The battle over gay marriage in California and California Proposition 8 which was passed by California voters last November is coming to an end in the California Supreme Court.
The state Supreme Court will hear arguments March 5 on the validity of California’s ban on same-sex marriage, which voters approved in November after an emotionally charged and expensive campaign.
The court said Tuesday that it would hold a three-hour hearing on Proposition 8, from 9 a.m. to noon, at its chambers in San Francisco . The proceedings will also be televised statewide on the California Channel, the court said. A ruling is due within 90 days of the hearing.
Prop. 8 amended the state Constitution to declare that marriage only between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. It overturned the court’s May 15 ruling throwing out state laws that banned same-sex marriage.
Along with arguments over the constitutionality of Prop. 8, the court will hear views on whether 18,000 same-sex marriages performed in California before the November election should remain legally recognized if the ballot measure is upheld.
A ruling, therefore, on the constituionality of California Proposition 8 that restored the traditional definition of marriage (one man and one woman) will be made by June 5, 2009.
Flap predicts that court will uphold the decision of California voters and hold Proposition 8 constitutional.
Then, gay marriage proponents will have to decide whether they want to circulate an initiative for the June 2010 or November 2010 ballot to overturn Proposition 8.
All of the legal filings before the California Supreme Court are here.
California Proposition 8 – The Musical – A star studded video against Prop 8
Variety reports the fundraising efforts for the gay marriage promoting folks. Since it is unlikely that the California Supreme Court will overturn the vote of California voters which with Proposition 8 re-established the traditional definition of marriage (one man and one woman) homosexual marriage activists are obviously gearing up for another electoral battle – perhaps in 2010.
Marc Shaimanâ€™s online tuner â€œProp 8 — The Musicalâ€ gets a Broadway bow next month as part of â€œDefying Inequality: The Broadway Concert.â€
One-night-only benefit will feature perfs by â€œHairsprayâ€ composer Shaiman, â€œWickedâ€ composer Stephen Schwartz, playwright Douglas Carter Beane and thesps Harvey Fierstein, Lynda Carter, John Gallagher Jr., Jonathan Groff, Cheyenne Jackson, Adriane Lenox and Rue McClanahan, among others. Also on the bill are the casts of Rialto tuners including â€œJersey Boys,â€ â€œThe Lion Kingâ€ and â€œWicked.â€
Concert will be helmed by Schele Williams and Anthony Galde and produced by 4Good Prods.
Event benefits equal-rights orgs Family Equality Council, Empire State Pride Agenda, Equality California, Garden State Equality and the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force.
Show will play Feb. 23 at the Gershwin Theater, currently home to â€œWicked.â€
Flap supposes the “industry” will turn out or be compelled to turn out and they will raise some money for the Prop. 8 redux. But, the skit falls flat and is full of demeaning/ridiculing Christian lies that will appear in the TV ads during their next campaign to legalize gay marriage.
Good luck with their production and who will be taking OPPO video for the Yes on 8 folks?
Courage Campaignâ€™s television ad: â€œHome Invasionâ€: Vote NO on Prop 8
Oh the tolerance of the Hollywood LEFT. Remember the anti-Mormon video released by the Homosexual Courage Campaign during the California Proposition 8 campaign? It is above.
Tom Hanks is the latest Hollywood ass-clown anti- Mormon bigot to open his mouth supporting gay marriage in California. But, calling California Proposition 8 supporters (Prop. 8 restored the traditional definition of marriage – one man and one woman – to the California Constitution Last November) “anti-American” is over the top.
Tom Hanks, Executive Producer for HBOâ€™s controversial polygamist series â€œBig Love,â€ made his feelings toward the Mormon Churchâ€™s involvement in California’s Prop 8 (which prohibits gay marriage) very clear at the showâ€™s premiere party on Wednesday night.
â€œThe truth is this takes place in Utah, the truth is these people are some bizarre offshoot of the Mormon Church, and the truth is a lot of Mormons gave a lot of money to the church to make Prop-8 happen,â€ he told Tarts. â€œThere are a lot of people who feel that is un-American and I am one of them. I do not like to see any discrimination codified on any piece of paper, any of the 50 states in America, but here’s what happens now. A little bit of light can be shed and people can see who’s responsible and that can motivate the next go around of our self correcting constitution and hopefully we can move forward instead of backwards. So lets have faith in not only the American, but Californian constitutional process.â€
Flap will now wait for Tom Hank’s portrayal of all of the homosexual Catholic priests who have been sexually abusing children for decades.
Think it will happen?
Today supporters of California Proposition 8 that restored the traditional definition of marriage (one man and one woman) to the California constitution filed a federal lawsuit which challenges the constitutionality of California’s campaign finance laws.
Acting on behalf of hundreds of supporters of Proposition 8 who have experienced various acts of harassment including death threats at the hands of opponents, the ProtectMarriage.com â€“ Yes on 8 committee today filed a challenge in US federal court to the constitutionality of Californiaâ€™s campaign finance laws that compel disclosure of personal information of Prop 8 donors.
â€œThere has been a systematic attempt to intimidate, threaten and harass donors to the Proposition 8 campaign,â€ said Ron Prentice, Chairman of ProtectMarriage.com. â€œThis harassment is made possible because of Californiaâ€™s unconstitutional campaign finance disclosure rules as applied to ballot measure committees where even donors of as little as $100 must have their names, home addresses and employers listed on public documents. These disclosure rules violate the US constitution in numerous ways. We are standing up for our contributors to ensure that the harassment stops.â€
This suit will test the rights of an individual’s freedom of speech versus the compelling state interest in assuring disclosure of campaign contributions to avoid corruption of the political process. the suit alleges the California Political Reform Act is unconstituional for a number of reasons:
- The right of contributors to exercise their First Amendment rights free from threats, harassment and reprisals outweighs the stateâ€™s interest in compelled disclosure;
- The Actâ€™s requirements that committees report all contributors of $100 or more is unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the First Amendment because it is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.
- The Actâ€™s requirement for ballot measure committees to file any reports after the election is unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.
- The Act is unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it does not contain a mechanism for purging all reports related to a ballot measure after the election has occurred.
If anything the $100 contribution level for disclosure appears to be inordintely low for this day and age. But, will the federal appellate courts tinker with a California Legislature’s limit or throw out the entire process in an internet era which makes “chilling” free speech easier?
Ultimately, the United States Supreme Court will weigh into these issues.
California Proposition 8 supporters yesterday filed legal briefs in the ongoing battle in the California Supreme Court over the constitutionality of California Proposition 8 that restored the traditional definition of marriage (one man and one woman) by California Constitutional Amendment last November.
Gay-marriage opponents filed legal briefs Monday accusing California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown of having “invented an entirely new theory,” one that “fails at every level,” in his quest to find a reason to invalidate Proposition 8, which passed with 52% of the vote in November.
“The people have the final word on what the California Constitution says,” lawyers for the Protect Marriage Coalition wrote. “The practical result of the attorney general’s theory is that the people can never amend the Constitution to overrule judicial interpretations of inalienable rights.”
The filing, which was co-written by Whitewater prosecutor and Pepperdine Law School Dean Kenneth Starr, came in response to a brief filed two weeks ago by the attorney general in which Brown surprised legal experts with a novel theory to argue that Proposition 8 should be invalidated.
Brown’s theory, Starr wrote, is “utterly without foundation in this court’s case law” and “is not only unprecedented but contradicts the most basic understanding of the role of the judiciary in a constitutional democracy.”
The attorney general has a legal duty to uphold state laws, and Brown, though he personally supports same-sex marriage, had pledged to defend Proposition 8 after gay-rights activists and California cities filed lawsuits challenging it the day after the election.
But in a move that outraged supporters of Proposition 8 and took even gay-rights activists by surprise, Brown’s brief instead urged the court to toss the proposition, declaring that “the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification.” Brown argued that the California Constitution protects the right to marry as inalienable.
Legal experts said Starr and the Protect Marriage coalition had made a strong counter-argument in their filing Monday.
Santa Clara University Law professor Gerald Uelmen, an expert on the state high court, said it “hits the nail on the head.”
“If you think of the Constitution as a compact between the people and those who govern us, to say the people have no power to amend a court’s ruling simply because the court . . . says this is an inalienable right — I think that is pretty far out.”
All of the legal filings before the California Supreme Court are here.
The Protect Marriage Coalition legal brief in response to California Attorney General Jerry Brown’s brief is here (PDF).
The California Supreme Court will likely hear oral arguments in March and render a ruling sometime this late spring or early summer.
Jerry Brown, Kenneth Starr and California Proposition 8
Kenneth W. Starr, the former U.S. Solicitor General and Pepperdine School of Law Dean who led the inquiry into President Bill Clintonâ€™s affair with Monica L. Lewinsky, will argue the case in favor of upholding a ban on gay marriage before the California Supreme CourtSo, who would you rather have supporting your cause before the California Supreme Court, Dean Kenneth Starr or California Attorney General Jerry Brown? -especially when the cause is the legality of gay marriage.
Brown who had not practiced law for over a decade before he won an election as California Attorney General has postulated a weird legal theory (in his brief before the court) as to why the California Supreme Court should overturn the vote of the California people restoring the traditional definition of marriage (one man one one woman).
Nonetheless, the attorney general’s brief surprised some legal scholars.
Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen, an expert on the state high court, said Brown’s argument “turns constitutional law on its head.” Uelmen said he was unaware of any case law that supported Brown’s theory.
He added that he expected the state Supreme Court to reject the argument. “I think it is much too radical for this court,” he said.
Goodwin Liu, associate dean and professor of law at UC Berkeley’s Boalt Hall School of Law, said it was “extraordinary for the chief law enforcement officer of the state to decline to enforce a law — even on the grounds that it is unconstitutional.”
“The chief law enforcement officer of the state is charged with enforcing laws, even laws with which he disagrees,” Liu said.
“Whether or not it will carry the day,” he added, “I have no idea.”
Under Brown’s legal theory, Flap doubts the California Constitution could ever be amended.
The issue before the court “presents a conflict between the constitutional power of the voters to amend the Constitution, on the one hand, and the Constitution’s Declaration of Rights, on the other,” Brown wrote.
The issue “is whether rights secured under the state Constitution’s safeguard of liberty as an ‘inalienable’ right may intentionally be withdrawn from a class of persons by an initiative amendment.”
Voters are allowed to amend other parts of the Constitution by majority vote, but to use the ballot box to take away an “inalienable” right would establish a “tyranny of the majority,” which the Constitution was designed, in part, to prevent, he wrote.
Just call anyting an “inalienable” right and you can withdraw the people’s right to change the Constitution.
How stupid is this?
If the California Supreme Court rules in favor of this preposterous theory and overturns California Proposition 8 all of the members of the court will either be recalled or thrown ot of office at the next confirmation election.
The Yes on 8 campaign filed a brief telling the court that because the new law holds that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized or valid in California, the state can no longer recognize the existing same-sex unions.
“Proposition 8’s brevity is matched by its clarity. There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions or exclusions,” reads the brief co-written by Kenneth Starr, dean of Pepperdine University’s law school and the former independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton.
Stay tuned as reply briefs are filed with the court by January 5th.
Exit answer: Kenneth Starr
“New Evangelical” leader Rick Warren comes out forcefully in support of California’s anti-gay marriage amendment.
Barack Obama has chosen the founder and senior Pastor at California’s Saddleback Church, Pro-Life, conservative Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration. Warren is nationally acclaimed pastor and author of the New York Times bestselling â€œThe Purpose Driven Life.” He previously announced his support in favor of Proposition 8, Californiaâ€™s Protect Marriage Act that passed in November and restored the traditional definition of marriage (one man and one woman).
â€œFor 5,000 years, every culture and every religion – not just Christianity – has defined marriage as a contract between men and women,â€ Warren wrote. â€œThere is no reason to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2% of our population.â€
The Human Rights Campaign and gay and lesbian activists are up in arms over the Obama transition teamâ€™s announcement that the Reverend Rick Warren has been selected to deliver the invocation at his inauguration in January.
The HRC sent a letter to president elect Barack Obama Wednesday expressing their disappointment in the selection of Warren.â€œOur loss in California over the passage of Proposition 8 which stripped loving, committed same-sex couples of their given legal right to marry is the greatest loss our community has faced in 40 years,â€ the letter reads. â€œAnd by inviting Rick Warren to your inauguration, you have tarnished the view that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans have a place at your table.â€
Early in his campaign, Obama ran up against criticism from LGBT Americans for his inclusion of antigay political figures in his faith tour and on campaign stops. â€œReformed gayâ€ gospel singer Donnie McClurkin performed at an early event for Obama, drawing jeers from LGBT activists.
McClurkin has long claimed that God saved him from homosexuality.
Weeks later, the press latched on to Obama’s friendship with antigay minister James Meeks, from whom Obama had long claimed to seek regular “spiritual counsel.” This association led a number of on-the-fence LGBT voters to rally behind Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries.
Dear President-elect Obama,
Let me get right to the point. Your invitation to Reverend Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at your inauguration is a genuine blow to LGBT Americans. Our loss in California over the passage of Proposition 8 which stripped loving, committed same-sex couples of their given legal right to marry is the greatest loss our community has faced in 40 years. And by inviting Rick Warren to your inauguration, you have tarnished the view that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans have a place at your table.
Rick Warren has not sat on the sidelines in the fight for basic equality and fairness. In fact, Rev. Warren spoke out vocally in support of Prop 8 in California saying, “there is no need to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2 percent of our population … This is not a political issue — it is a moral issue that God has spoken clearly about.” Furthermore, he continues to misrepresent marriage equality as silencing his religious views. This was a lie during the battle over Proposition 8, and it’s a lie today.
Rev. Warren cannot name a single theological issue that he and vehemently, anti-gay theologian James Dobson disagree on. Rev. Warren is not a moderate pastor who is trying to bring all sides together. Instead, Rev. Warren has often played the role of general in the cultural war waged against LGBT Americans, many of whom also share a strong tradition of religion and faith.
We have been moved by your calls to religious leaders to own up to the homophobia and racism that has stood in the way of combating HIV and AIDS in this country. And that you have publicly called on religious leaders to open their hearts to their LGBT family members, neighbors and friends.
But in this case, we feel a deep level of disrespect when one of architects and promoters of an anti-gay agenda is given the prominence and the pulpit of your historic nomination. Only when Rev. Warren and others support basic legislative protections for LGBT Americans can we believe their claim that they are not four-square against our rights and dignity. In that light, we urge you to reconsider this announcement.
Human Rights Campaign
Flap understands why the homosexual LEFT is upset.
Obama did name seven openly homosexual folks to his transition team but he has placed the issue of “gays in the military” on the backburner.
And, California African-American voters voted overwhelmingly in favor of California Proposition 8.
Now, Obama selects an anti-gay marriage Pastor to participate in the inauguration ceremony. It would be like President George W. Bush asking Barbara Streisand to speak at an RNC fundraising dinner.
But, Obama wants to be an inclusive President and irrespective of the homosexual community his voter base approves.
Exit questions: Will the radical gay marriage protesters that have marched against Mormon Churches, protested in front of Rick Warren’s church, harassed businesses and indviduals that supported Proposition 8, boycott or protest at Obama’s inauguration? Will they dare?
Video of the El Coyote Restaurant protest aftermath of California Proposition 8
The Los Angeles Times had a column yesterday by Steve Lopez that documents the turmoil of a gay marriage opponent.
Well, Christoffersen was a manager at El Coyote, the Beverly Boulevard landmark restaurant that’s always had throngs of customers waiting to get inside. Many of them were gay, and Christoffersen, a devout Mormon, donated $100 in support of Proposition 8, the successful November ballot initiative that banned gay marriage.
She never advertised her politics or religion in the restaurant, but last month her donation showed up on lists of “for” and “against” donors. And El Coyote became a target.
A boycott was organized on the Internet, with activists trashing El Coyote on restaurant review sites. Then came throngs of protesters, some of them shouting “shame on you” at customers. The police arrived in riot gear one night to quell the angry mob.
The mob left, but so did the customers.
Sections of the restaurant have been closed, a manager told me Friday during a very quiet lunch hour. Some of the 89 employees, many of them gay, have had their hours cut, and layoffs are looming. And Christoffersen, who has taken a voluntary leave of absence, is wondering whether she’ll ever again be able to work at the restaurant, which opened in 1931 (at 1st and La Brea) and is owned by her 92-year-old mother.
OH those tolerant folks from the radical Homosexual Lobby – winning hearts and minds.
Intimidtion really works, now doesn’t it?
A daylong work stoppage for which people were encouraged to call in “gay” to express support for same-sex marriage drew spotty participation Wednesday, with some gay rights activists praising the event and others questioning its value.
People who opted to take the day off from their jobs as part of the national “Day Without a Gay” were encouraged to perform community service, and charitable organizations across the country said they had volunteers showing up.
David Lang, 44, a San Francisco gymnastics coach who said he conceived of a similar idea right after the election, said he thinks a coordinated job action would have been more successful if organizers had enlisted support from sympathetic employers, labor groups and industries.
“If we are going to make a huge impact and not be laughed at, then we have to take the time and make the time to communicate with all the parties. We could have shut down a lot of the hotels,” Lang said. “In theory it’s a great idea, but it’s being done wrong and now that it’s been done wrong, I don’t think it will be done again.”
These type of confrontational protests won’t be done again because there is NO support for them. Gay Marriage is not a burning issue for most California voters and the homosexual lobby is doing a great job of pissing off people they wish to persuade to support them.
Don’t think this protest over the passage last month of California’s Proposition 8 which restored the traditional definition of marriage (one man and one woman) will have any legs or many protesters.
More symbolism over substance because even some homosexuals do NOT agree with the idea that homosexual rights necessarily spills over to gay marriage.
The homosexual community is already backing away from the protest before it even starts.
As for the broader call of boycotts, Prop. 8 opponents say success or failure can’t be measured by numbers.
“It’s organic, it’s visceral, it’s grass roots and net roots,” said State Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, who spoke at the November rally at City Hall. “People are reacting in a very natural way to having their rights taken away by an unconstitutional proposition.”
Leno’s schedule Wednesday starts with a budget subcommittee on health and human service issues. “Though I’m respectful of the day,” Leno said, legislative work comes first.
A FLOP waiting to happen because there is NO support.