On Prop. 8, Supreme Court must walk fine line*

The California Supreme Court is being asked by Proposition 8 opponents to do something extreme -– to overturn the will of voters who earlier this month banned gay marriage.  [Note: An earlier version of this post erroneously referred to Prop. 8 "supporters" instead of "opponents."]

It’s a choice fraught with potential political ramifications for the justices -- including threats of recall.

“It is a time of lots of crocodiles in the bathtub,” said Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen, who has followed the court for decades. "Their oath requires them to ignore these kinds of political threats. But the threat of having to face a contested election is a significant one.”

Uelmen used a metaphor coined by California Supreme Court Justice Otto Kaus, a Democrat who served on the court after voters recalled Chief Justice Rose Bird and two other justices who had voted against death sentences.

Kaus later said that, as hard as he tried to decide cases impartially, he was never sure whether the threat of a recall election — “the crocodile in the bathtub” — was influencing his votes.

“It was like finding a crocodile in your bathtub when you go to shave in the morning,” Kaus said. “You know it’s there, and you try not to think about it, but it’s hard to think about much else while you’re shaving.”

--Maura Dolan

Photo: Chief Justice Ron George. Credit: Los Angeles Times

(Dolan, who covers the California Supreme Court for The Times, will have more on this topic later.)

*Update:  read full story -- Recall specter hangs over high court as it considers Prop. 8 challenges

Comments

[Paul Kruger]

I believe and predict the court will overturn proposition 8, not specifically related to gay marriage but because it puts citizen referendums in conflict with the courts and the legislators by using the constitution to limit equal protection rights based on an arbitrary standard, sexual preference.

To allow the constitution to be used in such a negative way to discriminate against any minority would allow future referendums to limit the rights of other minority groups as well.

Once the door is opened, any cause with enough money could decide who should or should not be afforded equal protection of the law based on an arbitrary status such as age, gender, skin color and so on.

America fought too hard to establish equality. Regardless of your personal views on gay marriage, the constitution cannot be allowed to discriminate based on the bigotry of any one group of people. If it were to stand then nothing would prevent another referendum denying gays or others from enjoying certain employment or to hold public office or any other of a number of protected rights.

[wendy]

This is the first step in the right direction. I know all of you have been belittleing those of us who want to marry for true love. Several times people in this little message board have been very insensitive to certain groups of people. Even some of the people who seemed to against prop 8 seemed a little insensitive. I for one am in love with my brother, and he's in love with me, we've never told anyone publicly, and we hope to one day be able to "come out" as society has come to phrase it and possibly to marry.

Hopefully prop 8 gets reversed and we're a little closer to real acceptance as a society.

[John]

People, ignore these comments of the bible-thumpers. if we reply them back, they won't shut up, they're just seeking attention on these message boards. However, there's an interesting list of things you can throw at these people, whether they're Mormons or not, about some of the things the people behind Prop. 8 believe in (the Mormons, of course):

- Magic underwear;
- Baptism of the dead;
- How God used to be an actual flesh-and-bones man, and how He had actual sex with Mary;
- All other religions are of the Devil;
- The world began and will end in Missouri;
- God speaks English;
- Jesus was married with children.

And these are just a few exemples of the craziest beliefs of the Mormons (believe me, there's MUCH more).

it's shocking, but they can't deny it - many members and ex-members have denounced this situatuon.

[ValleyGirl]

I find it odd that people keep talking about how this is related to folks wanting to marry objects, animals, children, and multiple partners. I don't see any couples of that sort in my neighborhood, living amongst the rest of us, and paying taxes like the rest of us. I *do*, however, see gay people living amongst us, as teachers, police officers, managers, co-workers, friends, and neighbors, many living with their loved ones, raising families, and paying taxes. I'm not seeing how allowing people who are already around us, not doing anything illegal, and contributing positively to our society, to marry like the rest of us changes anything AT ALL, other than to realize the American principle of everyone seen as equal and free in the eyes of the government.

[LA Native]

Majority rules is NOT the most important part of our Government. We're not a direct democracy. We're a constitutional republic, which embodies the principles of "Republicanism" (the political philisophy, not the party). The Founding Fathers believed in the will of the people, as long as *everyone* had equal and unalienable rights, and rights are not to be determined (less rescinded) by a popular vote. Proposition 8 is wrong and should never have been on the ballot. I'm not gay, nor a gay activist, and have no stake in this other than, our government should *never* be used to make sure a minority group cannot enjoy the same and equal rights as the rest of us (the right to marry the person most precious to us in life should be included).

[Lamotte]

We were wrong for allowing a behavior to be classified as a minority group to start with. The homosexual rights movement stated their campaign decades ago while traditional citizens were still asleep at the wheels. The homosexuals started off by asking for small considerations, such as hospital visitation and partnership inheritants. As this started becoming acceptable to the general public, they stepped it up a notch and started asking for civil unions. We dropped the ball and granted it to them hoping it would end there. But no, it didn't. The homosexual rights movement stepped it up another notch to have themselves declared as a federally protected group, in which, i'm not sure if they were fully granted that request. The next step they took was to have themselves declared as a minority group, compared to blacks, hispanic, ect. Granted. Now, they are using all of these rights we as a society granted them to get full marriage entitledments including full recognition, the right to adopt children, and the right to teach your children about the homosexuality lifestyle. Do you see the ugly hole we dug by giving an inch? nuff said.

[Nick]

Clearly, this person has not read case law on civil rights, by coming to this conclusion:
"Mike:equality through same-sex marriage is false. Even if its passed some will object to gay marriage for religious or other reasons. The courts cannot take one side or the other without violating someone's rights so they will be forced to segregate.

Minority protection argument is flawed. Having heard this argument millions of times not one person has explained what a minority is other than its not a majority. You argue for rights to one minority group (gays) but have not defined any boundaries or limits on what qualifies minority protection. As long as a group is not a majority then anything goes because they can claim minority protection. You must also consent that minority groups like white supremacists, domestic terrorists, Hells Angels, polygamists, NAMBLA, are all entitled to more rights than they have. You have no moral or legal ground to oppose white supremacists from seeking greater rights such as teaching children. You have no moral or legal ground to oppose polygamists or NAMBLA from seeking more rights including marriage. Otherwise you are hypocritical, and just as intolerant and bigoted to minorities as those opposed to same-sex marriage."

[Mike]

Wow, some of the authors here really need some professional help.

[Thank you to]

Your post saved me time having to write a comment because you posted what my thoughts are concerning this issue.

[you might be a bigot]

Equality through same-sex marriage is false. Even if its passed some will object to gay marriage for religious or other reasons. The courts cannot take one side or the other without violating someone's rights so they will be forced to segregate.

Minority protection argument is flawed. Having heard this argument millions of times not one person has explained what a minority is other than its not a majority. You argue for rights to one minority group (gays) but have not defined any boundaries or limits on what qualifies minority protection. As long as a group is not a majority then anything goes because they can claim minority protection. You must also consent that minority groups like white supremacists, domestic terrorists, Hells Angels, polygamists, NAMBLA, are all entitled to more rights than they have. You have no moral or legal ground to oppose white supremacists from seeking greater rights such as teaching children. You have no moral or legal ground to oppose polygamists or NAMBLA from seeking more rights including marriage. Otherwise you are hypocritical, and just as intolerant and bigoted to minorities as those opposed to same-sex marriage.

[Mike]

But if you look at history, the Supreme Court of CA HAS defended the Constitution, no matter if there is a majority of the population saying different.
That is what makes our Constitution solid. You can't just say it is different because one group says so. If it is against the principles of the basic Constitution, then so be it.

[mark]

Voters can want whatever they chose, if a court rules their actions UNCONSTITUTIONAL

they have the FINAL say

[mark]

from the CA Supreme Court's decision
"From Page 6 of the May 15, 2008 decision:

"..under this state's Constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual's liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process."

THIS IS OVER, and the UT boycott is just BEGINING.

$40 million down a rat hole, and the perpetual disgust of the LGBT community towards UT = State of H8

[James Dean]

Do any of you read books? Have any of your gone to college? The Supreme Court justices are the people who make laws. Eleanor

Sorry, your ignorance is showing Eleanor. Supreme Court justices DO NOT make laws, they interpret and enforce the constitution. The voters amended the constitution so therefore unless the justices grossly overstep the very constituion they are supposed to uphold, they have absolutely no authority to overturn this.

If judges refuse to uphold the consitution and blatantly overturn the clear will of the voters, they absolutely deserve to be fired. Power to the people!

[mark]

NO ONE is excluded from Constitutional Rights under the equal protection clause.
If ruling for this principle loses a judge his seat, then he/she went out for what is RIGHT and MORAL.
The blame for such a firing is not on the back of the judge, it's on the back of BIGOTS.

[AndrewNY]

Evan clearly and succinctly states that gay marriage will one day happen, and while there may be firm resistance to gay marriage from many, using mostly religious arguments at the moment, the reason why it will inevitably happen is simple and plain. Young people, under 30, certainly under 25, are so overwhelmingly comfortable with the idea, they shrug their shoulders at all the fuss. We 'elders' in our 40s and above can bicker all we like, especially as for most of our lives gays were marginalized, ridiculed, misunderstood and downright loathed. However, a tsunami of tolerance toward gays will hit the electorate in 5, 10, certainly 15 years' time and all the spiteful bile emanating from the anti-gay groups - much of which preserved forever on messageboards around the world - will be archived in e-libraries for generations to come to gasp and scoff at.

[Mike]

I worked for Social Services for 32 years. I have seen children mistreated by a mom and a dad. Guiding a child comes from the heart. I would rather see a happy child in a gay relationship than an abused one in a straight relationship. Sure, gay couples are exposed to troubles and issues like straight couples, but please don't label straight relationships as the only loving family. Recently, I went to a rally in Sacramento, and I will never forget a sign a child was carrying. It said, " I love my two dads". The key word is love. This is the right time to bring gay rights to the table. The world is full of hate and wars. Why are we fighting for LOVE? This should be a no-brainer.
The CA Supreme Court does have a major decision to make. And I hope that politics will not factor when defending the Constitution.

[LN]

Oh my goodness! Thanks Tom. I'm sure all the people who wanted to marry their SISTERS, DAUGHTERS and ANIMALS will be sorely disappointed to learn that their ploy to do so was thwarted thanks to the well-wishing majority who didn't want people who weren't "one man and one woman" to get married.

I'm sure that the hundreds of thousands of committed, loyal, loving, healthy adults who thought that marriage was supposed to be about recognizing the commitment of two consenting adults to care for one another in sickness and in health will be willing to let that narrow definition stand so that people can't marry ANIMALS.

I suggest you look up the rights granted by legally recognized civil unions, as you seem to think they are the same as marriage. In fact, if you are in one yourself you had really better look them up, because it could be a nasty surprise for you when you realize you really need that recognition when bad times come around (social security, property rights, etc.)

[Evan]

Proposition 8 has passed - eliminating fundamental rights of a group of people - gays and lesbians. I will not tolerate the passing of such a measure and will do whatever it takes to fight for the right of gays and lesbians until the world truly does see every man and woman as equal.

The fight for civil rights is on-going and ever-changing, and we as a people must stand up and fight for what we believe in. Margaret Mead once said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." We will never give up. This fight will not end until we are granted equal rights – fundamental constitutional rights. I urge you to end this fight, clean and fair.

This may be the first time civil rights have been put to a popular vote. (Both the women's right to vote and the civil rights acts of the '60s were the result of legislation in the House and Senate.) California was also the first state to strike down bans on interracial marriage in 1948, and now has become the first state to take away a currently existing civil right from a group of citizens.

I know you support the gay community and I appreciate all you have done thus far to show your support. Society evolves. Marriage evolves. Since our country was founded, we have constantly “redefined” marriage. At one time, marriage between African-Americans was not even recognized by our country – and now our President-elect is an African-American. Barack Obama’s parents’ marriage was not even recognized in 16 states!

Same-sex marriage is inevitable. We will win. Why continue such a fight? How does same-sex marriage hurt anyone? Not allowing same-sex marriage hurts thousands (or millions) of people. Why should equal rights for a group of minorities be put to popular vote?

[tom wilknson]

It is unfair and incorrect to pose Prop 8 as a BAN on GAY MARRIAGE. Marriage has always been DEFINED and is still in many states DEFINED as between 1 MAN and 1 WOMAN, not related by blood.

Marriage is NOT between 1 Man and 6 Wives.. it is not between A BROTHER and A SISTER... it is not between a Human and an ANIMAL. It is not between a FATHER and A DAUGHTER etc. etc. etc.

PROP 8 reaffirms this definition that has existed for centuries before 4 judges in CA decided to REDEFINE MARRIAGE in a way that would allow 1 man to have 6 wives, or family members to intermarry.

Gay couples enjoy every civil right benefit, including legally recognized civil unions. There are no "rights not granted"

To call PROP 8 a ban on gay marriage, misses the main point and distorts the truth.

[NBarrett]

I think the Gay Community is pushing this issue too fast. The time is not right. They should have waited four years and tried again. Instead, they are forcing a legal battle that I'm not sure that they can win.

The California Supreme Court can overturn Prop 8 on two different grounds. They can either declare it an illegal revision, or they can cite the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Doing the latter would be a big mistake. It would make the issue a federal one and would trigger an almost automatic hearing with the U.S. Supreme Court. The gay lobby does not want it to go to that level at this time because the USSC will either declare Prop 8 constitutional or strike it down and open the doors to gay marriage all over the country.

While this latter result sounds desirable, the timing is not right. It would only re-ignite the fire for the Federal Marriage Amendment, which otherwise has lain dormant the last four years. Either way, gay marriage loses.

Declaring Prop 8 an illegal revision has its own difficulties, apart from the political repercussions discussed in the above article. Precedent demonstrates that a revision is defined either by the quanitity of the changes (deals with more than one issue or adds thousands of words to the constitution) or by substantial changes to the structure of government. As an example of the latter, the court case I read said that investing judicial authority in the legislature would require a revision.

Prop 8 is definitely not a quantitative revision. It's less than 50 words and deals with a single subject. And even though opponents claim that stripping citizens of rights is a substantial change to the constituion, prop 8 does not alter the structure of government in any way.

The best course of action for the gay lobby at this point is to back down, build bridges, create good will and understanding, increase acceptance of their lifestyle through community activism, and try again when the winds of social change are at their back.

[LN]

Reading through the comments above (a couple of select ones below) I'm just reminded again why we have a court system to protect people's civil rights. Minority groups will always be discriminated against; history tells us so. You could use these comments to back up a litany of tyrannical practices. You think the gay lifestyle is "immoral, unnatural and disgusting"? OK - let's outlaw interracial marriages, long-distance marriages, bilingual marriages, fat marriages, short marriages, dwarf marriages, and marriages that involve someone with a terminal illness. For any group of people, there is someone that will find them "disgusting." Does this give people rights to vote on it?

The second comment says that it is every child's right to have a mother and a father. Well, it sounds like we'll need to outlaw single parents then, whether the relationship ended because of death, divorce, abuse or was simply a one-night stand with that cute Marine who was home on leave. Let's force people who have children to get married (to someone of the opposite gender, of course) regardless of love, abuse, or safety. Also, if children need a mother and a father they need equal access to their attention, so we need to outlaw any family having more than 4 children.

In fact, let's just go back to arranged marriages. Parents (at least those who are one woman and one man and still live in the same house) know best anyway. Marriage never was about love anyway, right? It's about procreation!

"Its the opponents of Proposition 8 who are...demanding that most people accept a lifestyle that is immoral, unnatural and disgusting."

"The rights of kids are being taken away. Every child needs a mother and father. Alternative lifestyle marriage give zero chance of this happening."

[citizen]

Majority says we can't have two wives, majority says rich need to pay more tax, majority says we can't use our cellphone while driving, majority says some can't have sex with horse, majority says south can not have slaves, majority says Obama is president, majority says we can't sell our body/sex for money, majority says smoker need to pay higher tax, majority says marriage is between a man and a woman.

So which part of democracy or majority do we not understand?

[JD]

The will of the "people" means nothing if their will is unconstitutional. Separate but equal i.e. marriage v. civil union is unconstitutional.

[mary.thomsen@sbcglobal.net]

If gay people want to get married, let them! They work and pay taxes and should be entitled to everything every other citizen is entitled to. I always say "live and let live" I have gay friends that have adopted children, abandoned or orphaned, who now have loving homes, and are being raised in the best of both worlds. I feel sorry for children raised by bigots because they never really know what's going on in the real world. .

[John K.]

The irony of this whole situation is that a month ago the Court overturned a MAJORITY vote of 61% to ban gay marriage on equal protection grounds. Now, the Court is going to have trouble overturning a MAJORITY vote of only 52%. What does equal protection mean then? Sounds like nothing to me.

[Peter SJ]

Keep in mind that when one goes to city hall regarding marriage, you are applying for a LICENSE to wed. Licenses come with rules as to who can get one, and who can not. Marriage licenses are the same way. This has nothing to do with civil rights, no matter how many times the gay community uses the word. The state has historically placed restrictions on who can get married, and still does.

I suspect that CA court will let this amendment stand because there is no place in the constitution that allows them to over turn this very simple worded amendment. Other state courts, such as Oregon, have used California precedents as a guide that led them to uphold their own prohibition against this lifestyle marriage. So the clue is there.

Opponents will have to go back to the voters to rescind the amendment, which will not be easy. The gay community in its outrageous conduct since the vote has now increased the anti-gay percentage in our state. They have a lot of fence mending to do.

[Eleanor]

Do any of you read books? Have any of your gone to college? The Supreme Court justices are the people who make laws. You cannot overturn a state Supreme Court decision, unless you go to the National Supreme Court. It is common sense; this proposition should have never been allowed to happen because when the Supreme Court hands down a verdict its law. Their job is to interpret the laws of the land.
The will of the voters does not come into play in this matter. Read a book for goodness sakes learn how your government works if they did not want California to have homosexual marriage they should have appealed to a higher court. That is how the law works people. Popular vote does not come into play when civil rights are at stake.

[DavidAH]

There is an error in this article. Under the photo, it reads:

The California Supreme Court is being asked by Proposition 8 backers to do something extreme -– to overturn the will of voters who earlier this month banned gay marriage.

It should read:

The California Supreme Court is being asked by OPPONENTS OF Proposition 8 to do something extreme -– to overturn the will of voters who earlier this month banned gay marriage.

[Fernando P. Orlandi]

The will of the people is expressed in the California Constitution, which contains the sacrosanct principle of 'Equal Protection under the Law'. If Proposition 8 were allowed to stand as an amendment, it would mean that the voters might use the initiative process to deny any group of people the right of equal protection under the law, thus making our Constitution worthless for protecting any minority from the tyranny of the majority. I know that this is not what the people of California voted for when voting for Proposition 8. Unfortunately they were deceived by the lies and scare tactic of the ‘Yes on 8’ campaign.

[jennifer]

We need to make it known to everyone that if the judges have the courage to stand up and do what's right we need to stand up and fight for those judges. We cannot allow the religious right to take away rights, buy our elections or threaten the careers of those that are supposed to uphold the constitution. If the judges do what is right and stand up in spite of the recall threats we need to fight just as hard for them at re election time.

[PDuff]

If the Court does happen to overturn Prop. 8, I'd encourage the "No on 8" supporters -- both gay and straight, from business and from labor -- to offer their help in defeating any recall elections with money and energy.

[Berribrand]

I think it is ridiculous that special interests would threaten our judges and judicial system with retribution. The job of a judge is to interpret laws and decide whether they conflict with the Constitution. The USA is NOT a direct democracy; we are a Constitutional Democracy and a Republic, which means representative democracy. To me, the idea of having ballot propositions is absurd. I don't want special interests and idiots making laws. Our founding fathers knew too well of the tyranny of the majority. An impartial branch of government must exist to protect us from a mobocracy.

Whichever way the Supreme Court decides Prop 8 relative to the Constitution, we have a duty, as citizens to uphold it. It is implicit as citizens that we protect and defend the Constitution from enemies abroad and enemies within.

Finally, if the Court rules to overturn Prop 8, which I think is the legal and just decision, and the anti-equality conservatives choose to recall the judges, know this: six of the seven are Republican appointees and are VERY conservative (they go to church and all that stuff). You might not like their decision to recognize civil rights and marriage equality, but I bet you would agree with 75% (maybe 90%) of the other decisions they have made. So go ahead with your recall. I would much like to get some moderate judges in place of the six conservative Republican appointees.

[typo]

In the first sentence, you mean Prop. 8 opponents, not backers.

[Zach]

And this is EXACTLY why judges aren't supposed to be subject to election politics - they're supposed to do the RIGHT thing and make an INFORMED decision, not do the POPULAR thing and make a PRESSURED decision! People are always complaining how the other two branches of government are too easily influenced, but now that it's trendy to complain that the third is not, they've lost all appreciation for it. An impartial judge is a valuable thing, as valuable as rights like free speech and due process because they preserve those things. Do you really want judges to be just like any other politician?

[FVKen]

The first sentence in this article is crying out for an editor. Perhaps he/she was one of the 75 just let go?

[Jeff Griffin]

"The California Supreme Court is being asked by Proposition 8 backers to do something extreme -– to overturn the will of voters who earlier this month banned gay marriage. "

Has anyone at the L.A. Times ever heard of proofreading? Anyone??

This factual error is almost as bad as the subtle psychological warfare being waged against the gay community, by this newspaper and others. Overturning unconstitutional laws and ballot initiatives is not "extreme", in fact it's not even rare. It's precisely what our Supreme Court is supposed to do.

[Jeff Griffin]

"The California Supreme Court is being asked by Proposition 8 backers to do something extreme -– to overturn the will of voters who earlier this month banned gay marriage. "

Has anyone at the L.A. Times ever heard of proofreading? Anyone??

This factual error is almost as bad as the subtle psychological warfare being waged against the gay community, by this newspaper and others. Overturning unconstitutional laws and ballot initiatives is not "extreme", in fact it's not even rare. It's precisely what our Supreme Court is supposed to do.

[Nunya]

The California Supreme Court is being asked by Proposition 8 backers to do something extreme -– to overturn the will of voters who earlier this month banned gay marriage.

PULL YOUR HEAD OUT. Its the opponents of Proposition 8 who are demanding that the will of the voters be ignored (as well as demanding that most people accept a lifestyle that is immoral, unnatural and disgusting).

[PR]

To suggest that equal rights is a time when a judge should sit at the bench of thinking of nothing more than keeping his job, is to say true democracy isn't worth protecting. This about applying the law fairly.

Mob majority cannot rob small groups of their fundamental rights. Forget Germany circa 1933? Forget interracial couples here in the States just some years ago? Gee, how bold for the LA Times!

[harold]

Elect bad leaders get bad judges-we all know what these judges want to do. the only they care about is staying in power so possibly they will do they right thing. So sad we have judges that legislate from the bench-trying to change marriage and taking rights from kids-Of course these same judges will force it to be taught in schools-do we really think these lawsuit will stop here-it will be forced on us-whether we like it or not-at least this the attitude I feel from many of these lawsuits

[Adam]

Its a shame we get these judges who make law instead of rule the law. What poor leaders we have. The next step may be removing them. The rights of kids are being taken away. Every child needs a mother and father. Alternative lifestyle marriage give zero chance of this happening.

[LdsNana]

And so they should! The passing or Prop 8 was done through a free election, where the voice of the people has spoken - now twice - on marriage; which is only between a man and a woman.

[Lawrence in O.C.]

"Equal protection under the law" applies to ALL tax-paying citizens. If judges are not allowed to step in when the majority votes away the rights of a smaller group, then Equal Protection literally cannot exist. What if 99% of voters had said it's illegal to hire a Mormon or it's illegal for Catholics to attend public schools in California? Having judges with this power is what ensures a democracy over mob tyranny. Prop 8 was the first time in U.S. history that the majority of voters have tried to strip away already existing rights of their fellow tax-paying citizens. It's frightening.

[Richard Cortijo]

Just do what is RIGHT justices!!! Equal Rights!

[Mark]

On what Constitutional grounds can the CA Supreme Court overturn a CA Constitutional amendment? Perhaps the US Supreme Court but I'm not sure about the CA Supreme Court.

[Donna]

I have two points to make:

1) Prop 8 "Backers" are the ones supporting Prop 8 (the ban on same-sex marriage) not the opposition. So the first sentence of this article is incorrect.

2) Prop 8 challengers are not exactly asking for will of the people to be overturned. They are asking for the prop to be viewed as what it is: a revision, not an amendment.

The will of the the people is never used to revise the constitution. This is not merely a ban being put in place. This is a revision (needing legeslative, not popular, vote) to REMOVE a minority groups' rights. Civil rights, fundamental rights, that they already are granted. There is a significant difference.

Popular vote should NEVER be allowed to revoke any citizen's civil or fundamental rights.

[Jim]

I'll refrain from making comments about intimidation tactics being used against justices... :)

[Kevin Smith]

CORRECTION: This story incorrectly states that Proposition 8 backers are petitioning the court to invalidate the vote of the electorate. This is not the case. Opponents of Proposition 8 are asking the court to review its constitutionality.