CA Supreme Court Agrees Review SSM Cases

[Uncle Remus]

Ain't over yet...

San Francisco (AP) --
California's highest court agreed Wednesday to hear several legal challenges to the state's new ban on same-sex marriage but refused to allow gay couples to resume marrying before it rules.

The California Supreme Court accepted three lawsuits seeking to nullify Proposition 8, a voter-approved constitutional amendment that overruled the court's decision in May that legalized gay marriage.

All three cases claim the measure abridges the civil rights of a vulnerable minority group. They argue that voters alone did not have the authority to enact such a significant constitutional change.

Link

SAN FRANCISCO -- The state Supreme Court plunged back into the same-sex marriage wars today, agreeing to decide the legality of a ballot measure that repealed the right of gay and lesbian couples to wed in California.

Link

 

[Uncle Remus]

Well, I'm just gonna post this without comment:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/s168047-letter-denial-heaven.pdf

Excerpt:

ARGUMENT:
Each and every person has free will for whether or not he or she obeys the Almighty Eternal Creator's Laws.

The issue of this case is gay and lesbians demanding that the State of California courts strike down the State of California's Constitutional Amendment that passed by a majority (52%) of voters on November 4, 2008. This amendment is for wrong purposes of legalizing same-sex marriage. Courts throughout the entire State of California, the United States of America, as well as world courts DO NOT have authority to reverse the Almighty Eternal Creator's Law that bans same-sex marriage.

The Almighty Eternal Creator's Laws are similar to those established by the State of California, the United States, and countries throughout the world, but certain people are banning these laws.

Example: If an individual attempts to assassinate the State of California's Governor or the United States President, and the person got caught, surely the person would be charged with attempted murder of the State of California's Governor or the President of the United States, and jurors would sentence him to prison without parole or to capital punishment in accordance with established laws.

Gay and lesbian marriage and abortion are serious attempts to destroy the Almighty Eternal Creator's ongoing creation of human life on earth! If they do not change their sexual conduct and pay in full for damages caused while they are on earth, they surely must pay after their earthly lives!

 

[Chuck S]

And this is an Amicus Curiae brief? All I can say is bizarre.

 

[DVC~OKW~96]

You can't be serious? Who wrote that? (The link timed out on me). No one in their right mind would find that a plausible argument for ANYTHING!

 

[mickeyfan1]

No one in their right mind will ever say it's wrong to deny anyone rights, but they sure did it in CA and AZ and FL and AR.

I really want to see this go to the supreme court, just like Lovering did. This isn't states rights, it's equal rights.

These "laws" make me ashamed of my country.

 

[DVC~OKW~96]

You are so right. I just lose track sometimes of the complete stupidity of some people. Ugh.

There is a thread on the community board right now "Gays in the military" that exemplifies the stupidity that abounds.

I'm getting so over it. I'm getting really over explaining, trying to open minds, trying to educate, trying to give another point of view to encourage thinking with and for diversity instead of for bigotry.

I'm getting really, really tired. Really tired.

 

[mickeyfan1]

Oh yeah, I read the "Gays in the Military" thread. I have no issue with don't ask, don't tell. As long as it's not a policy that gets you kicked out of a job, a house, a marriage, etc. I love the person saying gays better not be in the military because he isn't about to shower or do his potty business if one might be next to him. Um, OK, do you ask everyone you see in all public areas if they are gay? Holy Crap. Ignorance and fear breed hatred. Some people will never get over it, they hate gays, they hate blacks, they hate Jews, they hate Latinos, they hate McDonald's, they hate High Fructose Corn Syrup, they hate scented deodorant, etc etc etc.

You and I and all the people on this board and all of our GLTB and otherwise non heterosexual friends can use every bit of logic in our power but "they" will never change. Like Dick Cheney, his own blood daughter is gay, yet he opposes gay rights.

If "they" had any idea of how many non heteros they deal with on a daily basis, they would shrivel up and melt away.

I believe that the election of a non white male to the presidency of the United States is going to cause a lot of hatred to come out, hatred against everyone who isn't like "us". It's going to be ugly, but I think it will be worth the effort for those who hate to come out and be confronted with the love and care that they refuse to show.

OMG, it's late and I am off on a tangent.

Fight the fight, don't give up. Equal rights for ALL. Sally Field needs to hold up the Rights sign, not the union sign.

 

[JohnZ46]

You can't be serious? Who wrote that? (The link timed out on me). No one in their right mind would find that a plausible argument for ANYTHING!

Sadly, it was written by one of my fellow San Diegans. I'm guessing the poor woman inhaled too much smoke during the wild fires.

 

[rpmdfw]

Sadly, it was written by one of my fellow San Diegans. I'm guessing the poor woman inhaled too much smoke during the wild fires.

Or not enough. Depending on how you look at it . . .

 

[zulemara]

Or not enough. Depending on how you look at it . . .

 

[hematite153]

Yowzers!

I'm assuming that the Justices are more sane and will be able to read that brief quickly as an orthogonal viewpoint that doesn't have anything to do with the CA constitution. (Or, that they will be inflamed by the attempt to push religion into politics and be pushed towards the other side.)

 

[bicker]

In a dramatic reversal, Attorney General Jerry Brown filed a legal brief saying the measure that amended the California Constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman is itself unconstitutional because it deprives a minority group of a fundamental right.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28320862/

I would prefer a counter-amendment repealing the original, offensive Proposition 8, but having the election overturned by the court will do since Proposition 8 is so clearly an instance of tyranny of the majority.

 

[hematite153]

Thanks for the link bicker. That's a terrific step.

I actually prefer the idea of the legal system reviewing the amendment and ruling it unconstitutional. Once the courts have had to say the amendment is unconstitutional, then, they can't do it again.

(Granted, there seems to be a conservative backlash that is modifying constitutions to make discrimination legal, but, at some point surely those will get legally challenged too.)

Argh!!! How people who call their country "the land of the free" can think it's okay to institutionalize discrimination is beyond me.

 

[Uncle Remus]

Thanks for the link bicker. That's a terrific step.

I actually prefer the idea of the legal system reviewing the amendment and ruling it unconstitutional. Once the courts have had to say the amendment is unconstitutional, then, they can't do it again.

(Granted, there seems to be a conservative backlash that is modifying constitutions to make discrimination legal, but, at some point surely those will get legally challenged too.)

Argh!!! How people who call their country "the land of the free" can think it's okay to institutionalize discrimination is beyond me.

They justify it by sayin' we voted on it.

And according to AG Jerry Brown:
"It became evident that the Article 1 provision guaranteeing basic liberty, which includes the right to marry, took precedence over the initiative," he said in an interview Friday night. "Based on my duty to defend the law and the entire Constitution, I concluded the court should protect the right to marry even in the face of the 52 percent vote."


Thanks for the update, bicker.

 

[hematite153]

They justify it by sayin' we voted on it.

Yeah. I remember having this serious discussion with a friend when I was finishing my undergrad. He was going to Singapore for a few years and people were talking about how controlled and unfree Singaporian society was. (ETA: this is not my opinion, but, was the opinion of many in the room at the time.) He was defending it by saying, "you have to choose which kind of freedom you want. People in Singapore have 'freedom from' and in the US we choose 'freedom to'." He got very grudging acceptance that it might be okay for a society to choose 'freedom from', but, people were still pretty adamant that it wasn't as good as 'freedom to'.

What happened to this viewpoint? At the time I internalized it as an American approach to the concept of freedom. But, now it seems as though the majority opinion is that they would prefer to have laws control them.

I'm just confused!