Discuss the California Supreme Court's decision to hear Proposition 8 challenges

Proposition 8, the initiative approved by California voters earlier this month to ban same-sex marriage, now heads to court.

The Times' Maura Dolan reports today:

Meeting in closed session, the state high court asked litigants on both sides for more written arguments and scheduled a hearing for next March. The court also signaled its intention to decide the fate of existing same-sex marriages, asking litigants to argue that question.

Do you think the court acted rightly in agreeing to hear further arguments about Prop 8?  Or is this issue one that should ultimately be left up to California voters?  How do you think it will all be resolved?

Weigh in here.

Photos: Left, a supporter of gay marriage demonstrates during a rally November 15, 2008 in San Francisco. Credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images. Right, a Yes on Prop 8 supporter demonstrates at a rally November 15, 2008 in downtown L.A.  Credit: Barbara Davidson/Los Angeles Times

Comments

[Daniel J Dormann]

this is the most important ca constitutional case in a generation.

[Kenmattos]

Yes, the California Supreme Court is right to review this. I think the case will move on to the U.S. Supreme Court for it is under amendments to the U.S. Constitution that this proposition will be overturned for it violates equal protection under the law and resembles the Loving v. Virginia case. I would hope the nation's highest court would rule justly and fairly and state this actions such as Proposition 8 are unconstitutional.

[redoriley]

This is not an issue that should be left up to a popular vote. If we are to learn from history, the voice of the people was loud and clear in Weimar Germany. Their voice led to Kristalnacht. And if it’s true that those who don’t learn from history are condemned to repeat it, do we really want to legally instigate another pogrom here and now?

[rachel]

yes! the court should absolutely hear this case immediately. it'll be a tragedy of justice if the amendment is allowed to stand. since when can a slim majority legislate their religious beliefs by discriminating against a minority? this is a religious issue at its core. prop 8 supporters are brainwashed by religious propaganda and have yet to offer one reasonable argument for their stance that doesn't involve religion, "tradition" (another way of saying religion since the tradition is founded on religious fallacy), and bogus reasoning like "a child does better with a mother and a father"--where is the evidence for that statement? there is none! in fact, a child would probably do much better in a loving gay home than in a backwards home filled with brainwashed religious garbage about heaven and hell. how nice to tell your child that they'll go to hell if they're gay! if you ask me, it's a form of child abuse.

[THOMAS46]

What's the point in voting? First medical marijuana now this. Why bother when it has become apparent that money can and does buy the vote.

Idiocracy the movie, here, now.

[CA LDS]

to Kenmattos,
I agree that I would like the U.S. Supreme Court to take this issue up but I disagree with your projected outcome. With the current make up of the Court I am pretty sure that they will not support Gay Marriage as the vote will rest on how Justice Kennedy rules (the others will be a 4-4 split) and I do not think that he would support taking it away from a States right issue and it is more likely that it could pave the wave for overturning the State Court in MA and Conn. and leave marriage between a man and woman and civil union to Gays.

[Rick]

All you have to do is look at the wesites showing where the money came from to support or oppose prop 8. Since when do so many people in Utah get to decide what we do here in California? If that isn't indicative of the Mormon church brainwashing the people than I do not know what is. There was even one Utah individual who donated $1,000,000 to support prop 8. The names and businesses are all there for you to see.

[Rita]

Good afternoon!
Let it be known that we have all voted so let it go! It is what it is what is there is no need to argue and debate about it! Honestly!

[DingTank]

I believe, if the court includes the rights of children in their interpretation of the constitution, that the yes on 8 ammendment will be upheld.

However, if they narrow their interpretation to exclude them, then they are obviously biased and will use this ruling to strike at the religious aspect of this anti-movement.

[Chad]

The question at hand is whether this is a civil rights issue or not. Inwhich the question turns to whether people are born gay or is it a choice.
If they are born gay then it is a civil right and they should be allowed to be married.
If it is a lifestyle choice then it is not a right to be married, it is a matter of opinion as to whether the people of a society should allow gay marriages in which it should be put to the vote of that society.

I personally think it is a choice, as being gay flies in the face of all rules of evolution.....in which the whole point is to pass on viable genetic offspring that can reproduce better than the ones before you.

[DingTank]

"a child does better with a mother and a father"--where is the evidence for that statement? there is none

Uh, I've been screaming out the evidence. I was raised without a mother. But how do you argue about not having something? How does a blind person since birth describe to us what is is like not having site, when they've never had the ability to see? It is our own ability to see that allows us to sympathise with their plight.

But the SSM advocates are not being honest when they say that their mother or father meant absolutely nothing to them. Their whole movement is really a movement motivated, in large part, by their hatred towards their own parent(s), IMO.

How can you honestly debate with that going on on the other side?

[Mary]

I would also ask the ACLU and any other litigant to pursue denying tax exemption to the Mormon church, as they have violated their exemption status by interfering in politics and therefore, should be denied any tax breaks. And yes, the CA court had to hear this case, and if the US Supreme Court hears it, let's hope we have a few of the right wing nut job judges gone, yes you, Scalia and Thomas. Stealers of elections and unethical individuals.

[Mary]

To Chad: Posting at 4:43 PM

Chad, as a mother of a gay child who was torn up and in denial about being gay, to see the pain my son went through, trust me, he did not CHOOSE to be this way. He fought it for a long time, but sanity won out. Unless you know the angst personally, you have no clue the devastation this causes for a person's well being. It is not a choice for people, unfortunately. He would not have wanted this as the outcome.

[James]

I agree the court needs to hear the cases. Denying the cases would lead to a prolonged battle and eventually end up in the state Supreme Court anyway. Whether for or against Prop 8, each side has an interest in having the matter heard.
From what I understand, that legal arguments against Prop 8 are weak. Should the state court uphold Prop 8, I don't believe the US Supreme Court would even hear the matter. The US Supreme Court has never acknowledged gays and lesbians as a protected class as the state court has, and would likely leave the matter to be resolved by each state, which would leave Prop 8 standing.
Taking the matter to the federal level, should it be heard there, would create the possibility of a national ruling that would deny same sex marriage in all states. I don't think the risk is worth taking.
Anyway, the state court is doing the right thing by hearing the case, but things have changed significantly since the last time the issue was before them. I don't think the judges can find adequate cause to overturn Prop 8, and the best solution will be to return the issue to the ballot at each and every election possible until the people of the state are willing to repeal it.
With all the negativity generated on the NO side in the past few weeks, I wonder if the movement is starting backwards. It is highly emotional on both sides for sure.

[Resolved in LA]

The California Supreme court should definately hear this case. If they allow this revision disguised as amendment to stand, after the Mormon ammendment (Prop 8) will come the Catholic ammendment (only 1 marriage for life) and the Jewish ammendment (must marry in your own faith). You cannot have a 50% +1 majority deciding the basic fundimental civil rights of a minority of citizens. It needs to be done by a super majority of the legislature and then voted on. It is the way the system was designed to work. The court should overturn it.

[sasha Hall]

I can't believe in this day and age, people still think being gay is a choice? C'mon folks wake up! Ask any gay person and I'm sure they will tell you it is not. How can we be so arrogant as to think and guess for other people when so much is at stake?

[James]

I also agree with the poster above that legal fight in this issue is eventually going to force a court to decide whether homosexuality is a choice or not.

I can't imagine the court making such a determination.

Though it sounds mean to say, homosexual couple have the option of relocating to a state where marriage is allowed. On that same note, should same sex marriages be allowed in California, those who oppose it have the option of leaving if it is that big of a problem for them.

More and more states are denying it. As the trend continues it will be harder to overturn Prop 8 type legislation. This pending ruling in California is really going to be the one that sets the precedent for all other states.

I, for one, don't believe the feds will touch it with 10-foot pole.

[Peter]

The refusal to permit marriages is ominous.

[QuE?]

To those who say "We voted, now get over it"....why is it so difficult to understand that:
a/The role of the courts is to protect minority groups from the tyranny of the majority. If that were not true, we would not have had the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act of the 60s, and many other protection/rights extended to minority groups. Could we the people just have voted those existing rights away? Of course not.

b/The courts are going to throw this out. It's unconstitutional...so "Deal with it."...But the good thing is, by reinforcing that the majority cannot strip away the rights of a minority, Mormons and other religions won't have to worry about having any of their true rights voted away by the rest of us. Win-win.

[QuE?]

Chad, why would millions of people out there lie about whether being gay is a choice or not for them? What's in for them by lying vs. what you and many others gain (some level of comfort?) by continuing to believe that it's a choice? Interesting question for a lot of people.

[busytimmy]

To all of you people who keep on screaming, "What about the children!!!"
Here's something from the American Academy of Pediatrics:

"A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children’s optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes."

and from the American Psychiatric Assoc.:

"Civil marriage is associated with a unique set of benefits that provide
legal and economic protections to adults in committed relationships and to
their children. Equal access to the institution of civil marriage is consistent
with the APA’s opposition to discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Therefore be it resolved that:
In the interest of maintaining and promoting mental health, the
American Psychiatric Association supports the legal recognition of
same-sex civil marriage with all rights, benefits, and responsibilities
conferred by civil marriage, and opposes restrictions to those same
rights, benefits, and responsibilities.”

Spain, Norway, South Africa, Belgium, Canada and the Netherlands all have marriage equality, the sun still rises and sets and children have normal lives. Stop using children as a shield to hide behind while oppressing gay Californians! Start believing in science, sound public policy and equality!

[Eric]

I love it. Instead of saying something pat like "God works in mysterious ways" to explain homosexuality, which is not a choice, and which no one who knows anything about it thinks is a choice, these people just keep insisting that it is a choice, because otherwise they would have to accept gay people even though they obviously don't understand them. They get to pick and choose what is "mysterious" and what is clearly explainable, and how neat and tidy for them. None of the messy business of accepting that there is not an easy explanation for everything or, even more tedious, trying to learn more about it. Just close your mind and keep going. That's what Prop 8 was all about, and why those of us who are disgusted by it will never just "get over it."

[Very simple]

To all the so-called "Christian" neanderthals out there who still cling to the notion that being gay is a choice, do a little research online and you find many examples in nature of gay animals, e.g., dolphins, penguins, monkeys, etc.

Interesting how you are OK that your God created these gay creatures and yet you still have a problem with gay humans

[Al Keys]

It boggles my mind that a court would think it had the ability to judge something that is so utterly biological, psychological, and sociological in nature. And oh yes....theological, but leave that aside for the sake of this discussion, it's not necessary. This would be the same as the court deciding whether or not "E = MC squared" is the same as "a squared + b squared = c squared."

Once again---we have a name for a specific kind of relationship between male and female human beings. These *different* kinds of human beings complement each other physically, psychologically, and sociologically in a most unique way. These are things we can observe; they require no Bible or Koran or any other source of divine revelation. Let's call it a "grok." Since prehistoric times it's *always* been a "grok." It's not a civil right; rather, like E = MC squared it is a natural phenomenon.

Now then. Note what is essential to a grok---a man and a woman. If a man and a man or a woman and a woman decide they want to be "grokked," well, they can't because they lack the complementary (note it's spelled with an "e") equipment and psychological make-up to form this particular kind of social-human relationship that we call a "grok." No need to have babies, although it is only in a grok that two human beings can physically produce such an addition to the human race. But having babies is not essential to the equation. Having a male and a female *is* essential.

And so....there can be no equality issue here, not because it's not fair, but because there's an observable, self-evident natural law that restricts this relationship to a man and a woman.

This doesn't mean that any other two human beings, same gender or not, don't have rights by reason of their intense, sincere, and committed relationship. But it is essentially different from a "grok" and ought to be called something else. Like a civil union. And don't tell me I hate these people because I see what I see. I don't hate them. I like many of them very, very much. Just like anybody else. Anyone can befriend and love anyone else. But they can't, um, grok them.

That's why I say "yes" on "grok."

[Mike W]

If you support yes on 8 I ask one simple question. What/whom is protecting your decision about my life on your religious beliefs?

I don't like the god you worship. My god doesn't need money, doesn't need politicians and doesn't need a mouthpiece telling anyone how to vote with their conscience.

I don't like the way you think but I don't get to vote on whom you choose to worship or marry. If you want your freedom I want mine too.

Mob rule isn't American.