Answering your questions about Proposition 8 and gay marriage

With the California Supreme Court set to rule Tuesday on Proposition 8, Times reporters Rong-Gong Lin II, Jessica Garrison and Maura Dolan are now taking your questions and comments on gay marriage in California. Submit them below. Reporters will post responses periodically over the next few days. On Tuesday, Lin will hold a live chat on L.A. Now after the decision is announced.

What is being decided by the California Supreme Court?

The California Supreme Court will rule on Tuesday whether to uphold or strike down Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The justices will also decide whether the state will continue to recognize or void the estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place in 2008.

 How did we get to this point?

After San Francisco officials began allowing same-sex couples to wed there in 2004, the courts intervened, invalidating the marriages on grounds that local officials had overstepped their authority. But in May 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that the state Constitution protects a fundamental “right to marry” that extends to same-sex couples. That made California the second state in the union, after Massachusetts, to permit same-sex marriage. About 18,000 gay couples were married between June and November, when voters approved Proposition 8, which amended the state Constitution to recognize marriage as only between a man and a woman. Opponents of Proposition 8 appealed to the California Supreme Court to overturn the ballot measure. They contend the proposition changed the tenets of the state Constitution and therefore amounted to a revision, which can only be placed on the ballot by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature; Proposition 8 reached the ballot after a signature drive.

What do legal experts expect the court to do?

Based on comments the justices made at a hearing this year, most legal experts expect the court to uphold Proposition 8, but continue to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples who wed before the November election.

If the court upholds Proposition 8, what happens next?

State officials would continue a ban on issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Supporters of same-sex marriage, however, are expected to go back to the ballot as soon as 2010 with another constitutional amendment recognizing gay marriage.

-- Rong-Gong Lin II, Jessica Garrison and Maura Dolan

Submit questions and comments below under COMMENTS.

Comments

[Jim]

I'd love it if you could explain, objectively, the equal protection issue raised in the original Prop 22 case and again in the Prop 8 cases, and how equal protection for gays and lesbians impacts religious freedom.

[Chris]

Can't the court chart a third course here by upholding 8 but directing the legislature to remedy the resulting discrimination, (i.e., changing the term in California civil law to "civil unions" and applying it everyone)?

This would comport with all the precedents including the finding of laws relating to sexuality requiring the "strict scrutiny" standard, on par with race and gender, in last years decision. That finding is it no way impacted by Prop 8.

It would also comport with lines of inquiry during the oral arguments, especially from Justices Chin (who voted in the minority last year, and suggested this option during the orals) and George.

Federal laws would have to be adjusted to fit the California actions, but it wouldn't violate the US Constitution and should certainly be welcomed by anyone advocating "states rights".

Thoughts?

[jen]

When the California Supreme Court decided that the "right to marry" applied to same-sex couples, how were the judges defining the word "marry" or "marriage?" Did the constitution specify the definition of the word "marry?" And if not, who are all the parties that have a right to define the words in our constitution or laws? Or, did the judges create a new term, "same-sex marriage," which they inserted into law?

Did the judges ever address why our gov. hands out marriage licenses in the first place? What is the reason we should recognize marriages, or any family relationship?

If same-sex marriages are recognized, why will all adult couples be eligible for the "marriage" status, and groups of adults, or single adults, will not have the right to label themselves as "married?" Do groups of consenting adults or single individuals have legal justification to become "married" now?

What would be the legal ramifications if gov. did not recognize marriage relationships (or civil unions) at all?

[Raphael]

If the justices go with a split decision, what does that mean?
That we recognize same-sex marriage, but don't issue any new licenses to same-sex couples? Would the state be required to make all references to marriage gender-neutral?

What about out-of-state same-sex marriages?

If the judges invalidate existing marriages, does that count as a taking? Are these divorced couples entitled to compensation for the state? And should these financial impacts have been addressed in the ballot?

[Dr. Ellesia A. Blaque]

In the spirit of Harvey Milk and George Masconi, it is a mistake to again let the Dan White's of the world get away with murder, in this case, the mass murder of love between same sex partners, who constitutionally should have the right to marry whomever they choose. I implore the California State Supreme Court Justices to do the right thing, not because of empathy for those who will be affected and effected by their ruling, but because the United States Constitution deems ruling against gay marriage rights unconstitutional the same way it deemed anti-miscegentation laws (laws against the marriage between whites an blacks) unconstitutional (see Loving v. Virginia, 1967). Step up like Chief Justice Warren stepped up and don't bend over to the will of America's bigots.

[Nick Ferrin]

Here in Chicago we have a different battle, but same war.

Prop 8 IS a revision; it changed the California constitution by removing fundamental rights the California Supreme Court itself said California citizens have. It's not just an 'add-on'. It now declares that California citizens of a minority group do not have the same rights as the 'majority' of California citizens! Fundamentals of the California Constitution DID change, it IS a revision, and by CA law requires the legislative body to act. Man, I need to call up these judges and talk to them.

No longer does the Constitution bear equality for all. Big change. The CA constitution and others like it stand, or once stood, as a symbol that all people are equal. Proposition 8 changed that FUNDAMENTALLY because that statement is not true anymore. Now the CA constitution contradicts itself by saying "We are all equal, except for them over there."

It is NOT a symbol of equal rights anymore, it does NOT guarantee that the government will give rights to all citizens equally. That is a major, major change and goes against the grain of all the principles this country holds dear, as President Obama has referenced numerous times lately.

The legal precedent set by taking away rights from a minority is scary, and I'm curious to know other cases in history where a ruling has done so. The legal precedent set by overruling a vote STRICTLY for minority rights, and to protect equal protection, is much less dangerous.

Hopefully the judges have the courage to rule in favor of minority rights and strike down Proposition 8 on the basis that it altered the very fabric of equality their Constitution once was, serving as a serious revision of the principles of equality requiring legislative action.

[Brian Slater]

If the CASC upholds Prop 8 AND the 18,000 marriages, doesn't this create an unequal legal staus for all-same sex couples. 2 classes of same-sex couples would then exist, those that ARE married and those that CANNOT marry. Would that ruling, in and of itself, be unconstitutional under federal law?

[Straight Male]

Which part of NO is not understood by the gay community?

[Chris]

I wonder about how a court, any court, can DIRECT a legislature to do anything at all? A court can interpret existing law, and can order persons or organizations to follow existing law (according to the court's interpretation) but I cannot see that directing a legislature to fix a law is anything more than judicial over-reach.

I also look forward to seeing the convoluted reasoning of the court -- if observers expectations prove correct -- that will lead the court to accept Prop 8 while also accepting the 18000 existing same-sex marriages which Prop 8 was intended to deny. How double-minded can the Supremes get??

The whole problem is that the court waded into politics when it should have waited for the politics to catch up. Not all injustices can be solved in the court of law. The Supremes have done great damage to their own credibility by failing to recognize that.

[Elizabeth Patterson]

If the Supreme Court once ruled that denying same sex marriage violated the state constitution, how can Proposition 8 be constitutional? If my same sex marriage is ruled "valid", why is that OK if other same sex couples no longer have the same right? How will the state administer the rights of these two separate groups - the legally married same sex couples, and those who are domestic partners? I think I prefer to give up my marriage so that we all have the same rights. This is just STUPID!

[abby0802]

Excuse me, but I thought that civil rights were exactly that -- civil rights. So my question to the court is: since when has denying civil rights been legal?

Oh, forgot -- the "righteous" right are terrified that people loving one another might "contaminate" them.

Sigh.

[Jim]

"Which part of NO is not understood by the gay community?Which part of NO is not understood by the gay community?"

The part where you believe you have the right to say it to me.

[Charles]

California's voters, by a very narrow margin, voted to take away existing rights from a specific minority group. Regardless of the wording, or whether it is an amendment or a revision, allowing it to stand would make a fundamental change to civil rights in this state and around the country. The precedent will have been sent that 50% + 1 can take away civil rights of another group. Nothing could be more un-American. Would the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have been passed by voters? Are civil rights something that exist only because the majority deigns to share them with a minority?

A previous comment asked, "What part of NO don't gays understand?" I reply, "What part of UNFAIR don't you understand?" I am a citizen of the United States and of the State of California. I work hard, obey the law, and pay all of my taxes. By what right would you deny me equal protection of the law, and equal access? If Proposition 8 is upheld, California will have created a legal form of second-class citizenship. That was, and should continue to be, unconstitutional.

[manaen]

Abby0802, in answer to your comments,

"Excuse me, but I thought that civil rights were exactly that -- civil rights. So my question to the court is: since when has denying civil rights been legal?"
.
And we have determnined, again, that there is not a civil right for same sex couples to marry. This is not denying a civil right; it is recognizing and declaring, again, that one does not exist here.
.
"Oh, forgot -- the "righteous" right are terrified that people loving one another might "contaminate" them."
.
Nice nonsensical nonsequiter.
.
"Sigh"
.
Indeed.

[Chris]

Chris,

The courts order legislatures and the executive branch to fix laws all the time because they are unconstitutional.

The court can't make the law that makes the fix, but they can rule that two laws or a law and a policy are in conflict and order that it be rememdied as the legislature sees fit.

An example: the NJ Supreme Court found that depriving equal rights to gay couples was a violationof the NJ constitution in 2006. They ordered the legislature to remedy it somehow within a specified period of time. The legislature complied, as it had to legally, with the court's order.

[manaen]

Charles @ 5:10, regarding your comment, "California's voters, by a very narrow margin, voted to take away existing rights from a specific minority group."
.
You write as if there existed a right for homosexual couples to marry. That has not and does not exist. California's voters did not take away a nonexistent "right," we affirmed, again, that such does not exist.
.
There is equality for all: all can marry a person of the opposite sex, none can marry one of the same sex. Someone's wants do not create rights to pursue their satisfaction. This is upheld in other instances of wanderings from sexual norms as well: e.g. pornography, hiring prostitutes.

[Jen]

"Marriage" is not a civil right, it is a relationship between a man and a woman.

The civil "right" is the right to marry, or to enter into this relationship and have it legally recognized. Everyone has the right to marry. Everyone has the right to enter into a committed heterosexual relationship that is legally recognized. The question is why should our gov. recognize this particular relationship and give it a certain status and rights?

Why should homosexual relationships be equated to heterosexual ones, when it is obvious to anyone with common sense, that marriage is legally recognized because it is the foundation of the family, and a foundation every child should be entitiled to. It is something that has value, and should be encouraged by the state. Man-man and woman-woman relationships have value. We all have these relationships. For most of us, these are non-sexual relationships and they can qualify as "loving." Regardless, they will never be equal when it comes to providing that ideal parental foundation.

[Lee]

As a reader in Florida where our nattily dressed, closeted Republican governor does his best to tow the right's line, I'm surprised to see how backward Californians are! I thought you were more worldly than this.

The fact is that no one is gay by choice. God is creating us steadily at about 10% of the population. Get over it. This is God's decision, not yours.

You cannot continue to deny basic human rights to a segment of the overall population. Eventually we will win the right to marry and achieve all the benefits and responsibilities that comes with that right.

We will prevail - it's common sense, and morally and ethically right.

[John]

I don't get what these anti same sex marriage people's argument is.

Marriage is a civil right.If everyone can't have it, then nobody should have it.

Iowa is now a more progressive state than California. That's really sad.

For people who looked to California as a progressive center, I'm sorry that we've let you down.

I'm sorry to the gay community, I hope that one day people with something called a conscience repeal this hate law.

[Jeff]

To the "straight boy" who asked which part of no the gay community does not understand:

The gay community will not accept anything short of equal rights, which means marriage.

In California we have civil unions which have most but not all of the rights of marriage. The problem is that is not equal rights under the law.

Black people did not stop marching for justice when Bull Conner said go back to your ghetto, stop using our drinking fountains and white only rest rooms, and forget that you cannot vote and do not have equal rights.

gay people deserve equality as well. And we wont stop until we get it.

The California Supreme Court recognized this right in its decision legalizing gay marriage last May. A number of states in New England and Iowa have recognized the same principle of equality. Young voters do not share the homophobic prejudices of older guys, so it is only a question of time before we have gay marriage everywhere.

Gay marriage does not in any way affect the rights of heterosexual couples. Gays have long term relationships and children. Look around you, we are everywhere, and we are not going back in the closet.

[redhogg]

If its ok for the state to say man and women are diffrent and should be seperated as they enter the restroom, then why cant the state also say men and women can enter into marrage only. It is not unfair or otherwise for the state to impose sex based discrimination for the public good.

No to prop 8 based on sex discrimination that we are all currently living with and not complaining about in its other forms.

[American]

The California Supreme Court needs the wisdom of Solomon here, as the judgment pits the rights of the voters against the rights of the minority. Hope it's fair to both.

[Gotalife]

From one straight male to the one by that name writing earlier...
What part of "get a life" don't you understand? (In other words, get your own life and leave others to live theirs.)

[JHK3210]

Gay marriage. Last week another story regarding the catholic church(read-Taliban) admitted widespread abuse in Ireland. I guess to the catholics no means just forgive us. What a bunch of phonies. Catholics, mormans the "christian right"- Get a real life - not one made up!
Gay marriage will become a national right.
Another "straight" male.

[Another straight male]

"Which part of NO is not understood by the gay community?"

Posted by: Straight Male | May 22, 2009 at 02:59 PM

============================

Which part of "you can't restrict the rights of others" is not understood by you?

And please, don't spew the same blathering nonsense about civil unions being the same as legal "marriages" because they are NOT.

The federal and state tax laws regarding both are completely different, nor is the ability to make important decisions regarding your "spouse's" medical care when they are unable. The rights that allow you to cover your spouse/partner on your health care policy and have access to his or her medical prognosis as the legal next of kin are rarely granted to union partners - civil union or not.

But then, I know the rights and dignity of others don't mean much to those such as yourself.

[Ann]

Granting same-sex marriage has nothing to do with religious freedom. Religious freedom in this country does not, and has never meant, the freedom to impose your beliefs on others. It means you are free to believe what you want and practice whatever religion you want.

[Zero]

I'm predicting violence today. One way or another, there will be blood.

[Brady01]

I'm offended to see a handful of left-wing groups actually argue with a straight face before the California Supreme Court that the people of California lack the ability to ammend their own Constitution.

In our country of checks and balances, the people must have a check on the power of the Supreme Court. This check is called the Constitutional Ammendment/Revision process. Gays and lesbians are hurting their own cause by trying to stuff gay marriage down the state's throat in blatant defiance of the democratic process.

There are good arguments in favor of gay marriage, but something that was completely nonexistant just a decade ago cannot now be seriously called an inalienable right central to the California Constitution that the people lack the power to alter.

[Bradford]

Inequality is inequality is inequality.

California used to be on the cutting edge; now it's slipping behind in almost every facet, both political and economic. When marriage equality becomes the law of the land in Iowa, but not California, we have to acknowledge that the Golden State is no longer on the forefront of progress.

Congratulations to the Christian Right clan of bigots. You long ago set your sights on California as a proverbial ground zero for your ugly experiments. History repeats itself yet again. When the Nazis came for the Jews and the homosexuals, the Christians said nothing, some even cheered and co-conspired. Just remember, when they come to take *your* rights away, there will be no one left to protest.

[Peter Carlson - Van Nuys]

The part of "no" that we didn't understand?

That would be the same part that blacks didn't understand in their own battle for equality.

[Jose De Loza]

This marks the beginning of yet another civil rights battle in our country. Justice and right will prevail. Marriage is a right, not a privilege, and it should not be treated as if it were. Those who oppose it have yet to make an intelligent argument in my view. I am sure that the people of California will eventually come to a mutual understanding and justice will be served.

[brigitte]

I dont understand how some people refuse to believe that this is a change we need, Im so tired of lisening to old thinking folks and blonde beauty queens refusing to accept the fact that we are all diferent and should be treated equal. This is the land of the FREE and it should be that way for everybody. The only way gay people is going to stop protesting and leave The Supreme Court alone is letting them have the same rights we all have, including marriying whatever sex gender you choose, legally they need to be recognize as one. I am not gay but we all just need to be open minded and act like we live in 2009 and not the 50's.

[coolhand]

This whole homosexual so-called marriage thing has gone to far and its is sickening and ridiculous!

Man and woman created this world, not two men or two women. What a big arse joke on our society!

Homosexuality is a behavior not a race. Stop comparing behavior of sex to races. Homosexuality is NOT A RACE kiddies!

[coolhand]

Keep in mind everyone. NO RIGHT IS OBSOLUTE!

So stop pretending you can make up your own rules as you go along.

Homosexuality is not a race, its a behavior just like heterosexuality. So what makes you homosexuals think you can make your own rules. Mother-Nature don't play that game.

If you compare yourselves to the animal world, contact PETA! Because that is the level your at! The animal world!

This whole so-called homosexual marriage thing is big joke!