality, dignity and respect," replied Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

Now, I'm not familiar with the Californian constitution, but somehow I'm guessing there isn't a "Life, Liberty, Property, dignity and respect" clause.

Honestly, how can those who want gay unions claim this lawsuit is about anything other than forcing people to accept them given that California has a civil union already?

[Manedwolf]

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

If you have ever voted to take away someone's second amendment rights, as many liberals do, then you most certainly have...

I always wonder why that distinction can't be seen? And I see this in much the same terms as the Lisbon Accords vote. Ireland voted the wrong way, not the way they were expected to, and people are yelling at them and calling for them to vote again, but the right way.

What was the point of holding it to the public vote, if only one outcome was "acceptable"?

[roo_ster]

My standards are pretty low, tone-wise, for this topic.

Just try to refrain from death threats and gratuitous insults.

Something some folks on thr.us have not managed to do:
http://thehighroad.us/showthread.php?t=405423

M203Sniper is the death-threat slinger and adds many insults to his posts, while macadore sticks mainly to insults.

They are not the only offenders, but they are the most prominent.

Also, I must echo fistful, above.  The OP stepped off the wrong foot:
"Let us talk about families.  If you can not keep your participation limited to the following three subjects, don;t bother participating:
1. Your mama wears combat boots.
2. Your daddy is an alcoholic.
3. Your dog won't hunt.

Thank you."

[AZRedhawk44]

Also, I must echo fistful, above.  The OP stepped off the wrong foot:
"Let us talk about families.  If you can not keep your participation limited to the following three subjects, don;t bother participating:
1. Your mama wears combat boots.
2. Your daddy is an alcoholic.
3. Your dog won't hunt.

Thank you."

4.  Say hi to your sister for me?
 

Come on, guys.  Fine, I'll square it out a bit better.

Under the original 3 talking points to begin discussion for this issue,

FYI:  Let's keep it civil, please.  I'm bringing this story forward because I like the contrasting political goals of all interested parties:
1.  Democratic-style (mob rule) ballot initiative that amends the CA Constitution;
2.  Libertarian/Conservative ideal that government shouldn't have its nose in this issue in the first place... marriage is just another form of contractual agreement between consenting parties, regardless of gender;
3.  Conservative struggle against declining morality.

Which do you see as having the greatest influence on the CA Supremes' upcoming decision?

Does the CA Constitution mandate that ballot constitutional amendments override statutory special protections?
Is the CA Supreme Court likely to take a minimalist slant on this issue and tell the government to stop interfering in private contractual law?
Are CA conservatives a voting bloc on the rise, and this is a sign of that fact?  Or if we're going to ride the religious train on this one, is this just a sign of the enormous Latino/catholic/macho population and its increasing effect on California?

We don't have to devolve into "yo mama" to intelligently talk about this. :rolleyes:

[Manedwolf]

As far as I'm aware, the Mexican population in general is rather religious, and would not really be okay with homosexuality as an accepted lifestyle choice. Just based on observation of the culture. Also, the "black culture" as seen in places such as LA and Oakland, homosexuality is really not an accepted thing for males, or so I am led to believe. I'm sure it exists, but it is not something public.

Very at odds with the SF liberals. Interesting, that.

[Perd Hapley]

They say the success of Prop. 8 is partly explained by the greater numbers of Black folk at the polls, due to Obama's candidacy. 

[Jamisjockey]

Democracy only works if you vote for what I want.

[Manedwolf]

They say the success of Prop. 8 is partly explained by the greater numbers of Black folk at the polls, due to Obama's candidacy. 

I can believe that. Seriously, as a cultural thing, homosexuality is not okay to many different sorts of black cultural subsets.

Ask a rapper or any hip-hop artist how they feel about homosexuality, if you want an earful of profanity that'd make your hair stand on end.

Black baptist churches? It's hellfire and damnation, publicly. Very very very not okay.

[RaspberrySurprise]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the vote being challenged, for the most part, on procedural grounds? The contention being that since it takes away a "right" from a group of people that it constitutes a revision of the State Constitution and not merely an amendment with the former requiring more than a simple majority. Part of me predicts that there will be very little discussion of procedure by either one or both sides and a lot of screaming "that ain't right" by one or both sides.

Personally I believe that the government shouldn't be in the marriage business in the first place. Part of which being that whole contract between consenting adults bit, and part of it being that the State gains no benefit from people being married that it cannot as easily gain from the same people sans marriage.

[longeyes]

From what I've read Prop. 8 carried because of heavy support from blacks and Latinos.  Some would call this a pro-family vote, but personally I find that a bit ironic, given the significant "family issues" to be found in those two sub-groups.

Maybe the NRA would be smart to court the homosexual minority on individual rights matters?

If conservatives are going to save Western Civilization maybe they should figure out which part of Western Civilization they are most interested in saving.

[Manedwolf]

From what I've read Prop. 8 carried because of heavy support from blacks and Latinos.  Some would call this a pro-family vote, but personally I find that a bit ironic, given the significant "family issues" to be found in those two sub-groups.

...Racist much?

Funny, I've seen entire extended black families in their absolute Sunday best in restaurants after church. But it's okay to generalize entire races based on a cultural group found in inner cities, right?

And really, how is that statement even relevant to the matter at hand? Seems like it was just a pointless snipe at blacks and Latinos. I find that disturbing, to be honest.

[longeyes]

No, it wasn't racist, but racial and ethnic groups were brought up.  By YOU, sir, Manedwolf.

The opposition to homosexual rights by certain groups should not be lauded as if this is some kind of enlightened position, just to be politically correct.

There are many people in those two groups, as well as in OTHERS, who want to hide atavistic bigotry behind some kind of pro-family position.

And I resent your charge that I am being racist in pointing out what is a sociological given.

If you understand my position in this and other threads it is this: our Constitution protects individual rights, not family rights.

[Manedwolf]

I brought up those groups because the demographics of those groups in California, particularly blacks around the major cities, tend to be conservatively religious and against homosexuality. Mexicans, the primary Latino demographic in CA, are also typically conservatively religious.

That is not a bad thing. They would just be more likely to vote for the proposition, due to beliefs.

But to say:

From what I've read Prop. 8 carried because of heavy support from blacks and Latinos.  Some would call this a pro-family vote, but personally I find that a bit ironic, given the significant "family issues" to be found in those two sub-groups.

[/size]

That is a slap at blacks and Latinos, and I'm not sure what the point was.

[longeyes]

It was a slap at anti-homosexual bigotry.

"Conservatively religious" is a stretch; I wouldn't call these attitudes religious at all, just visceral opposition, a form of gut-driven intolerance, and, more often than not, entwined with "machismo."

I do not believe that Latinos and African-Americans are more "family-oriented," whatever that may mean, than other groups.  Do you?  I think THAT is a stereotype.   

If you want a nation built on DNA bonds, you can have it.  I favor something else.

[Jamisjockey]

Play nice children.