Supreme Court sets March 5 for gay marriage arguments

The California Supreme Court announced today that it will hear oral arguments on the legality of the state's gay marriage ban on March 5.

The hearing is one of the most anticipated in the court's history. Supporters and opponents of Proposition 8 will make their case about whether the measure should be invalidated. Pro-gay marriage groups filed a lawsuit after the November election, saying the gay marriage ban violated the state Constitution. Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown at first said he would defend Proposition 8, but then he changed his mind and argued that it was unconstitutional. Backers of the measure have filed briefs supporting the ban. According to the court, justices will consider three issues:

-- Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution?

-- Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution?

-- If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?

--Jessica Garrison

Comments

[Roger]

Interesting to see Jerry Brown is no more competent and decisive than when he was governor and had his stooge veto any transportation improvements. He sure showed us not to grow in population. One thing about gay marriages - they may believe in sexual harassment for fun but they're not going to increase the population until they get cloning down to full term in a test-tube.

[Jim]

Can't come soon enough!

[Randall]

I hope it is declared unconstitutional.

Roger, I assume you've never heard of surrogacy or adoption? And since *when* is our population in danger of decreasing?

The whole "gays can't procreate" argument is very pointless, because it places validation on only couples that produce children. So, are infertile couples worthy of having a loving relationship? Of course they are. Only primitives think that reproduction is the only purpose of marriage.

Repeal Prop 8!

[FlexSF]

Great! It can't come soon enough. If the court doesn't destroy prop 8, I will support an amendment to ban prop 8 supporters from marrying in California!

[David Iglesias]

Sexual Harassment for fun?... wow...there really are idiots in this world.

[Steve M.]

What about the argument that Prop 8 violates the state (or federal) equal protection clause, because it denies citizens equal treatment under the law?

[Michelle]

Everyone knows that gay marriages are going to save California's economy!

[Brad]

I hope equality, not bigotry, prevails, and I have faith in the Justices to do the right thing to protect all Californians from discrimination by a slim majority vote.

[Paul]

Roger, a heterosexual woman in Whittier recently gave birth to 8 children fathered by a man whom she never even met. "Traditional marriage" and your myopic idea of morality will neither help nor hinder the propagation of the human species. Humanity will carry on whether or not you and your ilk are there to protect it.

And, for your information, gay couples can have children any number of ways-- the majority of which have nothing to do with test tubes or otherwise circumventing biological functions. I would remind you that the most common way for two people of the same sex to create a loving, nurturing family is through adoption.

Both fortunately and unfortunately, there will never be a shortage of heterosexuals who make stupid decisions and wind up giving up their children, or having them taken away. Perhaps, sir, in all your moralizing, you might tackle that little problem and leave gays and lesbians to them to worry about their own relationships.

[Chris Stychinsky]

On the contrary Roger, Jerry Brown's decision not to argue in favor of Prop 8. shows not only competence but also common sense. Imagine how much tougher it is to fight for Prop 8. V.S. against it.

[M a r c]

"they may believe in sexual harassment for fun but they're not going to increase the population until they get cloning down to full term in a test-tube."

I'm not clear as to what you mean, Roger, by this statement... Can you clarify?

[Rev Hank Bates]

My prayers are with the 18,000 gay and lesbian couples who have entered into legal marriages in this state. I am affirming that these marriages which came about due to the California Supreme Court decision will be upheld by the Court as they are being supported in God's Love. "Love one another" ... is not just a snappy slogan, it is a spiritual principle.

[David]

The answers to all three questions will uphold our election results.

[DWinOC]

Jerry Brown should be removed from office for dereliction of duty. As AG, His job is to enforce the law, not interpret them.

[pitbullstew]

The question of the legality of the initiative is the thing of it whether you or me approve of the subject matter or not, or if Jerry Brown is or is not the AG.
The separation of church and stae are alseo a consideration here, do we intrude on religion, then why does organized religion inject itself in the initiative process in this example, and oh yes today?
We learn the Mormon Church has thrown in a wee bit more moeny to the anti-8 effort than they ever admited before the courts ruled against those who wnat to seal the records in contravention to settled law with respect to campign financial disclosure?
And, so long as we are reading about others opinions of Jerry Brown? The $100 dollar or less 1-800-426-1112 Jerry Brown? I think he knows a little about the law there too?

[David Dodson]

Even though I personally would love to be a parent, one wonders why, in this day and age with the stresses we have on our natural resources, would the notion of not contributing to overpopulation would deny us the access to human rights of due process, equal protection under the law and reciprocity guaranteed in the US and State constitution.

[Amicus Curiae]

and KEN STARR is hoping to argue on behalf of Prop. 8 supporters.... Almost poetic - he overstepped his legal authority while investigating the Clintons, and now he's arguing that the majority should be allowed to take away rights of the minority, a clear overstep.

P.S. - Pepperdine Law School, where Blagojevich graduated, and Starr now functions as dean, reports to U.S. News & World Report that their percentage of graduates with jobs 6 months after graduation is an astonishing 95% plus. However, in typical Ken Starr fashion, graduates who were "studying for the bar exam" were counted in the "employed" statistic...

[Mallory]

Prop 8 violates the division between church and state as well as the 14th amendment and anti-discrimination laws. For a couple to walk into a courthouse and be denied their legal rights is a travesty of justice! How anyone could have supported prop 8 is beyond me... shame on california! The people were lied to and the GLBT community was slandered. It is disgusting and defaming.

[Colin]

Why is it such a problem for people if a same sex couple who has been together for, lets say, 20 years, pays taxes, serves the community and who are deeply in love with each other want to get married? This is the 21st century and it's like a discussion 100 years ago whether a black male and a white female should have the right to get married.

Don't we have other major problems on our hands that we should deal with?

My goodness!

[P. Nielsen]

The fact that any group want special rights, and want those same "rights" protected by any kind of government mandate goes against everything in the constitution.

Homosexuality is a chosen life-style, not anything somebody is with, so if we are to recognize their so-called "marriages", then we sink to the bottom of depravity and the next step is to recognize a "marriage" between X and X (fill in the blanks))

A sick and perverted chosen lifestyle is not a reason to demand that it be recognized and condoned by the rest of the world.

[Alex]

I'm not going to get into the state constitution crap. End point is that gays are denied equal rights and are being tried to made settle with a ''Domestic partnership'' this is a separate but NOT equal policy, no matter how much gay marriage is fought against it will be allowed in all of the United States in a time soon to come.

One reasons America has so many problems with other countries and within out own is because, the majority's inability to be accepting of different; cultures, race, and orientation(Just to name a few.) The people who are against gay marriage will always say ''I have nothing against gays but don't think they should be married.'' or ''It goes against my religion.'' (Or they're simply not comfortable with it.) These people are insecure with their own masculinity and femininity and ultimately have to look to religion because they can not live their life without a book that tells them what is right and what is wrong, as well as contradicting themselves over and over.

[Joshua]

If the conservative base has been truly concerned over what they deem to be a dismal state of marrage in the United States, then why have they not worked so tirelessly to ban divorce? Those with the state sanctioned capacity to marry are the ones dissolving their agreement of until death do they part. For those who believe that procreation is the sole purpose for marriage, then work for ballot measures that would dissolve the marriages of those who do not bear children after one or two years of marriage, so that they may enter into a "proper" marriage and procreate with that person. Until death do they part, naturally.

[CB in Silverlake]

You know,
I could revise that. I could put an "amendment" on the ballot stating that marriage is between a Christian man and a Christian woman. Effectively ending marriages between Jews. I could do this without ever mentioning the word Jew. If 51% vote for this it will become law. Considering 51% of the population is Christian it should be easy to pass. Is it legal? You bet. Could the Jews do anything to stop it? No. It's democracy.

[IT]

$83 million went to this campaign.

$83 million to fight for human rights. My marriage (yes, we are one of the 18,000 in peril) hurts no one: NO ONE. But it protects us and our children and makes us full citizens.

Rather than spent $83 million on a bigoted and hate-filled attack on a minority anad defending against it, I can think of a lot of better places it might have gone: the homeless, the hungry, the desperate. Schools and libraries.

I always thought that taking care of "the least of these" was what Christianity was supposed to be about, but apparently spending money attacking minority rights is more compelling than actually, you know, following CHRIST. If He were here, he would be weeping....and standing with the "despsed homosexuals" against the Pharisees.

[Jim Richards]

What, we're beating this dead horse again? Let me save you some time: Some will say that being homosexual is the same as being black, even though, unbeknownst to you, your uncle and your neighbor may be gay; some will point out that a few life forms other than humans have been found to practice homosexuality, and some life forms also eat their young; some will invoke the Bible into the argument, and they will be chastised as toothless bigots; some will say "show me the gay gene," and the response will be "show me the straight gene;" many will cite all the bad hetero marriages in the world. I'm sure I've left a few arguments out, but you get the gist. What it all boils-down to is "If you don't see it my way you must be an idiot."

[markieoe]

"Homosexuality is a chosen life-style"? Really? What rock have you been living under for the past 30 years.

[Arman]

DwinOC: Jerry Brown is defedding the law, the law as set forth by the California Constitution, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation.

And P. Nielsen, you are so bigoted and wrong on so many levels that I cannot even begin to describe it. No, I will. To begin with, being gay is not a choice. When did you choose to be heterosexual? If you can't get beyond that, there's no point in even trying to educate you.

[corntrader19]

A spirtual principle?! Sodomy is not a "spiritual principle". It's a sin! It's a perverted lifetstyle. Don't call it love!

[Jim]

Rev. Bates, thank you!

[Jim]

Last time I checked, when one religion believes something is a sin, but another does not, the government is not supposed to take sides, and allow the two religions to debate peacefully. That's called Freedom of Religion, and it's guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution.

Many of you say homosexuality is a sin and a perverted lifestyle. My church does not. (No, this is not some fringe religion, it's the denomination of the Puritans, and many other Christian denominations agree with us.)

So, let's say it's OK for the government and/or the "the will of the people" to take sides in this debate, and ban same-sex marriage. That means that we don't have Freedom of Religion. Now let's imagine that in two years, we get a majority to go the other way, and insist that ALL churches should be forced to perform same-sex. Would you think that was OK? Even if it was the "will of the people"?

Folks, the only way for this to work is for everyone to remember that we're talking about CIVIL marriage here. Your church is still free to believe and preach whatever bigotry it chooses. Get your church out of government, and we'll keep government out of our churches.

[paranoidmarv]

It's not important whether it's a spiritual principle or a sin. You have added nothing to the argument, corntrader19 (very obvious, I see what you did there).

What you have done is displayed the homophobia that riddles most arguments against gay marriage.

Gay marriage doesn't detract from anyone's right to life or property and is fair to all. On the other hand, Proposition 8 creates an inequality by denying one group a right enjoyed by everyone else.

The idea that morality is an issue in this argument is absurd. No group has the right to impose their religious beliefs in law especially when your best argument is butt sex is icky.

Two points.

1. The constitution is meant to protect the minority from the majority when it creates a law deemed unconstitutional. If you don't see that granting one group the right to marriage but denying another the same right is unconstitutional then you are corntrader19. Stop contaminating the gene pool.

2. If you still believe that homosexuality is a choice then you probably still think the world is flat and have an unwaivering belief in absolutes. See the above point for recommended action.

[pico]

DWinOC:

Jerry Brown IS defending the law as AG. Since the election he has not allowed the validation of any new same-sex marriages. That's the extent of his duty as AG, and he's still allowed to have an opinion on whether the law should exist as long as he continues to enforce it.

Best of luck, those of you in the anti-marriage crowd! With a margin of victory that's shrunk from over 22% in 2000 to only 5% in 2008, you have to realize this is your last hurrah.

[GregandJeff]

"It's a choice", "perverted lifestyle", "Sin"....yeah yeah whatever. Ignorant people have been singing the same broken record tune for the last 40 years at least. These ridiculous notions weren't true then and they aren't true now. If some education (and common sense) hasn't sunk in after all that time, then I guess there is not much hope for you. If you want to live frozen in time stuck back in the 1800's and have your women run around in prairie dresses or whatever that's fine, but don't you EVER say that this issue is not about love. I love my partner as much as any straight couple.

Oh...and btw corntrader19, you might want to look up the definition of Sodomy and actually understand what that word means. Especially since that term applies to more then the one activity you're probably thinking of (which not all gay people practice FYI). The word "Sodomy" covers a HECK of a lot of straight people's practices too!!! (maybe even YOURS!!) Guess hell is going to be a REALLY crowded place!!

[Mark]

Listen to the last gasps of the anti-gays. Sad, really.

Even if the court upholds Prop. 8, same-sex marriage will be legal in other states, and in time, it'll be legal in California (again) too.

[John Mendoza]

Next year should we pass a law that allows people to have sex with animals? or, perhaps pedophiles should be given the "right" to have our state recognize their sexual predilection. Can someone please get to the bottom of this and define homosexuality. Is it "love" between two men? No, I'm heterosexual and I love plenty of men (never had sodomy with them though). Is it two guys living together? No, I've had a few male roommates and, again, I'm heterosexual. So, what is it? What is the definition of homosexuality (this thing that we are saying requires the state to recognize it as legitimate and in need of protection)? It is sodomy between two men. So, what's the difference between protecting sodomy and protecting any other sexual habit? Where would this end? Don't you see it?

[David Blackburn]

I think Prop 8 supporters are walking into a trap! This is evidenced by the missing question about whether or not Prop 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Court question 1. Revision or amendment? Prop 8 defines the word marriage as between a man and a woman. This is simply a dictionary term that is to be recognized by the state when determining it's laws.
Question 2. I believe the Court is asking what authority it has in defining the word marriage. They did this in their May 2008 decision when they determined that if the State were to define marriage as between one man and one woman, then it would not be constitutional. This is the reason they changed the definition of the word marriage at that time. In their decision they clearly stated they would not decide at that time whether assigning the word marriage to the familial relationship was a constitutional right. Ken Starr is going to argue that the voters have the right to define the word marriage and that the court cannot overturn the will of the voters.
Question 3. Does the court have the right to annul same sex marriages? This is the trap as there is no precedent and what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If Ken Starr et.al. can present a compelling argument for the court to annul same-sex marriages, then the court has the right to annul all marriages and direct the legislature to only recognize domestic partners. Starr (who I believe is going to win the battle and lose the war) has already stated that a domestic partnership is equal under the eyes of the law. So why not for same-sex and opposite-sex couples?

Once the religious right has put all their arguments in place, who are they going to appeal to?

[DingTank]

The best same sex marriage can offer is 50% custody.

Infertile couples would not deny a child a mother nor a father. Your stupid argument is the absolute best same sex advocates have regarding the children.

And frankly, violence is the other.

And, Oh, how I wish I could join that party.

[william kraal]

the mormon church has shown that religion poisons every thing it touches!!lets have equal rights for all americans now!!

[Eustace]

Here in Europe a number of countries have Gay partnerships or marriage.

The world has not cone crashing down, it doesn't not effect anyone other than those who are now protected under the law. It has not undermined heterosexual marriage, thats done by people in heterosexual marriages.

All arguments against it are backward, prejudiced and utterly meaningless. If two people want to commit thats between them.

As for 'don't ask don't tell', US soldiers around the world are serving along side out gay soldiers from other countries, discipline has not collapsed. But maybe little prejudice has.

Most people across Europe cannot believe how backward, insular and down right stupid America wants to be, are you trying to model your morals on those of Iran? of the 9th century? Thankfully your new President has a section on his website about LGBT rights, he can clearly think rationally and with sense.

[Dyan]

For more than 17 years, I have been everything a wife could be to my partner and she to me: I loved her, nurtured her, cared for her when she was sick, cried for her when she was hurting, cheered with her when she was celebrating. But I was not able to call her my wife until July 8, 2008, when I had the privilege, honor and joy of legally marrying her. All I ask is that not be taken away from me for religious reasons that I do not share.

[Eli]

Love will prevail over hate in the end.

[Brian]

For all of you 'chosen lifestyle' argument folks, did you choose to be straight after trying the alternatives? When you were young, did you choose to find members of the opposite sex attractive? It's odd, because I was same-sex attracted since childhood. It wasn't a choice. And, by the way, I've been in a monogamous relationship with my partner longer than many of you straight folks, 25 years.

[Leslie]

Yes, Jim R, "few life forms other than humans have been found to practice..." any sexuality. The greatest number and mass of life forms on the planet, bacteria, don't even bother with sexual reproduction. Thank god you can't reproduce yourself.

Of animal species, none "marry" except humans. A life-long partnership of two individuals of any animal species is the exception, not the rule. Of those that pair-bond, some do so with same-sex partners. But no life-long pair of animals has been observed to pray, or persecute, or hate.

If you can't see the world for what it is, it boils down to this: You are an idiot.

[Jim]

John Mendoza, I can't believe you're seriously trotting out the bestiality and pedophilia argument again. For the 40th time, children and animals cannot consent. They can't consent to sexual intercourse. The cannot consent to enter into a legal contract. Same-sex marriage in no way opens a door for either, unless you sincerely believe that gays and lesbians don't want same-sex marriage and are somehow being forced into it.

[Jim]

Ding Tank, no one is proposing that we take children away from their mothers and fathers and give them to gays and lesbians. When the orphanages and foster homes are empty, you might sway a few people with that argument. However, since objective scientific research shows that children do BETTER in households with same-sex parents than heterosexual parents (the percentage goes down to "equally well" when you filter out the heterosexual parents who did not want children), there's simply no rational basis for not allowing same-sex couples to adopt children that heterosexuals have cast aside.

[Randy]

And if 8 is upheld as it should be, will opponents march in the streets and protest or will they accept their civil responsibility to protect and defend the constitution?

[Jim]

Randy, if 8 is overturned as it should be, will proponents whine about "activist judges" or accept their civil responsibility to protect and defend the constitution?

[pico]

Randy: Likely march in the streets and protest, because civil disobedience is as much a part of American history as civil responsibility. Otherwise we'd still have a lot of laws on the books that we no longer do. Social change is always a give-and-take between acceptance of the status quo and challenges to it.

John: given that the state of California already grants full recognition to domestic partnerships, I'm not sure your moral critique has any merit here. And that's exactly why the courts decided the way they did: the moral argument was moot because we already grant same-sex partnerships nearly all of the rights and privileges of marriage. People who think the courts pulled this out of left field clearly didn't read the decision. ...Or are you suggesting that the courts should go further and eliminate domestic partnerships, adoption rights, workplace protections, etc.?

[Why can't we all just get along?]

P.Nielsen: "The fact that any group want special rights, and want those same "rights" protected by any kind of government mandate goes against everything in the constitution."

So what you're saying is that heterosexual people (a group) want to be the only group to have the right to marry, thus making it a special right? And you're also saying that any group having special rights is against the constitution, right? So you're saying that you're in favour of homosexual marriage being legal in every place that heterosexual marriage is, in order to make sure that the special right of marriage is not limited to just one group, yes?

An open question to all those who state that homosexuality is a choice: you can see how hard it is to live a homosexual life, with everything from the number of rights that heterosexual people take for granted being greatly reduced for homosexuals, to the fact that walking down the street hand in hand with the love of your life can get you abused, spat on, maybe even killed, right? In that case, do you really think all homosexual people are absolute morons? Because why, oh why, would you voluntarily subject yourself to all that if you had a choice otherwise, hmmm?

[Tony d]

If marriage cannot be legally defined as being between one man and one woman, it cannot be legally defined as being between only two people. Using the logic of the pro same-sex marriage camp, if four people all sincerely love each other and desire to enter into a four-way marriage, how can anyone deny them that? The logic of that worldview collapses on itself. Their moral basis is just as concrete and "bigoted" as that of anyone else; they simply draw their bottom line at a different point and on a different basis.

The difference, however, is that the Christian's absolute bottom line is God and His Truth, which even the Christian himself is subject to, while the homsexual/secular humanist's absolute moral standard is himself. The one who is pro-same sex marriage is convinced that his way is right and everyone else should be subject to it.

Who's really the one who "forces his beliefs" on others?

[Jim]

Tony d, what you are advocating is that we do away with separation of church and state, and institute instead a definition of civil marriage based on your religion's definition of marriage. My church does not share that definition, and voted in 2005 that marriage should be between two consenting adults, not one man and one woman.

Now, let's say that we do as you say, and let a Christian church dictate the definition of civil marriage. How would you feel if it was my church? Without separation of church and state, your church could be forced to accept same-sex marriage, you could be ordered to perform the ceremonies, you could be banned from speaking out against homosexuality.

However, by keeping the separation of church and state, no one's beliefs are forced on another. Your church may still continue to preach against homosexuality. Your church may still continue to refuse to perform or acknowledge same-sex marriages. The CIVIL definition remains separate from the religious one.

And, yes, I concur that four consenting adults should have the right to have their relationship legally recognized by the government, regardless of what my church believes about polygamy, on whatever terms those four consenting adults define. However, since marriage laws are all built on the assumption that only two people will be involved, it's unlikely that civil marriage would be the correct institution to meet their needs -- in the same way I would not set up a sole proprietorship if what I need is a joint venture.

Once you stop conflating civil marriage and religious marriage, it really is very simple, and fair and equal for everyone. With separation of church and state, no one's beliefs are stepped on, unless that believe is that you have the right to impose your beliefs on others -- the very thing the First Amendment was drafted to prevent.

[Why can't we all just get along?]

Hear hear Jim, beautifully written, no room for logical argument against you.

[Lora]

The argument that gays are a minority is crazy. Being gay is a choice not a minority....black, native american, hispanic for example is called a race. I watched a video that was taken in San Francisco, a young group of kids who had been going to this park for the past 3 yrs to sing their worship songs. A whole crowd of gays chased them out of this park yelling at them to leave. They were blowing whistles...what is that!. Where were these young peoples rights to sing in a park? Seems like a double standard on their part. Only because of prop 8 they didn't like these young adults hanging around anymore. Where before it was okay...if being gay is suppose to be a natural thing, there wouldn't be a population. Get real..how from the beginning can a man and man have kids? impossible, like wise women. The world would be? Be real.