Right after the last election, I was devastated. I thought we had won, but instead I lost my fundamental rights and felt like garbage. I didn't know what do to next.
Today is the day I've been waiting for quite some time. The California Supreme Court hears oral arguments on the lawsuits that will force the judges to decide whether it's OK to treat millions of people, people like me, as "second-class citizens" simply because of who we love. Can this possibly be allowed? I hope not, and I renew my vow today to work my hardest to ensure it's not allowed.
by Todd Beeton, Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 10:33:12 PM EST
Thursday, March 5th is going to be a big day here in California. The CA Supreme Court will hear the challenges to Prop 8, Ken Starr arguing in favor of upholding it (yes, that Ken Starr), Shannon Minter who successfully argued the gay marriage case in front of the CA Supreme Court last Spring, arguing against. The court will rule on the fate of the 18,000 legal same-sex marriages as well. The court will hear arguments from 9am-12pm PST. You can watch it streaming live HERE.
The L.A. Times has an interesting article on what to expect.
The California Supreme Court may reveal Thursday whether it intends to uphold Proposition 8, and if so, whether an estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages will remain valid, during a high-stakes televised session that has sparked plans for demonstrations throughout the state.
By now, the court already has drafted a decision on the case, with an author and at least three other justices willing to sign it. Oral arguments sometimes result in changes to the draft, but rarely do they change the majority position. The ruling is due in 90 days.
This isn't to say that they'll issue a ruling today, just that the proceedings may reveal what that ruling is likely to be. Speaking of which:
Most legal analysts expect that the court will garner enough votes to uphold existing marriages but not enough to overturn Proposition 8. The dissenters in May's 4-3 marriage ruling said the decision should be left to the voters.
One conservative constitutional scholar has said that the court could both affirm its historic May 15 ruling giving gays equality and uphold Proposition 8 by requiring the state to use a term other than "marriage" and apply it to all couples, gay and straight.
CA Attorney General Jerry Brown has a diary up at DailyKos calling for it to be overturned and provides some historical context.
The case touches the heart of our democracy and poses a profound question: can a bare majority of voters strip away an inalienable right through the initiative process? If so, what possible meaning does the word inalienable have?
The state faced a dilemma like this before. In 1964, 65 percent of California voters approved Proposition 14, which would have legalized racial discrimination in the selling or renting of housing. Both the California and U.S. Supreme Courts struck down this proposition, concluding that it amounted to an unconstitutional denial of rights.
As California's Attorney General, I believe the Court should strike down Proposition 8 for remarkably similar reasons - because it unconstitutionally discriminates against same-sex couples and deprives them of the fundamental right to marry.
For a reminder of exactly what's at stake today here in California, watch Courage Campaign's Fidelity video and sign their letter in support of the overturning of Prop 8.
Update [2009-3-5 11:58:27 by Todd Beeton]:Oral arguments begin in a couple of minutes. Be_Devine at calitics has a thorough "legal wonk's" takedown of Prop 8. Here's his conclusion:
Proposition 8 far exceeds the boundaries of our current Constitution in the three important ways discussed above. First, it alienates the fundamental and inalienable constitutional rights to privacy and due process that comprise the right to marry. Second, it obliterates the foundational principle of equal protection and imposes a new rule that a bare majority can decide to deny fundamental civil rights to unpopular minorities. Third, it violates the separation of powers clause by stripping the judicial branch of its core constitutional power to prevent the majority from obliterating constitutional rights.
Here's hoping the court agrees.
Update [2009-3-5 12:15:23 by Todd Beeton]:You can also watch the arguments streaming live at MSNBC.com. They're discussing the process argument for overturning Prop 8: that Prop 8 actually constituted a revision to the constitution, not merely an amendment, and so required 2/3 of the legislature to put it on the ballot in the first place.
In case you didn't know, my birthday is tomorrow. Yay. When I was little, I'd always be excited about a day full of celebration, gifts, and sheer bliss. Now, I just notice myself getting older... And hopefully a little wiser with each passing year.
I guess one reason why I haven't been excited about my upcoming birthday is that I have far too much on my mind to be caught up in any self-celebration. I have personal and family issues to deal with. I have to think about how President Obama's economic recovery package will affect my family and how to take advantage of that. Oh yes, and there's that other issue... The issue of my own civil rights.
by Todd Beeton, Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 12:27:05 PM EST
MSNBC just reported the news that the California Supreme Court, which declared a ban on same sex marriage unconstitutional in May, has now agreed to hear the legal challenges to Prop 8, which have been filed since its passage on Nov. 4th.
The California Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to consider complaints by opponents of Proposition 8 that it improperly revised the constitution to ban gay marriage. The court declined to stay its enforcement in the meantime. [...]
Holton said the court established an expedited briefing schedule. She said oral argument could be held as early as March 2009.
This isn't really that surprising and probably doesn't reveal anything about how they would rule as all sides of the issue have been urging the court to hear the challenges.
California Attorney General Brown Monday urged the California Supreme Court to accept review of the legal challenges to Proposition 8.
"The profound importance of the issues raised by Proposition 8 warrants that this matter be reviewed and promptly resolved by the California Supreme Court," said Brown in a statement to News10.
Attorney General Brown has said publicly he believes same-sex marriages performed between June 17 and November 4, 2008 remain valid and will be upheld by the Court. [...]
Meanwhile the sponsors of California's new same-sex marriage ban are urging the state's highest court to hear a series of lawsuits seeking to overturn the measure.
Lawyer Andrew Pugno said the backers of Proposition 8 are so confident the California Supreme Court would uphold the voter-approved initiative they would prefer the court take the cases and resolve the question quickly.
The crux of the legal challenges to Prop 8 is a process argument rather than a civil rights one. Essentially, Prop 8 opponents argue, as they have for months, that Prop 8 would constitute a "revision" to the constitution, not an "amendment" and as such, a simple majority vote by California voters is not sufficient to make the change that Prop 8 does, i.e. eliminating a minority group's fundamental right. The proper process by which Prop 8 should have gotten to the ballot, they argue, is by 2/3 vote of the legislature; only then should a simple majority have been allowed to revise the constitution in such a fundamental way.
Update [2008-11-19 17:36:36 by Todd Beeton]:Until the court rules, we must continue to assume that Prop 8 will be enacted and fight for its repeal, which is exactly what the Courage Campaign (for whom I do some work) has begun to do with its Repeal Prop 8 petition. If you haven't signed it, please join the almost 300,000 people who have and sign the pledge today.
jeromearmstrong Our Polarized and Money-Driven Congress: Created Over 25 Years By Republicans (and Quickly Imitated by Democrats http://bit.ly/ewXlXI #bblue
-----------
myDD - skin
-----------