The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether California’s Proposition 8 marriage amendment is constitutional and whether the federal government can refuse to recognize gay couples’ marriages for tax purposes and other reasons, the court announced Friday.
Decisions in both cases, by the court’s practice, are expected by the end of June.
The questions of federal standing aside, the Supreme Court should make a definitive ruling – one way or the other.
Do the states have the right to decide their own marriage laws, or is there a federal right to a same sex marriage?
We will see in late June 2013.
But, there are OUTS!
The SCOTUSblog live blog reports: “Prop. 8 is granted. So is Windsor. Those are the only two marriage cases granted.”
SCOTUSBlog’s live blog continues: “Prop. 8 is granted on the petition question — whether 14th Am. bars Calif. from defining marriage in traditional way.” No surprise there — except perhaps to Jeffrey Toobin. The Court then added a question of its own: “Whether the backers of Prop 8 have standing in the case under Art. III.” So the court may avoid ruling on the constitutionality of Prop 8 by saying that the case should not have been allowed to proceed in the first place — which I gather would mean that the lower court decisions are off the books, as there was no jurisdiction in the cases that would allow them to be decided.
Michael Ramirez has it exactly right with President Obama whoring himself out to the Hollywood Homosexual community for campaign cash.
Last week, Barack Obama finished “evolving” on same-sex marriage with his statement endorsing legalization. Entirely coincidentally, that was just in time for a big Hollywood fundraiser at George Clooney’s mansion that raised $15 million for Team Obama’s coffers after reports of anger in the entertainment industry began to percolate in the media.
Pretty despicable conduct from the President which will bite him in the ass this November.
President Obama today announced that he now supports same-sex marriage, reversing his longstanding opposition amid growing pressure from the Democratic base and even his own vice president.
In an interview with ABC News’ Robin Roberts, the president described his thought process as an “evolution” that led him to this place, based on conversations with his own staff members, openly gay and lesbian service members, and conversations with his wife and own daughters.
“I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married,” Obama told Roberts, in an interview to appear on ABC’s “Good Morning America” Thursday. Excerpts of the interview will air tonight on ABC’s “World News with Diane Sawyer.”
The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own. But he said he’s confident that more Americans will grow comfortable with gays and lesbians getting married, citing his own daughters’ comfort with the concept.
So, President Obama whose one in six of his political campaign cash bundlers are gay suddenly gets religion. Is this too cynical?
I mean, really, is there anyone out there who did not think Obama favored same sex or gay, homosexual marriage?
Well, this certainly will be a contrast with Mitt Romney who supports traditional marriage. But Obama for what it is worth hedged a bit by saying his position is like Republican Dick Cheney’s – he supports the state’s right to define marriage.
A federal appeals court on Tuesday declared California’s same-sex marriage ban to be unconstitutional, putting the bitterly contested, voter-approved law on track for likely consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that a lower court judge correctly interpreted the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court precedents when he declared in 2010 that Proposition 8 was a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians.
It was unclear when gay marriages might resume in California. Lawyers for Proposition 8 sponsors and for the two couples who successfully sued to overturn the ban have repeatedly said they would consider appealing to a larger panel of the court and then the U.S. Supreme Court if they did not receive a favorable ruling from the 9th Circuit.
“Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted,” the ruling states.
The panel also said there was no evidence that former Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker was biased and should have disclosed before he issued his decision that he was gay and in a long-term relationship with another man.
The ruling came more than a year after the appeals court heard arguments in the case.
Proposition 8 backers had asked the 9th Circuit to set aside Walker’s ruling on both constitutional grounds and because of the thorny issue of the judge’s personal life. It was the first instance of an American jurist’s sexual orientation being cited as grounds for overturning a court decision.
Walker publicly revealed he was gay after he retired. However, supporters of the gay marriage ban argued that he had been obliged to previously reveal if he wanted to marry his partner — like the gay couples who sued to overturn the ban.
Walker’s successor as the chief federal judge in Northern California, James Ware, rejected those claims, and the 9th Circuit held a hearing on the conflict-of-interest question in December.
California voters passed Proposition 8 with 52 percent of the vote in November 2008, five months after the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage by striking down a pair of laws that had limited marriage to a man and a woman.
The ballot measure inserted the one man-one woman provision into the California Constitution, thereby overruling the court’s decision. It was the first such ban to take away marriage rights from same-sex couples after they had already secured them and its passage followed the most expensive campaign on a social issue in the nation’s history.
The Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation and the Law, a think tank based at the University of California, Los Angeles, has estimated that 18,000 couples tied the knot during the four-month window before Proposition 8 took effect. The California Supreme Court upheld those marriages, but ruled that voters had properly enacted the law.
Here is the decision:
So, what comes next?
Obviously, a stay in the order while the pro-Proposition 8 attorneys appeal the decision to either the full en banc Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals or directly to the United States Supreme court. This process either way will delay a final decision in the case for at least two years and possibly three.
There is also the probability that gay marriage advocates will go back to the ballot to overturn the voter approved Proposition 8.
More than likely by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to release its opinion on the constitutionality of California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage Tuesday morning.
The appeals court is deciding whether to uphold or reverse a federal judge’s 2010 ruling that Proposition 8, which was approved by voters in 2008, was unconstitutional. Regardless of the outcome, the decision is expected to be appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
The opinion will be posted online at 10 a.m, according to a press release from the court.
Judge Reinhardt and Judge Hawkins will probably vote to affirm Federal District Court Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional and that Walker did not need to recuse himself (obviously).
The decision will be stayed and the U.S. Supreme Court will take up the issue in the next term beginning in October 2012.
Not really a surprise since the LDS Church (Mormon) of which Mitt is a member was very much involved in California marriage issues with California’s Proposition 8.
But, it does set up a contrast with President Obama (if Romney receives the GOP nomination) who has reversed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the military and who has said to be “evolving” on the Gay Marriage issue – whatever that means.
Watch the gay community pressure Obama to come out in favor of gay marriage, which if he does will ruin him with his African American and Hispanic political bases.
Mitt Romney gains here with the conservative southern GOP base and with GOP Evangelicals who believe marriage should be between one man and one woman.
Miss California USA Carrie Prejean: I was punished for exercising my free speech. This should not happen in America!
Carrie Prejean has been fired as Miss California, reportedly for contractual violations.
So says the latest Gallup Poll.
Americans’ views on same-sex marriage have essentially stayed the same in the past year, with a majority of 57% opposed to granting such marriages legal status and 40% in favor of doing so. Though support for legal same-sex marriage is significantly higher now than when Gallup first asked about it in 1996, in recent years support has appeared to stall, peaking at 46% in 2007.
Now, you know why the politicans, including President Obama, are not rushing to jump on the pro-gay marriage bandwagon. When talking about the institution of marriage Americans are not easily persuaded away from one man and one woman.
Technorati Tags: Gay Marriage
This provocative new TV ad was created in the spirit of Harvey Milk’s call to “come out, come out wherever you are” and proudly tell the stories of the people most affected by the passage of Prop 8 — in moving images set to the beat of Regina Spektor’s beautiful song “Fidelity”.
The Courage Campaign is already up with ads to repeal California Proposition 8 which restored the traditional definition of marriage (one man and one woman) to the California Constitution last November. The California Supreme Court upheld the measure this morning.
Just minutes after the California Supreme Court decision upholding Prop. 8, the fight for marriage equality is already on again — as the 70,000-member Courage Campaign, a progressive group, has unveiled new ads and an online petition campaign aimed at getting the issue before California voters again.
Rick Jacobs, founder and chair of the Courage Campaign, said in an e-mail statement: “I am disappointed the Court ruled to deny marriage equality to Californians. These are fundamental constitutional rights that cannot be abolished by a ballot initiative. While we were hoping the Court would rule in favor of equality, we have been building the infrastructure to win marriage equality rights at the ballot box. Our members are ready to do the hard work needed to win.”
Do the California Democrat Governor canddiates want to run on gay marriage (since the Big 3 plus 1 Dianne Feinstein, Jerry Brown, Gavin Newsom and Antonio Villaraigosa support gay marriage)?
Steve Poizner, a Republican candidate for Governor has already blasted out an e-mail supporting the California Supreme Courts’ decision:
“The California Supreme Court took the appropriate action today in upholding the will of the people by affirming Proposition 8. The people of California have spoken. They voted decisively that marriage should remain between a man and a woman. That is also my personal view.
“There was much more at stake today than even the issue of gay marriage, as important and emotional as it is for so many people on both sides of the issue. If the Court had overturned Proposition 8, it would have had set a terrible legal precedent, divided Californians even further, undermined support for the judiciary and state government itself while serving as a tremendous blow to the fundamental American concept of government of the people, by the people and for the people.
“Regardless of which way the Court ruled today, a particularly shameful element of this issue has been the Attorney General’s unethical abandonment of his legal responsibility to the people of California. It is no surprise that Jerry Brown politicized and abused his latest position in an unprecedented way in order to play political catch-up with Gavin Newsom.
“As Governor, Brown opposed marriage for gay Californians. As a candidate for Attorney General, Jerry Brown refused to publicly support gay marriage. But once Gavin Newsom gained the upper hand on the issue with Democratic primary votes, Brown used his office as the state’s lawyer to suddenly become an advocate of gay marriage and attempt to subvert the twice expressed will of the people of California. As he enters the fifth decade of his political career, Jerry Brown seems determined to go down in history as the man who was on more sides of more issues than any other California politician.”
This repeal of traditional marriage issue will assure that the social conservative GOP and religious voter base will turn out for mid-term non-Presidential California elections. This will be unfavorable to Democrat candidates.
Can you see the Gavin Newsom vs. Jerry Brown ads in the Democrat Primary election? It will be “whether you like it or not” vs. “I proposed an illogical legal theory and avoided my responsibility to the people of California as Attorney General to help gay marriage.”
Somehow I think the GOP media consultants are licking their chops at the prospect of this highly polarizing campaign. One which either GOP candidates Meg Whitman or Steve Poizner will easily win.
My bet is that the Democrats will ask the Courage Campaign and others to defer until 2012.
The California Supreme Court this morning upheld California Proposition 8 (which restored the traditional definition of marriage -one man and one woman) which passed at last November’s election.
The California Supreme Court today upheld Proposition 8’s ban on same-sex marriage but also ruled that gay couples who wed before the election will continue to be married under state law.
The decision virtually ensures another fight at the ballot box over marriage rights for gays. Gay rights activists say they may ask voters to repeal the marriage ban as early as next year, and opponents have pledged to fight any such effort. Proposition 8 passed with 52% of the vote.
Although the court split 6-1 on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the justices were unanimous in deciding to keep intact the marriages of as many as 18,000 gay couples who exchanged vows before the election.
The marriages began last June, after a 4-3 state high court ruling striking down the marriage ban last May.
In summary, we conclude that Proposition 8 constitutes a permissible constitutional amendment (rather than an impermissible constitutional revision), does not violate the separation of powers doctrine, and is not invalid under the â€œinalienable rightsâ€ theory proffered by the Attorney General. We further conclude that Proposition 8 does not apply retroactively and therefore that the marriages of same-sex couples performed prior to the effective date of Proposition 8 remain valid. Having determined that none of the constitutional challenges to the adoption of Proposition 8 have merit, we observe that if there is to be a change to the state constitutional rule embodied in that measure, it must â€œfind its expression at the ballot box.â€ (In re Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th 757, 884 (conc. & dis. opn. of Corrigan, J.); see also id. at pp. 861, 878 (conc. & dis. opn. of Baxter, J.).)
So, off to the ballot, California is likely headed. But, whether it will be in 2010, 2012 or later is a matter of conjecture.
There are advanatges for gay marriage activists to push the issue into 2010. But, this is a California Governor election year where all of the Democrat candidates support gay marriage and the Republicans support civil unions/domestic partnerships with equitable rights. Will the Democrats who covet the Governorship, now held by Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger really want to run on the gay marriage issue?
Doubtful. And, the e-mail press releases from California Governor candidates are already flying into Flap’s e-mail box.
Yet, in 2012, President Barack Obama will be running for re-election which will again bring unprecedented numbers of African American voters to the polls. These voters supported California Proposition 8 in the last election by significant numbers.
The gay marriage proponents may then seek reddress in the courts since some homosexual couples are considered married and some who did not meet the deadline are not. But, this will be a slow, tedious process in the federal courts where a favorable outcome is not guaranteed for gay marriage.