California Supreme Court to rule on Proposition 8 Tuesday

The California Supreme Court announced today that it will rule Tuesday on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the November ballot measure that resurrected a ban on same-sex marriage.

The ruling, which will be posted at 10 a.m., will also determine whether an estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages will continue to be recognized by the state.

Gay rights lawyers have argued that the ballot measure was an illegal constitutional revision rather than a more limited amendment. Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown urged the court to reject the measure on different grounds. He contended the proposition was unconstitutional because it took away an inalienable right without compelling justification.

Chief Justice Ronald M. George and Justice Joyce L. Kennard will cast key votes in the case. They were part of the four-judge majority that gave gays the right to marry last May, but both indicated at oral argument that they were not persuaded the measure was unconstitutional.

The court’s majority decision should be revealed in the first or second page of the ruling and reiterated in its last paragraph. Separate concurring and dissenting opinions follow.

Counting votes may be tricky because the court is dealing with three different legal issues: the revision challenge, the attorney general’s challenge and the fate of existing same-sex marriages.

The court’s vote on whether Proposition 8 is an impermissible revision, for example, will probably differ from its vote on whether existing marriages should continue to be recognized by the state.

Justices who disagree with the majority file dissents. If they agree with only part of the majority decision, they file an opinion called a partial concurrence and dissent.

During oral argument in March, every justice expressed support for upholding existing marriages. Justice Carlos M. Moreno indicated he believed Proposition 8 was an illegal revision, indicating he would dissent on that question

Moreno might be joined by Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, a former civil rights lawyer who stressed the court was dealing with a novel legal question. Werdegar, however, did not join Moreno in voting to put the measure on hold pending the court’s ruling.

-- Maura Dolan

Related:
Supreme Court website
Loudly and colorfully, opposing sides debate Proposition 8
Democratic legislators ask state Supreme Court to void Prop. 8
Gay marriage ban: A tale of two votes
County by County voting map
Los Angeles County: By the precincts
Tracking the money: Final Numbers
Follow our Twitter updates @latimesprop8 and @latimescitydesk

Comments

[hoyt adams]

why bother to vote if our wishes are overturned . all of the talk about the will of the people my ass .the will of the lobbyist is more like it

[kevin]

(linkback) Yes or No? Will California Supreme Court throw out Proposition 8 on Tuesday? [VOTE] - http://www.pikk.com/9fe84

[Steve]

I do feel that its against the constitution to ban same sex marriage. However a majority of voters voted against this and now the supreme court is trying to over rule them. This tells me that voting is just a waste of time and our votes me nothing. I think that this just goes to show how the nation is really run... the squeakiest wheel gets the grease; the voice of a minority over shadows that of the majority. Like I said, Im for same sex marriage, seeing how we should all be treated equally, but shouldnt our votes have a greater impact?

[Jim]

Let's just hope that, whatever their exact decision, they don't hold that equal protection can be removed by a simple majority vote. That would make California a very, very scary place to live.

[RWE in San Diego]

legistation from the bench. This can not be constitutional. We voted.. and this is PROP # 2 -- first 22 passed and Judge overturn. Now 8 pass and they are even thinking of overturning? Govt for the people BY the people! Why vote. Ridiculous...

[m]

If the will of the people is unconstitutional, then yes, it should be overturned. Tyranny of the majority anyone?

[just-a-guy]

Screw the 'will of the people'! It's my will to want to get married some day and its not fair that 2% of the population made it illegal for a minority group to not be allowed to get married. Get your religion out of my civil rights! This country was founded on the separation of church and state. Leave it up to the churces to decide who they will/wont married but grant me my rights!!!

[Tom W.]

The language "ban on gay marriage" is so bogus. If you call it a ban on gay marriage then you have to also call it a ban on polygamy, beastial marriage, marrying inanimate objects, marrying your mom, etc... Call it what it is people, an amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. To call it anything else is fallacious and shows a clear bias.

[d]

If the will of the people discriminates a minority, then it will be overturned. There is no legitimate argument in prohibiting same-sex marriage; virtually every argument made is rooted in religion.

Our country has discriminated in the past against African Americans, Asian Americans, women, etc., only to learn it was wrong. This isn't any different. Years from now, future generations will look back and realize how close-minded and ignorant we are today.

[Robert]

How come people who support Prop 8 seem unable to spell correctly?

[Karnig]

It would behoove many of the commenters here to take a constitutional law course.

[dodger tony]

I would really like to encourage readers to at least rationally think about your comments prior to indulging in crass generalizations and broad sensationalistic invective. This board is for intelligent discussions, not xenophobia and crass moralisms.

[Cassandra Washington]

Overturning Prop 8 is the only thing that makes sense. How can we take away someone's civil rights after they have be granted. And what a mess this state will face if these 18,000 people decide to sue the State.

[aday]

We all pay taxes. Why is it fair that a straight couple should get more rights/benefits than a gay couple when both are REQUIRED to contribute the SAME amount of money to the system? Prop 8 is taxation without representation- anyone can do the math. As far as people who feel that their votes are being ignored are concerned: you can't legislate morality. Just because something is "passed," that doesn't make it right. It took waaay to long for women and people of color to have "equal rights" because people were as backward then as they are on this issue now.

[OC CPA Dude]

For those of you who think it is a waste of time to vote, then so be it, stop voting.

Voting was a mechanism of voting for representatives, not deciding who gets legal rights and how does not.

If Californians vote to make Christianity illegal, should that stand? No! The Constitution is written to protect all, not just those that people want to protect.

The Supreme Court would be setting dangerous precedent if it allowed Prop 8 to stand. Whose rights do we take away next?

[Willa]

"the will of the people" is a scary concept without some safeguards, which is why America was formed as a representative democracy with constitutional protections for its people. Delivberative debate, not mob rule. Equal protection under the laws. Those are all fundamental concepts of our government. As an Asian-American, I would never want a majority to vote on what rights I get to have. It would be a sad day for all minorities if the court upholds the writing of discrimination into our constitution.

[hank]

If Gay marriages are approved, then plural marriages should also be legal.
Many men are able to support more than one wife, and many women are willing to be in such relationships. The State should stay out of it.

[Beth]

Our judicial system exists for a reason. Any 9th grader who has taken a basic civics classes would know this. And the courts certainly have the right, and furthermore the duty to step in when rights are granted or denied on the basis of sexual orientation. Citizens should not be able to vote the rights for particular people out of existance.

[Tim]

Hoyt adams, lobbyist have nothing to do with the Court. You are thinking of Congress which has nothing to do with this decision. Please get your branches of government correct.

RWE and Steve, have you guys ever even read the Constitution or know what the California Constitution says. I would recommend such an action before stating that something is unconstitutional.

[kcmd]

votes do mean something, but when those votes come at the expense of a protected minority, then it is the obligation of the court to prohibit a tyranny of the (slim) majority. it will be a very sad and unprecedented day if the state supreme court decides to strip a right from a group of people that they previously gave said right to.

[Factual Guy]

To Just-a-guy, you seem to forget that same sex marriage was made legal by a vote of a handful of judges. The vote of the people (and the 2% difference - not to mention the entire set of voters - is much more than that handful of judges) was to overturn than previous judgement and return to the traditional law.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the vote of the people, it was the vote of a majority of the voters and the proposition was exactly what the previous judgement said was lacking (i.e. they overturned the previous vote of the people because there was no relevant clause in the state constitution).

Although we may diagree with the outcome of a vote, it is the American way to at least respect the voters and their independent views.

[why do you care? who are you 'protecting'. Fear.]

@ RWE in San Diego (of course)

Yes, "why vote?ridiculous" That should have been the slogan for the No on Prop 8 campaign. It should never have been put to the people of the state to decide in the first place, but I guess that's how it 'works'.

[drb]

If you don't like the constitutional process, work to change it. But there has to be a process that is followed regardless of who is on a given side of a given issue.

[Don R.]

Yes, it is true that prop 8 received a majority vote... a sad statement about the continued level of prejudice, hate, fear and bigotry that still exists in this country, even in 2009. But this ruling is about whether this vote should even have occurred in the first place. I do find it interesting, and not just a little hypocritical, that people are outraged at the idea that their vote may be put into question, when their very vote was seeking to deny rights to others. That is the thing about conservatives. They only think about themselves.

[Dennis]

Since when is marriage a right? You lefties and fruitcakes are such whining little snots. Grow up.

[Anon]

Insider infromation (wishing to remain anonymous): The decision will...NOT BE OVERTURNED.

So...don't worry.

[Valley Girl]

I agree with Steve. I'm believe that EVERYONE is equal but, if the State voted a certain way, then LEAVE IT! What's the point of voting? Why waste money in all of this? Are we going to overturn EVERYTHING we've voted on? It's embarrassing!

[why do you care? who are you protecting.]

Also
Steve- You say "-Like I said, Im for same sex marriage, seeing how we should all be treated equally, but shouldnt our votes have a greater impact?"

You voted on something that has zero affect on your life.(and I have a feeling you leaned toward Y on this one.) It is not the 'will of the people' when you are not deciding your own destiny, but someone else's. Why should that be valid?

[Jon]

If Prop 8 is upheld on Tuesday, it is only the beginning, not the ending, of gay rights.

Gay marriage is sweeping the country in unprecedented ways, from the east coast to the midwest, and finally to the west and south. Gay people will not be denied in their equal rights.

Small-minded religious zealots can't hide behind their Bibles because there is a separation of church and state in our country. I personally cannot wait until Obama appoints more judges to the federal courts and to the Supreme Court. It's inevitable. He is considering two lesbians for the Supreme Court. Imagine what an era of openmindedness on which our country is about to embark! Exciting times, indeed.

And if you don't like it, you "Christians" can move to Afghanistan with all of the other religious extremists. You and the Taliban have the same mindset, when it comes down to it.

Soon gay people will be making out on the front lawns of Orange County as husband and husband, or wife and wife, and you can't do a thing about it, you haters!

[Don R.]

Yeah "Dennis"... I'd rather be a...how did you so eloquently put it..."whining little snot", who is actually trying to make the world a more fair, just and kind place, than a hateful, mean-spirited, coward, who wants to keep the world divided, struggling and sad. And by the way, the rights we are seeking are for equal protection under the law...it's in the Constitution. (God, I hope you don't have kids you are raising.)

[Alex]

When we adopted the initiative process I believe the people who crafted the bill was pushing governmental issues not civil rights issues on the ballot issues.

I love it how the right wingers say we need to grow up, stop wasting money. Who is wasting money on this issue that don't even contend with your life? Right wingers need to get a life and stop worrying about homosexuals lives. You all need to sweep your own back porch before looking at homosexuals as "immoral". So I guess divorce & and cheating on your husbands and wives is "morallly and biblically correct"???

[Zach]

Some people need to do some critical thinking on this if they think that this is just about any old vote being thrown out. Enough people have said it that I doubt it'll get through to some people this time, but people do not have the right to vote on "EVERYTHING," Valley Girl. Rights are protected, and that includes protection from a majority taking them away.

Not only is critical thinking needed, but some basic research as well. When you stop shaking your cane and namecalling, Dennis, you should inform yourself that the California Supreme Court ruled marriage a fundamental right in 2008. So, "Since when?" Since 2008.

Now you know, if you're still reading.

[Raul]

As one of the people who is having the fate of his marriage decided here, I want everyone to know that if I am forcibly divorced from the man I legally married, there will be more law suits. The mob does not have the right to legally discriminate against a minority group because of religious bigotry, or any other bigotry. The courts need to do what they have always done in situations like this. force the mob toward a better America. Would the south have integrated schools if it were up to a majority vote?

[Matt S.]

"Insider infromation (wishing to remain anonymous): The decision will...NOT BE OVERTURNED.

So...don't worry.
Posted by: Anon | May 22, 2009 at 12:22 PM "

Insider inFORmation (wishing to be heard): The lgbt community will... NOT STOP FIGHTING.

So...you'd better worry your right wing conservative hind end off.

[Richard H]

What is with everyone? Why is anyone allowed to be treated differently under the Law? Gay men and woman all have the same rights under the Constitution...it is not the will of the people that should decide the fate of a minority. Our laws are written to protect the minority against the majority.

The idea that Prop 8 was even on the ballot is discrimination..and ridiculous. As one of the 18,000...I will not sit back and let anyone take away one tiny fraction of my rights. Anyone who would argue against me having the same rights as them are bigots.

Keep your religion in your home and out of my bed and my Government.

Do any of you Haters ever think about the amount of money Gay marriage will bring to the State? I know for a fact...my wedding in bringing in close to $250K Times that by 18,000!!!

[Drew from Iowa]

I love how the people use the "law" to back up this proposition. Simply being law makes it right in their eyes I guess. Typical ignorant selfish Republican. It doesn't matter, you can spend and spend to fight it, eventually it won't matter. If I was a Supreme Court justice in California and KNEW that 30 years from now my legacy was in history I have two options, "I can be considered a bigot and hater like those who upheld blacks as slaves, or I can be seen as standing firm on human policy and invoke what is morally right"

Otherwise, just fly back to my state, Iowa. At least the hillbillies here understand even the most basic of human morality.

[Josh]

Its unfortunate that this was put before the voters to decide. Im not sure how that happened, but from what I understand about government is that we have a "representational democracy" and not a "direct democracy". A representational democracy is having representatives who are chosen to govern by the people through elections. We vote on representatives that we want to represent us. Ideally, these representatives are knowledgeable enough to make wise decisions and are held accountable. Direct democracy is the direct involvement and voting of the people. It was intentionally avoided by the creators of the constitution. The problem with it is that it allows a majority to deprive the rights of a minority. They created a very smart system to try to counter that. Im not sure why the state of california started doing this, but in reality, as hard as it sounds, people cannot really be relied upon to make important decisions. Its not because people are dumb or bad, but because people are generally too swayed (and sway-able) in their passions. In engineering a car or some kind of machine, would you rather have 4,000 people try to engineer a machine, or would you rather have a handful of experts chosen by the people by their qualifications to create the machine? 4,000 people would be chaotic.

You just cant vote on depriving someone of a right, no matter how much you disagree with it. Arent you glad that people cant vote on whether black and white people can marry anymore in local elections? Do you really want to live in a country like that?

[Bruce]

The Supreme Court will have no choice but to uphold Prop 8 voted by the majority here in California.

Gays and Lesbians will have no choice but to abide by the law whether they like it or not. Gays and Lesbians Do Not have the right to disturb the peace or to threaten anyone who disagrees with no on Prop. 8 or their sexual orientation.

Marriage is not a right to anyone, and Gays and Lesbians need to get it through their heads. If Gays and Lesbians continue to persist, they will bring on the hate and suffer the consequences of those who will not tolerate their behavior.

[markiejoe]

It's going to be embarrassing for the California Supreme Court, normally proud to be leading the way for the country on civil rights issues, on Tuesday when they let Prop 8 stand, because since oral argument other more "conservative" states have legalized gay marriage -- through initiative and through the legislature.

So the California Supremes will have to do some fast talking and hand-wringing about how in California they have to respect the sorry initiative process where anything and everything can be voted on and put into effect by a bare majority. [See our awful budget mess for another example of the havoc the initiative process can wreak.] Can't wait to read their tortured language.

But at least they will leave the marriages that already exist alone.

[Brian]

@ ValleyGirl

You said "I agree with Steve. I'm believe that EVERYONE is equal but, if the State voted a certain way, then LEAVE IT! What's the point of voting? Why waste money in all of this? Are we going to overturn EVERYTHING we've voted on? It's embarrassing!"

So we if voted to deport all Latinos living in California you would be ok with that? I mean, we voted for it so it must be the right thing to do, right? We have a state (and federal) supreme court for a reason.

[aimster]

The People of California have spoken for the second time: Marriage is between one man and one woman. Not a man and another man, not a woman and another woman, not one man and 20 women, not one woman and 20 men, not a man and a boy, not a boy and a horse, not a man and a lamb, not a girl and a tree, etc., etc, etc

[bjth]

I'm a lifelong hetero female with no plans to change either status anytime soon. For the life of me, I don't understand how gay marriage or plural marriage even should have any bearing upon my personal happiness or my preference for men as partners. Remember, we're talking "consenting adults." Not people wanting to marry their sheep, small children or their moms. Our main concern in any type of formally-recognized marriage is that any children of such unions are protected. Beyond that, live and let live.

[Jim]

Dennis, marriage has been a "right" since the human race first appeared on this planet.

However, I assume you mean from the legal standpoint. The fundamental right of marriage was first acknowledged by the state of California in 1948 (Perez v. Sharp), and by the United States in 1967 (Loving v. Virginia).

A government can choose to suppress fundamental rights, but that does not mean they aren't fundamental rights. You have the right to speak bigotry even if I unconstitutionally outlaw it.

[Jamie]

I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will do the right thing and rule to overturn Prop 8. If not, it is just a matter of time.

[Rob]

"Marriage is not a right to anyone."

Wow, what an uninformed opinion. People who can't understand the basic U.S. Constitution should not be allowed to vote. This is why the initiative process needs to go.

[wylacot]

That headline just made the bottom of my stomach drop about six feet. I don't know how I'm going to make it until Tuesday afternoon.

As for the idea of voting, how many people who voted for Prop 8 bothered to vote on Tuesday for Props 1A through 1F?

There are so many more horrible things happening to the residents of our state and country today. The financial situation is at boilover level, we're in debt up to our eyeballs to the Chinese, and children are about to go without healthcare. Doesn't God care for those more than for allowing same-gender marriage? Somehow my image of the Almighty is more benevolent than that of others, I think.

My partner recently left the hospital after a several-day stay for pneumonia. The word "marriage" accomplishes a lot more and does so more quickly than "domestic partner". I wish I could have said that so medical staff would have understood the relationship immediately at admission and at all times afterward.

I know I can't say anything to change the minds of people who are committed to Prop 8. I'll end by stating that allowing same-gender marriage allows people to be left alone to build a life together, nothing more or less.

[dffdf]

get ready to remove the juctices if they remove the will of the people

[jeffrey hepler]

Gays have their Civil unions and domestic partnerships. This minority of deviants should never have the authority or power to redefine marriage or our society based on their perversions. We chose to honor male and females in marriage. We said it twice to the gays in elections. What part of "No" and "Get lost" do you not understand? Leave marriage alone. You don't need our tradition. Make your own. And don't beg us for validation.

[Bob M of Westmont, IL]

Shouldn't the next proposition be "SHould heterosexuals be allowed to marry?".

If the court lets Prop 8 stand, let's hope they also recommend that heterosexual marriage should be restricted to those who can pass a constitution test.

[CAPearl]

You know what? I think everyone who didn't like the way the majority of the people voted on Prop 8 should leave California. You obviously are very unhappy people and you should live elsewhere that will accommodate your perversions. Frankly, I'm looking forward to the Supreme Court upholding the right of the people to determine what their society will look like. This isn't a race thing so don't give me that. It's a sexual perversion thing and I'm glad the people of California had the guts to stand up and say NO MORE! Others will follow in the States where it's being crammed down their throats. You watch! It will happen.

[CAPearl]

You know what? I think that everyone who is unhappy with the outcome of Prop 8 should leave California immediately. Obviously you are very unhappy and you should live elsewhere that will accommodate any perversion you want. Frankly, I'm looking forward to the Supreme Court upholding the will of the people to determine what their society will look like. This isn't a race thing so don't give me that. This is a sexual perversion thing and I'm glad the people of California had the guts to say NO MORE! Others States who are having this issue crammed down their throats will rise up and follow suit. You watch! It will happen

[Jason]

I wouldn't worry about these people bitching and complaining about gay marriage. They don't have much else to complain about after Barack took office, except maybe global warming (sigh). Either way, Schwarzenegger will be out in 2010, replaced by a Democrat who will be much more sympathetic about civil rights issues and gay people will have equal rights, just give it time.

[Will]

A number of people have said "We voted on this and you lost, now get over it." But we've voted on parental notification laws three times in six years, and it's failed every time. And somehow, I bet we'll have it on the ballot again in 2010.

So, basically what you're saying is, if you win, it's final, but if you lose, you're going to come back at us until you win, when it's final, right?

Somehow, that doesn't add up.

[Bonny]

Why even have a constitution if a 50% vote can take away protections provided within? I suppose those who are against gay marriage would be fine with the majority voting to remove rights for interracial marriage as well; obviously not since then their bigotry would be plainly seen. When you break it down, these bigots just want to hide behind religion to promote inequality.

[Tell the Truth]

Frankly, I don't understand why you Californicators (that includes you heterosexual married couples and singles, too) have all of these "resolutions." Why do you even bother voting for legislatures? Why don't you save yourselves some money and get rid of your state legislators and vote on every friggin' issue yourselves?

AS for the gay marriage issue, as a heterosexual I'd be ALL for it. And as a dude, I'd be in favor of ALL closeted gay men coming out of the closet. That would improve my odds with the ladies.

[dan1132b]

If this is overturned, then the votes and electoral for Obama should also be overturned.

[Cheryl]

For God's sake, our nation used to allow the ownership of slaves, prevented woman from voting, and banned the sale of alcohol! Banning gay marriage is simply discriminatory and unconstitutional, no matter how you look at it. The people of Massachusetts and Iowa have realized it, I hope California recognizes the civil rights of gay Americans on Tuesday. God Bless America and our brave soldiers who are fighting to protect the rights of "heterosexual" Americans abroad...

[Steve]

Jim (5/22/09; 2:09 p.m.) made a wonderful point for marriage between a man and woman. Both, Perez v. Sharp (1948) and Loving v. Virginia (1967) upheld the right that a man and woman can marriage regardless of racial origin. Anderson v. King County (2008) and Hernadez v. Robles (2008) upheld that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Currently, the "No on Prop 8" supporters uses the following communication techinque to ensure their viewpoint:

"...never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it."

(Reference: Dr. Henry A. Murray. Analysis of the Personality of Adolph Hitler: With Predictions of His Future Behavior and Suggestions for Dealing with Him Now and After Germany's Surrender. The Office of Strategic Services. 1943)

Facism is Facism. The "No on Prop 8" supporters have embraced FACISM! Their Mantra is "GAY FACISM UEBER ALLES!"

[RegularGuy]

My prediction is that on Tuesday, three judges will overrule the will of hundreds of thousands of Californians.

They will do so because government has ceased to be "of the people and by the people." Government is now driven by strident minorities. The groups that scream loudest and longest get the most favorable treatment, and the rest of us . . . well . . . we get the bill for it.

[RickS]

Gays and straights have exactly the same rights already. Either one can marry someone of the opposite sex. Think about it this way, what if a straight person decided she wanted to marry someone of the opposite sex? She wouldn't be allowed under this amendment. So, everyone has the same marriage rights. The CASC shouldn't have even gotten involved. Case closed. Next.

[Marcel]

It's not about giving or denying gay rights... but about demoralizing what a healthy, house & family is all about. Most of people endorsing gay marriages, don't want their children to be educated in a gay home. This is hypocrisy! Church Ministers will be forced by law to celebrate gay marriage. Is this fair?

[sickofu]

LA Times IS CENSORING stuff AS USUAL!!! I submitted this 3 times now;
"Get this through your heads: "Gay" is NOT a right on equal footing with factors of birth, i.e. color, race, gender, etc! "Gay" is a CHOICE of (what most consider a disgusting) behavior, and there is not one single court of law on the planet that has yet ruled that it is a matter of birth.
First things first. Go prove you "were born that way", then maybe you have a valid argument. Now go away."
GET OFF IT LAT's! What is it, FACTS or AGENDA with your editorial? Go behavior-mod some other country please!

[sickofu]

Maybe there would be no "gay"-in-your-face problem if the LA Times ceased to push and shove this dispecable agenda down the publics throat. I'll state it again; No court in the world has yet ruled that being homo is a condition of birth! It is a LIFESTYLE CHOICE so until you can prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that you were born that way, you are not on equal footing per the Consitiution(s)... of any state or nation!

[sickofu]

LATIMES = communist style censorship! What are you afraid of? Honor the forum platform or do away with it altogether! America is a nation built upon diverse beliefs, apparently you don't like it if the majority dispises the "gay" agenda which you (LAT's) so zealously promotes. No "gays", no pedophiles, no homosexual rape of children = no controversy, no worthy news stories = dwindling readership...uhhh REVENUE! I think I understand the concept.

[jim]

Why can a few jerks sitting in a courtroom decide whether or not the vote of the people is legal? These are the same people that take money for elections from unknown ?people. Pretty soon they will decide who RULES US.

[MarieJ]

This whole thing makes CA look like a backwards red state, as do some of the comments here.

Some comments have denigrated homosexuality as "deviant," "perverted," etc. I wonder if Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter knows how much she's hated among those who she counts on to support her dad.

[hugh]

Those judges won't have the courage to overturn Prop. 8, even if upholding it undermines their authority in any constitutional nation. Let the prejudiced have this brief win. One day they'll just be carried away by the tide and become a mockery for the younger generations to come.

[Jim]

@Steve on May 24, 2009 at 07:38 AM -- I fail to see what a Washington and a New York case have to do with California law...

@RickS on May 24, 2009 at 10:16 AM -- by your logic, interracial marriage should be OK. After all, when interracial bans were still on the books, everyone had the same right to marry within their race.

The truth is that the fundamental right of marriage is the right to settle down with a mutually consenting partner of choice. Government can try to suppress that right, but it remains a fundamental right, and one that people will fight for.

[jggrimm]

For several thousand years marriage has been a sacred religous ceremony performed in churches, synagogues, wards, temples. For several decades we have heard the argument that the church and state must be seperate. But alas, the very same folks who would further such a constitutional perspective would ask us to accept the state walking into the same churches, synagogues, wards and temples and require the head religous figure, a pastor, a priest, a rabbi, an iman, to marry a man to a man or a woman to a woman. We cannot have it both ways, folks. Marriage is a venerated institution with deep religous roots. Leave it alone. If the state legislature or the voters through the initiative process care to establish a civil union under the authority to the state, then do that. But, to have some consistency in our fleeting grasp of Constitutional rights, keep the state out of the church.

[Diane]

Marriage: relation/union between husband (male) & wife (female)...people who want a union other than that...go for it but the word married designates male & female....pick a different word for your type of union, get your rights...no one cares that you have a different type of "union"....it is different, not a union between a man & wife, so pick a different word to identify your union and get on with life.......

[martifr]

The CA supremes don't have an ethical bone in their bodies. I'm certain that they'll overturn the will of the voters. It's way past time tho throw out the democrats in the statehouse.

[Rob]

Regardless of what happens tomorrow no voter can change my heart and the love that I have for my partner Monty that I legally married on October 30, 2008.

You can try all you want, you can say what you like, but you will never change my I do for as long as we both shall live.

[VJ]

My rights or OUR rights today, your rights tomorrow-Remember, when you revoke mine I get to do the same to you tomorrow! Most Americans are not educated enough about legal issues and our Constitutional frame work, as an American I uphold ALL of the rights that we have as citizens. Women still do not have equal rights to men, Obama just passed equal pay for women giving them a small handout-how nice, yet there are many women who vote to strip gay, lesbian, transgendered people of equal rights. Additionally, to all of the straight puritanical people that are so consumed with hate that they cannot think clearly, if you are so adamant about excluding gays, lesbians, transgendered people then consider the following: Stop eating in restaurants-we make your food, stop seeing doctors-we are physician's-that would be me, stop flying on planes-we are your pilots, take your children from school-we are teachers, stop buying clothes, cars any and all durable goods-we manufacture your household items. Do you get the picture? And yes, there are even the so-called straight men that have the trophy wife and children secretly leading a double life with a male partner or partners. Oh, and if you want to revoke our rights be sure to pick up the tab-PAY OUR TAXES! See, you can't be hypocrites, if you want to discriminate you must be willing to accept the trade-off. It is like saying you want peace but people are not willing to make a sacrifice for peace, only lip service for peace. GOT IT?! Stop utilizing the legal and judicial system or branch of our government as we are attorney's and judges. In an issue of the ADVOCATE the business magazine of choice for Gays & Lesbians, in the year 2000, there was an article dedicated to the gay and lesbian community that reflected our income level and participation in society, we contributed more than double to the economy in travel-i.e. flying, taking cruises, hotels, restaurants etc. so much so that United Airlines refused to revoke an add to market to our community in the same publication at the behest of the Southern Baptist Churches. Almost slipped my mind-we make your Disney movies, movies period, your fashionable clothes you wear were designed almost exclusively by gay men and lesbians from around the world. In 2005 Spain began allowing same-sex marriages-FULLY to its citizens and declined to cooperate with Bush's request to deny those marriages. SPAIN-the most catholic nation on the planet next to Italy!! Even Cuba passed same-sex civil unions in 2007-GO FIGURE-CUBA!!

[VJ]

Follow up to my previous statement, the judicial branch cannot by law, abridged the rights of the California citizens as defined under the California Constitution-Declaration of Rights-Section 1. Why? Because it is unconstitutional for the legislature, judicial branch of government as well as the people to vote on the rights of the equal protection clause of the State Constitution. So, there should not be any further debate however, our government is doing what any other fascist government does when it is paid off and participating in corruption. Please note, just last year California Supreme court Justice Joyce L. Kennard in May of 2008 upheld the California Constitutional protections and voted to allow same-sex marriages to take place, now her recent memory must have failed her because she has gone in the opposite direction. Hmmmm....could it be say money or a position of power issue that has been threatened here? Please refer to the California Constitution online by searching GOOGLE and read for yourselves, educate yourselves. There are certain groups or individuals with views of which I do not agree however, we must allow them the freedom and legal protections so that they can choose to worship, participate etc. The court did not have a right to allow a ballot to send Prop 8 to the polls-it is ILLEGAL to vote on citizen rights.

[VJ]

My rights or OUR rights today, your rights tomorrow-Remember, when you revoke mine I get to do the same to you tomorrow! Most Americans are not educated enough about legal issues and our Constitutional frame work, as an American I uphold ALL of the rights that we have as citizens. Women still do not have equal rights to men, Obama just passed equal pay for women giving them a small handout-how nice, yet there are many women who vote to strip gay, lesbian, transgendered people of equal rights. Additionally, to all of the straight puritanical people that are so consumed with hate that they cannot think clearly, if you are so adamant about excluding gays, lesbians, transgendered people then consider the following: Stop eating in restaurants-we make your food, stop seeing doctors-we are physician's-that would be me, stop flying on planes-we are your pilots, take your children from school-we are teachers, stop buying clothes, cars any and all durable goods-we manufacture your household items. Do you get the picture? And yes, there are even the so-called straight men that have the trophy wife and children secretly leading a double life with a male partner or partners. Oh, and if you want to revoke our rights be sure to pick up the tab-PAY OUR TAXES! See, you can't be hypocrites, if you want to discriminate you must be willing to accept the trade-off. It is like saying you want peace but people are not willing to make a sacrifice for peace, only lip service for peace. GOT IT?! Stop utilizing the legal and judicial system or branch of our government as we are attorney's and judges. In an issue of the ADVOCATE the business magazine of choice for Gays & Lesbians, in the year 2000, there was an article dedicated to the gay and lesbian community that reflected our income level and participation in society, we contributed more than double to the economy in travel-i.e. flying, taking cruises, hotels, restaurants etc. so much so that United Airlines refused to revoke an add to market to our community in the same publication at the behest of the Southern Baptist Churches. Almost slipped my mind-we make your Disney movies, movies period, your fashionable clothes you wear were designed almost exclusively by gay men and lesbians from around the world. In 2005 Spain began allowing same-sex marriages-FULLY to its citizens and declined to cooperate with Bush's request to deny those marriages. SPAIN-the most catholic nation on the planet next to Italy!! Even Cuba passed same-sex civil unions in 2007-GO FIGURE-CUBA!!

The judicial branch cannot by law, abridged the rights of the California citizens as defined under the California Constitution-Declaration of Rights-Section 1. Why? Because it is unconstitutional for the legislature, judicial branch of government as well as the people to vote on the rights of the equal protection clause of the State Constitution. So, there should not be any further debate however, our government is doing what any other fascist government does when it is paid off and participating in corruption. Please note, just last year California Supreme court Justice Joyce L. Kennard in May of 2008 upheld the California Constitutional protections and voted to allow same-sex marriages to take place, now her recent memory must have failed her because she has gone in the opposite direction. Hmmmm....could it be say money or a position of power issue that has been threatened here? Please refer to the California Constitution online by searching GOOGLE and read for yourselves, educate yourselves. There are certain groups or individuals with views of which I do not agree however, we must allow them the freedom and legal protections so that they can choose to worship, participate etc. The court did not have a right to allow a ballot to send Prop 8 to the polls-it is ILLEGAL to vote on citizen rights.

[Prop 8 Films]

If you're going to be in West Hollywood this Tuesday, please consider coming to our event.

Prop 8 Films cordially invites you to its kick-off fundraiser, Prop 8 Films: A Celebration of Music, Art and Awareness, the first fundraiser in a series that will tour major cities across the country: San Francisco, San Diego, New York, Chicago and Miami.

The Los Angeles fundraiser will be held at The Abbey Food and Bar, a renowned West Hollywood landmark known for its welcoming, elegant atmosphere and countless accolades. The night will feature a celebration of film, music, photography, and a silent auction with prized items.

Please join us at this fundraising event to support Prop 8 Films, a not-for-profit organization dedicated to creating documentary films with a socially conscious message. Funds raised at this event will go towards the making of Prop 8 Film's first feature-length documentary, Proposition 8: The Heart of the Matter, an exploration behind the passage of Proposition 8, which eliminated the right of same-sex coupes to marry in California.

Visit prop8films.org for details and tickets!

[labman57]

The reason why people are so opposed to gay marriage is because the thought of homosexuals expressing physical affection for one another totally repulses them, and the notion that such a relationship could be officially sanctioned through marriage pours salt into the wound of their prejudice.

Those people who are so adamant that gays be denied the right to marry are the same types of people who would have expressed outrage in the 1950s and 1960s when the validity of interracial marriage was being debated. Hatred toward gays is simply their "flavor of the month".

[RC]

People seem to forget that while we do live in a Democracy, we also live in a Constitutional Republic, with a Constitution that PROTECTS MINORITIES FROM OPPRESSION, DISCRIMINATION, AND INEQUALITY FROM THE MAJORITY.

The majority does NOT have the right to VOTE AWAY a group of people's equality, and discriminate against them.

We do NOT live in a pure democracy, which is nothing but Majoritarianism. We live in a Democracy in which the rights and equality of the Minority CAN NOT be voted away by the majority. Our constitution gives the minority this protection.

Not to mention that Prop H8 violates the 14th Amendment, as well as every single Equal Protections Acts ever enacted.

[Rebecca Campbell]

I have read some rather uninformed comments on here this evening. The first one that struck me was the "they are only 3% of the population" The U.S. Census puts the reported figure at 4-5% but believe it is higher as some are afraid to state their orientation on a government form. Jews are 2% of the population, Polish-Americans are 1% of the population. Native Hawaiians are less that 1/2%. Based on your beliefs we should take everyone who is less than 50% of the populations rights away and dismiss them all together. Are numbers a good reason to discriminate? I don't think so. This is the silliest reason to discriminate against a class of people.
There is also a comment that it will lead to Polygamy, incest and beastiality. This is one of the dumbest arguments ever and many people seem to fall for it, Polygamy while absolutely an acceptably Biblical form of marriage (Solomon had 700 wives at least) Is against the law in the United States chiefly because it causes too many problems with wills. Everyone want's their share and why does the first wife get the most? Talk about probate hell!
Incest is not legal because it does and always will pose greater risks for birth defects in children born of those relationships. A type of incest is legal in much of this country between first cousins as long as the woman is beyond child bearing age. And bestiality? Can an animal agree to a legally binding contract? NO. That is what marriage really is.
And that is what so many of you who are opposed to same sex marriage seem to forget. Marriage in the United States is first and formost a legal contract between two people. Otherwise marriages preformed by the FLDS that were polygamous WOULD have been legal. They were not because THE STATE DID NOT RECOGNIZE THEM. Their church did, but that does not count. No church will be required to preform any marriage, they are not required to now.
In the end, gay people want what everyone wants, we all want to belong, to be loved, to be left alone in peace, be secure in our persons and property, to serve our nation, to look beyond ourselves to purpose and meaning in the world.
It is very hard to think of those sometimes when we are marginalized and attacked by those we sometimes consider our neighbors.

[Glenn]

Why isn't anyone discussing the health factor in all of this?. According the State of Calif., 82% of all HIV/AIDS cases are among the LGBT community. Considering the debate is settled over volition, that this is a lifestyle choice and there is no gay gene, is this really what we want to 'fully' endorse and support as a society? Do we really want to teach our children this is a 'neutral' option for them when they come of age? This is Russian roulette and some here want to represent it as a squirt gun fight on a summer day. Wake up and stop trying to kill our children!