-
California Supreme Court, Carol Corrigan, Gay Marriage, Joyce Kennard, Kenneth Starr, Marvin Baxter, Ronald George
California Supreme Court Appears to Be Ready to Uphold Constitutionality of Proposition 8
Shannon Minter, standing, speaks to the California Supreme Court in San Francisco, Thursday, March 5, 2009 on the constitutionality of the state’s voter-approved Proposition 8 that bans gay unions. The court will decide whether to uphold the same-sex marriage ban and whether same-sex couple marriages will remain valid
Flap watched the oral arguments before the California Supreme Court on the challenge to California Proposition 8 which was approved by California voters last November. Proposition 8 restored the traditional definition of marriage (one man and one woman) in the California Constitution.It is my sense (and others too) that the California Supremes will acquiese to the vote of the people on making traditional marriage (one man and one woman) the law of California since the election. However, the validity of prevous gay marriages (allowed by last year’s California Supreme Court ruling on Proposition 22) may be upheld in some way.
The California Supreme Court appeared ready today to vote to uphold Proposition 8, the November ballot measure that banned gay marriage, but also seemed ready to decide unanimously to recognize existing same-sex marriages.
During a three-hour televised hearing in San Francisco, only two of the court’s seven justices indicated a possible readiness to overturn the initiative. Chief Justice Ronald M. George noted that the court was following a different Constitution when it approved gay marriage last May.
“Today we have a different state Constitution,” he said.
Justice Joyce L. Kennard, who usually votes in favor of gay rights, voted against accepting the revision challenge to Proposition 8 but said she would hear arguments over the validity of existing same-sex marriages.
Kennard said during the hearing that “Prop. 8 did not take away the whole bundle of rights that this court articulated in the marriage case.”
She said that “a very important holding” – giving sexual orientation the same constitutional status as race or gender – was not changed.
“Is it still your view that the sky has fallen and gays and lesbians are left with nothing?” she asked gay rights lawyers?Kennard told them they also had the right to return to voters with their own initiative.
So, how will the vote break down in the court?
Justices supporting the overturn of the original gay marriage ban (May 2008) 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
Flap will stay with his previous opinion:
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.
The decision by the California supreme court is due within 90 days. Want to bet the Court releases its opinion on Friday prior to the Memorial Day weekend?
Technorati Tags: California Supreme Court, Gay Marriage, California Proposition 8
-
California Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments on Proposition 8 Re: Gay Marriage Today
Wesley Gann (R) and his partner Jerry Johnson take part in a rally ahead of the California Supreme Court hearing on Proposition 8 in Los Angeles March 4, 2009. Proposition 8, passed by California voters in November, amends the state constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is recognized in California
Yes, the California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for and against California Proposition 8 that was passed by California voters last November. Proposition 8 restored the traditional definition of marriage in the California Constitution – one man and one woman.All of the legal filings before the California Supreme Court are here.
The proceedings before the Court will be covered live by Flap on Twitter beginning a little before 9 AM Pacific time. Follow Flap on Twitter here or read the right sidebar ————->
Technorati Tags: California Proposition 8, Gay Marriage, California Supreme Court
-
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 Clinton’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
Technorati Tags: California Proposition 8, Jerry Brown, Kenneth Starr, California Supreme Court
-
Recalling the California Supreme Court Over 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
Power Line makes the obvious observation as to the consequences of the California Supreme Court overruling a vote of the people on California Propsition 8 that restored the traditional definition of marriage (one man and one woman).The votes by which the people of California passed Proposition 8, restricting the definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman, had barely been counted when the ACLU filed a lawsuit. That suit, filed directly with the California Supreme Court, claimed that Prop. 8 would change the California Constitution in so fundamental a way — i.e., taking important rights away from a minority group — that it amounts to a constitutional revision. As such, the theory goes, the legislature was required to pass it before submitting the matter to the voters.
This kind of argument seems like meat and drink for California’s liberal Supreme Court. But my friend Craig Harrison tells me that if that court once again tells the voters “to go to hell,” he expects recall petitions to be circulated for the judges in question. This is permitted under the California Constitution if signatures can be obtained from 20% of the number of people who voted in the last election. Given the 2008 turnout, it might make sense to submit the petition following the primaries that will occur next year.
The petition would not just pertain to the merits of Prop 8, but also to the fact that the state’s judges will have thumbed their noses at the popular will. Perhaps those judges will consider this risk when they take up the matter.
Paul and John don’t quite have the timing correct as ANY election would be in June 2010 and there are no primary elections scheduled next year in California.
However, Flap does not think the California Supreme Court will throw out the California voters’ wishes. We received an indication of this the other day by Justice Kennard’s actions.
There is no sense in talking about a recall election of the court unless they go off the deep end again.
But, recalled all they would be in 2010.
Previous:
OUTED: A California Democrat Assemblywoman Who SUPPORTED Proposition 8 – Wilmer Amina Carter
California Gay Marriage Proponents Organize Boycott Against San Diego Storage Company Over Proposition 8 DonationsPoll: 3 of 5 in California Say Gay Marriages Before Proposition 8 Should Remain Legal?
Technorati Tags: California Supreme Court, 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 Chief Justice Ronald M. George Likens Gay Marriage to Civil Rights Battles
The California Supreme Court
This puff piece in the Los Angeles Times in almost enough to make Flap GAG.
But as he read the legal arguments, the 68-year-old moderate Republican was drawn by memory to a long ago trip he made with his European immigrant parents through the American South. There, the signs warning “No Negro” or “No colored” left “quite an indelible impression on me,” he recalled in a wide-ranging interview Friday.
“I think,” he concluded, “there are times when doing the right thing means not playing it safe.”
Yet he described his thinking on the constitutional status of state marriage laws as more of an evolution than an epiphany, the result of his reading and long discussions with staff lawyers.
Talk about legislating from the bench.
Your honor, we don’t care about your “feelings” on the matter. Interpret the law according to the California Constitution.
What does the text of the California Constitution mean?
Flap predicts Chief Justice George will either retire prior to a confirmation election in 2010 or he will be thrown out of office by the wrath of California voters.
Previous:
California Gay Marriage Ruling Fuels Political Battle
California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban – The Response
California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban
-
California Gay Marriage Ruling Fuels Political Battle
Thursday’s ruling by the California Supreme Court overturning a ban on gay marriage previously passed by a vote of the California electorate has fueled a political firestorm.
Just hours after the California Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, Mathew D. Staver was already raising money to overturn the decision.
Mr. Staver, the founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, a Florida group that defends traditional marriage, flew to Dallas on Thursday night for a late dinner meeting with a fund-raiser. The topic was how to finance a campaign for the California Marriage Protection Act, a November ballot initiative that would amend the state Constitution and effectively undo the court’s decision.
“I flew to Dallas to discuss this specific issue,†said Mr. Staver, who had several trips on similar business planned in the coming week. “And we talked until the early morning hours.â€
Such late-night strategy sessions will probably become common as those on both sides of the same-sex marriage issue start what they anticipate to be a protracted and expensive battle.
The Evangelical Right from across the United States will help fund the campaign and the Christian churches will turn out their members to vote in record numbers.
Look for Hispanic voters to turn out to vote for the California Initiative and Consitutional Amendment 07-0098 as the Catholic Church weighs into the political fray. At the same time, they will cast their Presidential ballots for John McCain or against African-American Barack Obama.
An expensive social issue campaign will excite the electorate and drive the turn-out of massive numbers of the RIGHT voters.
The moribund California GOP must be licking their chops at the prospects.
Previous:
California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban – The Response
California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban
-
California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban – The Response
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
With today’s California Supreme Court ruling overturning a ban on gay marriage, the reaction and response has been swift and pointed.
From the Left:
Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles
We are delighted with today’s State Supreme Court ruling allowing marriage equality in California. It is a true testament to advancing equality and to recognizing the right of all Californians to build a future with the person they love. We recently lost Mildred Loving, the woman whose marriage to a man of another race ushered in the Supreme Court ruling that made marriage colorblind. Today’s ruling is another important reminder that love will overcome.Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland:
I’m glad the Supreme Court validated what I consider a fundamental premise of our nation – that all people deserve equal protection under the law. This is a happy and historic day because all Californians, regardless of sexual orientation, now have the right to marry.Art Torres, chairman of the California Democratic Party:
The California Supreme Court’s ruling is a momentous decision for our state and nation that marks a giant step toward in our march toward true equality for all our citizens.We all owe Mayor Gavin Newsom a debt of gratitude for his visionary leadership on this crucial civil rights issue, along with the courageous plaintiffs in this case.
But our march for justice and equality is far from over. We now must re-focus our efforts on fighting the divisive and discriminatory proposed constitutional amendment that would take away marriage equality for same-sex couples.
Working together, we can ensure that once again, justice and equality will prevail.
From the Right:
Assembly Republican leader Mike Villines, R-Clovis:
I am very disappointed that the California Supreme Court, by the narrowest of margins, would allow their own personal partisan views to get in the way of their duty to uphold the rule of law by thwarting the will of the overwhelming majority of Californians who voted in support of Proposition 22.Fortunately, more than 1 million Californians have signed ballot petitions to place a constitutional amendment before the voters this November that will write into the state Constitution that marriage should be between one man and one woman. I am confident that the people of California will again overwhelmingly vote to preserve and protect traditional marriage.
I hope that once this constitutional amendment becomes law in November, the Supreme Court will resume its appropriate role of interpreting the law, and stop legislating from the bench.
Senate Republican leader Dave Cogdill, R-Modesto:
California voters spoke loud and clear that they believe marriage is between a man and a woman. This disappointing ruling gives activist judges a louder voice than the people of this great state. A constitutional amendment to overturn this ruling will now undoubtedly qualify for the ballot, giving Californians another opportunity to maintain the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman.Ron Nehring, chairman of California Republican Party:
Once again, the California Supreme Court has substituted its own will for the will of the people, this time with its controversial decision discarding the mandate for traditional marriage granted with Proposition 22 and thrusting this issue back into the national spotlight. Support for traditional marriage transcends partisanship.The state Republican Party has consistently supported traditional marriage and Proposition 22. In September, the state committee will formally take a position on the November initiative reversing this ruling by state constitutional amendment.
So, where does the issue go from here. In a few weeks the California Secretary of State will either certify the California Initiative and Consitutional Amendment 07-0098 or not. More than 1.1 million signatures of California voters have been submitted to place the issue of gay marriage before the general election electorate.
When certified this initiative/constitutional amendment, the California Marriage Protection Act will go before voters in November. If the California Marriage Protection Act passes the gay marriage ban will once more be the law of California. Marriage will be defined as between a man and a woman.
But, there is more.
Flap heard today on the Hugh Hewitt Show that there will be a concerted effort by the Evangelical Right and others to recall the three Supreme Court Justices up for a reconfirmation vote in 2010 (even though one dissented in today’s opinion)
Here is the organizational chart as to when California Supreme Court Justices come up for reconfirmation. Each Justice serves a twelve year term, unless appointed midterm of another Justice.
Two of the three California Supreme Court Justices, Chief Justice Ronald George and Associate Justice Carlos Moreno will be undoubtedly be the focus of a 2010 recall or anti-reconfirmation action. But, like with the Rose Bird recall “clean sweep” over the issue of the California Death Penalty, Associate Justice Ming Chin will probably be a target as well. It will be hard to protect him from the wrath of the voters.
Flap has faith in the People of California to RIGHT the actions of four rogues justices who have abrogated the will of California voters.
Dan Weintraub has the take on the prospects of the coming fall election.
Flap will be voting and campaigning for the California Marriage Protection Act and also supporting the non re-confirmation of Justices George and Moreno.
Stay tuned as the election begins to take shape in the coming weeks.
Previous:
California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban
-
California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban
Winning Plaintiffs & attorney in CA Supreme Court Same-Sex Marriage decision. Rev. Troy Perry & husband Phillip Ray De Blieck, Robin Tyler & Diane Olson and their attorney Gloria Allred holding Baby Milo Reifsnyder-Smith, son of 2 gay dads
A split (4-3 decision) California Supreme Court this morning overturned the ban on Gay Marriage that California voters approved by a 61% majority in 2000 in the California Defense of Marriage Act.
The California Supreme Court ruled today that same-sex couples should be permitted to marry, rejecting state marriage laws as discriminatory.
The state high court’s 4-3 ruling was unlikely to end the debate over gay matrimony in California. A group has circulated petitions for a November ballot initiative that would amend the state Constitution to block same-sex marriage, while the Legislature has twice passed bills to authorize gay marriage. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed both.
The issue may be settled to the glee of California homosexual rights organizations today but 27 states have constitutional bans on the practice. And, this fall, California voters may be asked again to weigh into the fray with the California Initiative and Consitutional Amendment 07-0098, should it qualify for the ballot.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has already stated he will not support the initiative. But, the Evangelical Right, conservative organizations and other churches will view this as a direct assault against marriage and the family.
Stay tuned for a heated campaign that may very well decide the Presidency by driving turnout of Christian RIGHT voters.