-
OUTED: A California Democrat Assemblywoman Who SUPPORTED Proposition 8 – Wilmer Amina Carter
And, the Democrat Assemblywoman from the Inland Empire of California did not sign a friend of the court brief urging the California Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8 either.Carter, in a recent interview, said she voted for Prop. 8 and disagrees with her colleagues’ actions.
Assemblywoman Wilmer Amina Carter, D-Rialto
Many of her constituents also supported the initiative, she said.
“It primarily stems from my constituents but also from deep religious convictions,” Carter said. “Since I represent my district, I didn’t sign on to it.”
Flap wonders if the Rialto Democrat Assemblywoman will be the subject of protests by the opponents of Proposition 8 – supporters of gay marriage?
Will homosexual activists target Carter in the Democrat primary election in two years?
Stay tuned….
Technorati Tags: California Proposition 8, Wilmer Amina Carter, Gay Marriage
-
California Gay Marriage Proponents Organize Boycott Against San Diego Storage Company Over Proposition 8 Donations
Californians Against Hate Web Ad: Terry Caster and his family gave $693,000 to take away the rights of same sex couples to get married.Californians Against Hate have launched yet another boycott against a California business whose owners donated to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign.
A San Diego nonprofit known for organizing protests against Proposition 8 supporters is calling for a boycott against a San Diego-based storage company.
Californians Against Hate has launched a statewide “virtual boycott” of A-1 Self Storage, owned by Terry Caster, who gave nearly $700,000 to support the gay-marriage ban that prevailed at the polls Nov. 4.
Fred Karger, head of Californians Against Hate, said the boycott is virtual because it will be promoted through blogs and social and business networking sites. His group organized a boycott against the downtown Manchester Grand Hyatt, owned by Proposition 8 supporter Doug Manchester, and a phone campaign against A-1 Self Storage.
More harassment and intimidation from the homosexual community as they prepare for a repeat election to overturn the gay marriage ban voted into law on November 4th.
It is likely that California Proposition 8 will not be overturned on state constituional grounds and gay marriage supporters wish to discourage donors to the 2010 effort to reinstitute gay marriage.
What better way then to publicly shame and financially hurt the businesses?
Polling is unclear whether Proposition 8 protests are effective in helping their cause. These types of boycotts also risk a voter backlash and portray gay marriage supporters as “sore loser” bullies.
Stay tuned…..
Previous:
Poll: 3 of 5 in California Say Gay Marriages Before Proposition 8 Should Remain Legal?
-
Does California Supreme Court Justice Joyce Kennard’s Vote Yesterday a Good Sign for Proposition 8?
California Supreme Court Justices, from top left, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, Carlos R. Moreno, Joyce L. Kennard, Marvin Baxter and from lower left, Ming Chin, Chief Justice Ronald M. George and Carol Corrigan
In yesterday’s post about the California Supreme Court accepting California’s Proposition 8 that restored the traditional definition of marriage (one man and one woman) to the California Constitution for review, Flap briefly mentioned the fact that Justice Kennard did NOT sign the order.Justice Kennard would deny these petitions without prejudice to the filing in this court of an appropriate action to determine Proposition 8’s effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before Proposition 8’s adoption.
Justice Kennard, in fact, voted against reviewing the constitutionality of Proposition 8.
Why?While both sides cheered the court’s decision to take up the cases, Kennard’s lone vote to deny review could spell trouble for opponents of Prop. 8.
Kennard is the court’s longest-serving justice, having been appointed in 1989, and has been one of its foremost supporters of same-sex couples’ rights. Without her vote, the May 15 ruling would have gone the other way. But she wrote Wednesday that she would favor hearing arguments only about whether Prop. 8 would invalidate the pre-election marriages, an issue that would arise only if the initiative were upheld.
“It’s always hard to read tea leaves, but I think Justice Kennard is saying that she thinks the constitutionality of Prop. 8 is so clear that it doesn’t warrant review,” said Stephen Barnett, a retired UC Berkeley law professor and longtime observer of the court.
For those seeking to overturn Prop. 8, “I would not think it would be encouraging,” said Dennis Maio, a San Francisco lawyer and former staff attorney at the court.
Flap thinks the court ultimately will support California’s voters and uphold the constitutionality of Proposition 8. Flap predicts a 6-1 vote with Justice Moreno dissenting.
Justice Kennard has sent a message to her fellow Justices yesterday that she plans to uphold Prop. 8.
Or did she?
Stay tuned……
Technorati Tags: Joyce Kennard, California Supreme Court, California Proposition 8
-
Poll: 3 of 5 in California Say Gay Marriages Before Proposition 8 Should Remain Legal?
Newlyweds Sharon Papo (L) and Amber Weiss toast each other outside of San Francisco City Hall after exchanging wedding vows on the first full day of legal same-sex marriages in California on June 17, 2008The Survey USA poll of 500 Californians conducted November 19, 2008:
The Question: What should happen to gay couples who were legally married in California before the law changed? Should their marriage remain legal? Should their marriage be immediately annulled? Or, do you not know enough to say?
- 59% Remain Legal
- 34% Immediately Annulled
- 6% Do Not Know Enough
- 1% Not Sure
However, look at the cross-tabs of the poll and particularly the sample (which is small) of minority voters (majority of African-American and Latino voters opposed Proposition 8 whereas in the California election approved the measure) – Question 3 and page 2 of the Pdf.
This poll with an error margin of +/- 4.5% may be an outlier.
An earlier poll, however, conducted in San Diego on November 14, 2008 leads to similar results:
- 56% Remain Legal
- 37% Immediately Annulled
- 6% Do Not Know Enough
- 1% Not Sure
Regardless, the California Supreme Court will likely decide the issue sometime early next year since the disposition of these marriages should Proposition 8 be found constituional is at issue: “If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?”
What are the options before the court?
UCLA Law School Professor Eugene Volokh outlines:
- One option is that they may remain valid, whether because the initiative is construed as not applying to existing marriages, or because the courts conclude such an interpretation is constitutionally mandated by the Contracts Clause (“No state shall … pass any … Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts ….”).
- Another is that pre-initiative same-sex marriages will become domestic partnerships, which under California statutes give most of the rights of marriage.
- A third option is that same-sex marriages will be eliminated altogether, and that married couples will remain domestic partners only if they had entered both into a marriage and into a domestic partnership.
- Finally, it’s possible that the legislature will step in, specifically providing that any invalidated same-sex marriage will become a domestic partnership.
Flap bets 3 or 4 of the above should Propositon 8 be ruled consitutional – which I think it will. The new California Legislature is set to meet the first week of December and watch to see if such legisation is introduced.
Of course, the anti-proposition 8 folks could circulate an initiative, but it would leave the same sex married couples hanging until June 2010. Flap’s guess is that they would wait a ruling by the California Supreme Court due sometime late Spring or early summer next year before any such action.
Stay tuned…..
Technorati Tags: California Proposition 8, Gay Marriage
-
California Proposition 8 Proponents “Profoundly Gratified” in California Supreme Court Rulings
Protect Marriage.ComAnd, the proponents are confident that Proposition 8 wll be upheld.The official proponents of Proposition 8 and ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8, the campaign committee responsible for its enactment by voters today said it is “profoundly gratified†that the California Supreme Court granted all their requests by agreeing to accept original jurisdiction of three cases challenging the measure’s validity, granted their request to intervene in the cases as Real Parties in Interest, denied the request of others to delay implementation of Proposition 8, and refused to allow outside groups to directly participate in the litigation.
Flap can count as well. Three California Supreme Court Justices that opposed gay marriage plus Justice Kennard (who refused to sign the order and voted to deny the petitions) equals four votes upholding the Proposition and the traditional definition of marriage.
Flap bets the final vote will be 6-1 with Moreno dissenting to uphold Proposition 8 simply because a MORON would have to rule this is a revision of the Constitution and not an amendment.
Stay tuned as the briefs are prepared.
Technorati Tags: California Supreme Court, California Proposition 8, Gay Marriage
-
California Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Proposition 8 But Denies Stay in Gay Marriage Ban
The California Supreme Court agreed to decide today the legality of California’s Proposition 8 that restored the traditional definition of marriage (one man and one woman) to the California Constitution.At the urging of both sponsors and opponents of Proposition 8, the justices granted review of lawsuits challenging the Nov. 4 initiative. Approved by 52 percent of the voters, Prop. 8 restored the definition of marriage – a union of a man and a woman – that the court had overturned May 15.
In today’s order, the justices let Prop. 8 remain in effect, denying a stay that would have allowed county clerks to resume issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples until the case was decided. No hearing has been scheduled.
But, a stay was DENIED, meaning gay marriage in California remains banned.
The order is here. (Pdf)In other items of interest in the order:
- The motions to intervene in the cases by Proposition 8 Official Proponents et. al. are GRANTED.
- Briefs are due on or before December 19, 2008. Replies by January 5, 2009.
- The issues to be argued and briefed:
- Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to the California Constitution? (see Cal. Const.,art.XVIII, §§ 1-4.)
- Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution?
- If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?
- Amicus curiae brief application and brief are due on or before January 15, 2009. Reply to amicus curae brief is due January 21, 2009.
- Justice Moreno joins the order but voted to stay proposition 8.
- Justice Kennard would deny these petitions without prejudice to the filing in this court of an appropriate action to determine Proposition 8’s effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before Proposition 8’s adoption.
California Supreme Court Justices, from top left, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, Carlos R. Moreno, Joyce L. Kennard, Marvin Baxter and from lower left, Ming Chin, Chief Justice Ronald M. George and Carol Corrigan
Justices supporting the overturn of the original gay marriage ban are:- Chief Justice Ronald George
- Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar
- Justice Joyce L. Kennard
- Justice Carlos R. Moreno
Chief Justice George and Justice Moreno stand for reconfirmation to another twelve year term of office in November 2010.
Justices dissenting from the original decision to end the gay marriage ban are:
- Justice Marvin Baxter
- Justice Carol Corrigan
- Justice Ming Chin
The original May 2008 decision which California Propsoition 8 overturned by Constitutional amendment is here.(Pdf)
Stay tuned…..
Technorati Tags: California Supreme Court, Gay Marriage, California Proposition 8
-
California Supreme Court Challenge Filings for Proposition 8 – The Links
The California Supreme Court legal challenge to Proposition 8The links:
S168047
KAREN L. STRAUSS, et al., Petitioners v. MARK B. HORTON, et al.- Immediate Stay Request
- Petitioner’s Exhibits
- Petitioner’s Motion for Judicial Notice
- Amended Petition
- Motion to Intervene
- Motion to Intervene by Official Proponents
- Official Proponents Opposition to Motion by Campaign
- Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion to Intervene
- Request for Judicial Notice
- Preliminary Opposition
- Preliminary Response from the Attorney General
- Letters submitted in support of petition:
The Bar Association of San Francisco et al.
Forty-Four Members of the State Legislature
Anti-Defamation League et al.
Beverly Hills Bar Association et al.
Los Angeles County Bar Association
Sacramento Lawyers for Equality of Gays and Lesbians et al.
Manning & Marder, Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez
Constitutional Law Center (Monterey College of Law)
Hastings College of the Law
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein
Richards, Watson, & Gershon
The Ecumenical Catholic Church
Donna M. Ryu (Hastings College of the Law) - Letters requesting denial of petition and request for stay:
The Pacific Justice Institute
Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence (Chapman University Law)
Steven Meiers
Kingdom of Heaven
American Center for Law and Justice
S168066
ROBIN TYLER, et al., Petitioners v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.- Immediate Stay Request
- Amended Petition
- Motion to Intervene
- Motion to Intervene by Official Proponents
- Official Proponents Opposition to Motion by Campaign
- Preliminary Opposition
- Preliminary Response from the Attorney General
- Debra Bowen’s Preliminary Response
- Letter from counsel for petitioners in response to letter submitted by Pacific Justice League
- Letters submitted in support of petition:
Beverly Hills Bar Association et al.
Los Angeles County Bar Association
Sacramento Lawyers for Equality of Gays and Lesbians et al.
Manning & Marder, Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez
Constitutional Law Center (Monterey College of Law) - Letters requesting denial of petition and request for stay:
The Pacific Justice Institute
Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence (Chapman University Law)
American Center for Law and Justice
S168078
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al. Petitioners v. MARK B. HORTON, et al.- Petition for Writ of Mandate
- Amended Petition
- Motion to Intervene
- Motion to Intervene by Official Proponents
- Official Proponents Opposition to Motion by Campaign
- Judicial Notice
- Preliminary Opposition
- Preliminary Response from the Attorney General
- Letters submitted in support of petition:
Beverly Hills Bar Association et al.
Los Angeles County Bar Association
Sacramento Lawyers for Equality of Gays and Lesbians et al.
Manning & Marder, Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez
Constitutional Law Center (Monterey College of Law) - Letters requesting denial of petition and request for stay:
The Pacific Justice Institute
Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence (Chapman University Law)
American Center for Law and Justice
S168281
ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN LEGAL CENTER, et al., Petitioners v. MARK B. HORTON, et al.- Petition for Writ of Mandate
- Motion to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice
- Motion by Campaign to Intervene
- Letter submitted in support of petition:
Sacramento Lawyers for Equality of Gays and Lesbians et al.
S168302
EQUAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES AND CALIFORNIA WOMEN’S LAW CENTER, Petitioners v. MARK B. HORTON, et al.
S168332
CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF CHURCHES, et al., Petitioners v. MARK B. HORTON, et al.Flap will update as the cases proceed.
Technorati Tags: California Proposition 8, Gay Marriage
-
California Proposition 8 Sparks Gay-Black Divide?
Wanda Sykes Comes Out at The Gay & Lesbian Center of Southern Nevada’s Stand OUT for EQUALITY rally Nov. 15, 2008ABC News exit polls found that blacks voted in support of Prop 8 and to ban gay marriage by heavier margins than other ethnic groups. The exit polls indicated that 70 percent of black voters supported Prop 8, while 49 percent of whites and Asian Americans voted for it and 53 percent of Latinos supported the ban.
Some charged that socially conservative blacks were responsible for the demise of gay marriage. Others said that largely white gay advocacy groups didn’t do enough to persuade them.
And many blacks say that gay groups — in six legal challenges — have unjustly labeled their cause a civil rights issue.
The debate will rage on……
Technorati Tags: Gay Marriage, California Propsition 8
-
Gay Marriage Proponents Boycotting Lassen’s Natural Foods & Vitamins Over Proposition 8?
Lassen’s Natural Foods & Vitamins – Over 30 years in business serving California with the finest natural foods and supplements available.
Are gay marriage proponents boycotting Lassen’s Natural Foods & Vitamins because its Mormon owner contributed to the Yes on California Proposition 8 campaign that restored the definition of traditional marriage to the California Constitution?Although Ventura County’s largest gay and lesbian organization has not organized a protest against the store, some activists have independently targeted it. Handmade signs calling for people to boycott Lassen’s were on display at a rally of some 600 people Saturday in downtown Ventura, and a small group protested Sunday outside the Lassen’s store in Thousand Oaks.
Gay activists say the backlash against Lassen’s and other businesses that financially supported Proposition 8 is likely to intensify, fueled by text messages, e-mails and calls for action on Web sites such as Facebook and MySpace.
“There is definitely a movement to educate people,” said J.J. Wilner of Ventura, who criticized the owner of the Lassen’s store in Ventura forpromoting a position that he said conflicts with the egalitarian beliefs of many customers.
“People have always seen Lassen’s as progressive and forward-thinking,” said Wilner, co-founder of Community Organized for Liberty, Opportunity and Respect, or COLOR, a gay-straight alliance. “I know a lot of customers — gay and straight — who felt blindsided.”
State campaign finance records show the Ventura store contributed separate checks of $25,000 and $2,500 to Proposition 8. The Lassen’s in Camarillo also contributed $3,000 to the proposition, and the store in Simi Valley $1,000. Election law allows business owners to contribute as much as they want to ballot initiatives.
Next, will likely be the extortion request for business donations to overturn Proposition 8 that was passed on November 4th by over half a million votes. Sound familiar?
Looking at the demographics of the Lassen’s stores, Flap doubts any reduction in business will occur in the majority of their stores. Thousand Oaks, Simi Valley and Bakersfield are not bastions of support for left-wing thought or protest (Ventura and Kerns Counties overwhelmingly supported Proposition 8). And, Lassen’s has been doing business for many years in left-leaning bastions of Ventura and Santa Barbara.
Most customers will have this philosophy:
In the parking lot outside the Ventura store recently, longtime customer Christine Burke said she voted against Proposition 8 and was disappointed to learn of Lassen’s support, but it wouldn’t change her shopping habits. “I believe he has the right to believe in what he believes in,” she said. “It’s a complex issue.”
Shopper Chris Hoover, a Ventura contractor, agreed. “I don’t support his point of view,” he said, “but I think he has a right to it.”
And, the next time Flap gets his haircut, instead of moaning about the lack of parking because of all of the Lassen’s shoppers in the lot, he will instead go into the store and buy something.
Just because………
Lassen’s Health Food in Goleta, California
Technorati Tags: Lassen’s Natural Food & Vitamins, California Proposition 8, Gay Marriage
-
The Crocodile in the Bathtub for the California Supreme Court – Proposition 8
Yes on California Proposition 8 Television Ad featuring California Supreme Court – “Whether You Like it Or Not”“It is a time of lots of crocodiles in the bathtub,†said Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen, who has followed the court for decades. “Their oath requires them to ignore these kinds of political threats. But the threat of having to face a contested election is a significant one.â€
Uelmen used a metaphor coined by California Supreme Court Justice Otto Kaus, a Democrat who served on the court after voters recalled Chief Justice Rose Bird and two other justices who had voted against death sentences.
Kaus later said that, as hard as he tried to decide cases impartially, he was never sure whether the threat of a recall election — “the crocodile in the bathtub†— was influencing his votes.
“It was like finding a crocodile in your bathtub when you go to shave in the morning,†Kaus said. “You know it’s there, and you try not to think about it, but it’s hard to think about much else while you’re shaving.â€
You bet.
Yes on 8 proponents will NOT say it because they do not feel it is in their best interests to attempt to intimidate the California Supreme court but Flap will. Those Justices that vote to overturn Proposition 8 WILL be recalled and stand for election in June 2010 (a primary election where the turnout is lower and decidely more conservative).
Difficult to do, you ask?
No, the million of signatories of the original Proposition 8 petition will be rounded up and the donors will pony up again for the campaign. Flap does not doubt there will be additional California Constitutional amendments restricting the jurisdiction of the California Supreme Court as well.
Stay tuned……
Technorati Tags: California Proposition 8, Gay Marriage