Prop 8 Goes to Court Tomorrow

  • The service having id "propeller" is missing, reactivate its module or save again the list of services.
  • The service having id "buzz" is missing, reactivate its module or save again the list of services.
Prop 8 Goes to Court Tomorrow

Tomorrow is a landmark day for same-sex marriages in the United States, for the California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Proposition 8 case. The San Francisco Chronicle has a great piece today that looks at the issues and justices involved. It's going to be a tough fight.

The hearing starts at 9 a.m. PST and will run until noon. If you're in San Francisco, there will be a public viewing on a Jumbotron at San Francisco's Civic Center Plaza or you can watch a live webcast.

All Things Considered also ran a piece today on the matter.



Comments [16]

CA_Medicine_Woman's picture

I read the "study" when it

I read the "study" when it first came out last winter. At the time, it did not include morality issues as the problem, it mentioned conflicting morality issues as one of the causes. If the AP report is working from that study, then they are twisting it to support a bias. Unless I see a revision from the source of the original study, I'm inclined to think the AP reporter interjected their own personal beliefs.

Kent's picture

Did you guys see the headline

Did you guys see the headline yesterday (March 4) about Russian scholar Igor Panarin, a "dean at the Foreign Ministry's school for future diplomats" who predicts America's collapse by 2010? Apart from pointing out the economic problems, the decline of US GDP, and the bailout of Citigroup - (the article says) he goes on to say that "Americans are in moral decline, their great psychological stress is evident from school shootings, the size of the prison population and the number of gay men."

WTF??? Oh really? What about the Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain? They have equal marriage rights and lots of homos. What an asshole, enough with the scapegoating!!!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090304/ap_on_re_eu/eu_russia_us_the_end_is_...

CA_Medicine_Woman's picture

Don't bother with the

Don't bother with the original link, their web site was grossly unprepared for the flood of users, and has crashed.

Try these instead (now streaming live):

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2009/03/live-stream-california-supreme-cour...

http://wickedgayblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/streaming-live-california-supr...

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/livenow?id=6692754

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/livenow?id=6430355

http://www.fox40.com/pages/landing_local_headlines/?Prop-8-Fight-Heads-B...

The above site requires and opens Windows Media Player

I'll post more when I stumble into them.

Kelly McCartney's picture

He's making a completely

He's making a completely different argument than the two couples and the local governments are. I heard Gavin Newsom on NPR the other day and he wasn't totally sold on Jerry's angle.

Won't you be my neighbor? @theKELword

Kelly McCartney's picture

You should read the Chronicle

You should read the Chronicle article, because there are some indications that one of the justices may have shifted. And several different arguments are being made by different parties. The article is very thorough and I recommend that everyone read it prior to the arguments in 36 minutes!

Won't you be my neighbor? @theKELword

Kelly McCartney's picture

Very cool. It's a symbiotic

Very cool. It's a symbiotic relationship because I get to learn all sorts of new things, too. And there's only so much I can say about The L Word.

Won't you be my neighbor? @theKELword

Grace Moon's picture

I have hopes the Supremes are

I have hopes the Supremes are going to make the correct decision... we shall see.

tweet tweet @gracemoon

little_earth's picture

I know! Seriously why do

I know! Seriously why do they think the world is going to end? Horrifying for those people who got married I'd imagine, all this waiting....

Lots of Love - little_earth "Occasionally, I'm callous and strange" - Willow

Steph H's picture

Tex - I totally agree - that

Tex - I totally agree - that would be an unbelievably cynical move. I find this whole situation so upsetting - what are people so afraid of I wonder? I think all the opponents need to be told that in the countries where gay couples can marry, e.g. the UK, they wouldn't even notice any difference. People are quietly getting on with their lives. Oh it just drives me mad it really does.

Steph H's picture

Kelly - thanks for all the

Kelly - thanks for all the really interesting and thought provoking blogs this week. You always make me want to challenge how I feel about issues, and that can only be a good thing.

Robin Rigby's picture

When Gloria Alred spoke at

When Gloria Alred spoke at our local Prop 8 protest she made it sound pretty clear- Based on the regulations regarding how propositions get put on the ballot, Prop 8 shouldn't have made it. She had 2 other reasons why we can't lose, which I've forgotten. Julia, do you remember? It was a little hard to hear from where we were.

Ultimately, these are the same justices that ruled on this a year ago there's no reason to believe they'll change their minds now.

Rusty's picture

Here's part of Attorney

Here's part of Attorney General Jerry Brown's post on Daily Kos today. Damn if he doesn't make it sound like a no-brainer:

Prop 8 Should Be Struck Down
by Jerry Brown
Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 07:20:24 AM PST

The case touches the heart of our democracy and poses a profound question: can a bare majority of voters strip away an inalienable right through the initiative process? If so, what possible meaning does the word inalienable have?

The state faced a dilemma like this before. In 1964, 65 percent of California voters approved Proposition 14, which would have legalized racial discrimination in the selling or renting of housing. Both the California and U.S. Supreme Courts struck down this proposition, concluding that it amounted to an unconstitutional denial of rights.

full post: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/3/4/101450/4588/287/704512

"When you look for the bad in mankind expecting to find it, you surely will." ~ Pollyanna

CA_Medicine_Woman's picture

The California Supreme Court

The California Supreme Court is now between a rock and a hard place. If they support Prop 8, they go down in California history as the justices who allowed religious criteria to be codified within the constitution to determine who gets what rights, the most serious step in overthrowing any democracy and establishing a theocracy.

If they overturn Prop 8, the out-of-state and international religious extremist groups who backed Prop 8 have promised to recall all the justices who voted to throw out Prop 8, and they have billions in financial resources to accomplish that. I have no doubt they would apply serious pressure to the governor to appoint religious and/or social conservatives to the bench, after which they would push the court to revisit the issue and reinstate Prop 8.

The court really has three courses of action...

The first is to uphold Proposition 8, and effectively eliminate the Equal Protection Clause by allowing a simple majority to alter the state constitution to eliminate the rights of even a large minority. It will also be the first time the state constitution has ever been altered to allow specific religious criteria not shared by all faiths to dictate who gets what rights, and effectively would end the separation of Church and State. It would be, quite literally, the first step in the establishment of a theocracy and the elimination of our unique form of democracy.

The second option is to void Proposition 8, for a whole variety of reasons, none of which are a permanent solution. The court could throw it out as an illegal constitutional revision, renewing the entire process that we have already been through, except this time involving the California Legislature, and dragging the battle out for years. This is the one that would result in the justices being recalled, and the installment of more appealing justices to those who seek to deny others rights.

There is a third option, one that would throw the pious words and statements right back into the faces of the hypocritical religious extremists, leaving them with no recourse. Simply put, the court could rule that marriage is a religious function, as per the claims of Prop 8 supporters, and hence the state is prohibited from granting special rights, privileges, and obligations based upon the specific criteria of one religious belief system that would violate the religious beliefs of others. To do so would be in violation of the principles of Separation of Church and State, as well as California's Equal Protection Clause.

This would leave only domestic partnerships (or civil unions, if you prefer) as the legally binding, and the only form of relationship that has the rights and obligations currently applied to the religious concept of marriage. The court could simply order at that point that domestic partnerships be open to all competent consenting adults, that those rules and regulations that currently pertain to religious marriage only pertain to civil domestic partnerships. Currently, domestic partnerships are only granted to same sex and/or elderly couples.

The religious extremists get to keep their precious word "marriage," and we get our equality (at least in this area). While it would also trigger a recall effort, even if such an effort were successful it would not change the fact that marriage, as the religious extremists love to tell us, is a religious institution the state should not be involved in, while the rights and responsibilities associated with that and now reserved for domestic partnerships, is a civil issue in which the church should not be involved.

Media rumor has it the justices plan to quickly rule on the issue, as well as whether or not it will be retroactively applied to legally performed same-sex marriages. Let's hope the justices are as smart, or smarter, than I am, and have a strong enough will to do what is right and just, and not cave to the borderline terrorist threats of religious extremists.

Tex's picture

Here's hoping that those

Here's hoping that those 18,000 unions will be the deciding factors to defeat it......not granting rights is one thing, but taking rights away jumps into a whole different level of inequality....

Twitter Time @kdhales

Kelly McCartney's picture

The Court has 90 days to

The Court has 90 days to rule. If they uphold it, then they have to deal with the legality of the 18,000 existing gay marriages. That would be pure hate if it goes so far as to strip those unions.

Won't you be my neighbor? @theKELword

delayne's picture

Hi. I just wanted to say I

Hi. I just wanted to say I wrote a story because of this landmark event. It is posted in the forums and on my blog.

Thanks for the links, I'm on the edge of my seat for this one...Does anyone know how long it will take?