Prop 8 proponents seek to nullify all same-sex marriages

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Why am I not surprised?

Prop 8 proponents seek to nullify all same-sex marriages

Proposition 8, which passed 52.5 percent to 47.5 percent in November, overturned a May ruling by the California Supreme Court that struck down a 2000 ban on same-sex unions.

Local governments across the state have since suspended the practice of giving marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but it was unclear what would happen to couples who married after the Supreme Court's decision.

The sponsors have filed three lawsuits with the state Supreme Court seeking to nullify those marriages. In addition to seeking the nullifications, the sponsors also filed responses to lawsuits seeking to strike down the ballot initiative.

The briefs defend Proposition 8 against opponents' legal challenges, such as the argument that the amendment needs a constitutional convention to be added to the state's constitution.

"We are confident that the will of the voters and Proposition 8 will ultimately be upheld," said Andrew Pugno, general counsel for ProtectMarriage.com and the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund.

Several groups have petitioned the California Supreme Court to prevent the constitutional revision from taking effect.

The American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights have filed a lawsuit contending the ballot initiative was "improperly used."

According to the three groups, "such radical changes" as outlawing same-sex marriage cannot be made by ballot initiative, but must, "at a minimum, go through the state Legislature first." The groups also argue the measure takes away a "fundamental right" from lesbian and gay Californians.

After the ballot initiative passed, Sunny Hostin, a CNN legal analyst, said it was unclear whether same-sex weddings that took place before Tuesday are still valid.

"I think they really are in a legal limbo, a legal black hole," she said, referring to those couples.

Proposition 8 supporters also announced the addition of Kenneth Starr to their legal team. Starr will serve as lead counsel and argue their case to the Supreme Court.

Starr, the dean of Pepperdine Law School, investigated the suicide of Clinton deputy White House counsel Vince Foster and the Whitewater affair. The $70 million investigation turned up evidence of President Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky and led to Clinton's impeachment by the House of Representatives. He was acquitted by the Senate.

[Erik von Nein]

Kenneth Star is involved? That's kind of hilarious.

Anyway, I'm not surprised by this in the slightest. These people were always about completely eradicating gay marriage. I just hope the justices can keep the people who are already married married.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Fuck yes

Brown asks state high court to overturn Prop. 8

(12-19) 18:04 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- State Attorney General Jerry Brown, in a surprise turnabout, asked the state Supreme Court late today to overturn Proposition 8, saying the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage violates basic rights guaranteed in the state Constitution.

Brown, whose office requires him to defend state laws unless he cannot find reasonable legal grounds to do so, said after Prop. 8 passed Nov. 4 that he would support the initiative before the state's high court.

But in a lengthy filing today, he argued that the measure was "inconsistent with the guarantees of individual liberty" in California's governing charter.

"Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification," Brown said.

The authors of the state Constitution, he said, did not intend "to put a group's right to enjoy liberty to a popular vote."

Hours earlier, sponsors of Prop. 8 filed arguments asking the court to uphold the ballot measure, which passed with a 52 percent majority. Andrew Pugno, attorney for the Yes on 8 campaign, said he was disappointed at Brown's stance.

"It's unfortunate that the attorney general would not do his duty to defend the will of the voters," Pugno said.

The pro-Prop. 8 brief was filed by Kenneth Starr, the former Whitewater special prosecutor and now dean of Pepperdine University law school. He argued that the court should preserve the people's lawmaking powers by upholding the initiative and invalidating 18,000 weddings performed before the election.

Prop. 8 "does not broadly seek to diminish or eliminate the constitutional or civil rights of gays and lesbians," but is simply "about restoring and maintaining the traditional definition of marriage," Starr said. Decades of legal precedents, he said, require "judges - as servants of the people, to bow to the will of those whom they serve."

The court ruled 4-3 on May 15 that California's ban on same-sex marriage violated the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians to marry the partner of their choice and discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation. Prop. 8 amended the state Constitution to overturn the ruling and declare that only marriage between a man and a woman is "valid or recognized in California."

The court is reviewing lawsuits filed by gay and lesbian couples and by an array of local governments, led by San Francisco, that contend that ballot measure exceeded the legal limits on initiatives by destroying fundamental rights and stripping judges of their authority to protect a historically persecuted minority.

Such profound changes, the plaintiffs argue, amount to a constitutional revision - not merely an amendment - and require a two-thirds legislative vote to reach the ballot.

The justices could hear the cases as early as March and would be required to rule within 90 days. Other interested parties on both sides are scheduled to submit written arguments Jan. 15.

[Darth Fanboy]

Fuck yes indeed. It is really nice to see an AG do his job to the letter of the law and ont to the letter of a popularity contest, and it is even nicer to see that even though the ballot has passed people are still capable of making rational decisions based on the LAW.

And where does anyone get off by referring to "the will of the voters" when the ballot only had 52% in favor. Jesus Fucking Shit on a Stick.

[Garlak]

The authors of the state Constitution, he said, did not intend "to put a group's right to enjoy liberty to a popular vote."

I approve of the above message. People wanted a Bill of Rights to ensure the government wouldn't overstep its bounds and violate people's liberties... but we sometimes forget that, just as we don't want the government to do or even be able to do certain things, we the voters shouldn't be able to arbitrate laws merely because most of us agreed upon them.

Prop. 8 [...] is simply "about restoring and maintaining the traditional definition of marriage"

Do you know what the difference between the blue-quoted text above, and the red-colored text below is? One word.

Prop. 8 is simply "about restoring and maintaining the old definition of marriage"


Why is it so crucial to hang on to old definitions of words? But everything sounds better if you use "traditional" or "family values" or "conservative/liberal" to describe it...

[Knife]

Because they like the appeal to tradition fallacy?

[The Romulan Republic]

And where does anyone get off by referring to "the will of the voters" when the ballot only had 52% in favor. Jesus Fucking Shit on a Stick.

By that argument couldn't you just as fairly say that Obama's election was not "the will of the voters?" Didn't he also get 52%? Well for all you know maybe you don't find his victory "the will of the voters" either, but you're most likely using a different standard than the one most people use.

Bottom line is, 50%+ is a win, however repulsive you may find that victory. And given how close votes often are in the US, 52% is a comparatively solid win. Not a landslide by any means, but its as much "the will of the people" as any Presidential election we've had in a while.

Now, before you flame me, I wish to clarify that I do not support stripping these people of their marriages and I am not against gay people. I'm not talking about anyone in particular, but this is a touchy subject and I thought I'd preempt the possibility that someone would try that particular strawman.

[Darth Fanboy]

By that argument couldn't you just as fairly say that Obama's election was not "the will of the voters?" Didn't he also get 52%? Well for all you know maybe you don't find his victory "the will of the voters" either, but you're most likely using a different standard than the one most people use.

Bottom line is, 50%+ is a win, however repulsive you may find that victory. And given how close votes often are in the US, 52% is a comparatively solid win. Not a landslide by any means, but its as much "the will of the people" as any Presidential election we've had in a while.

Now, before you flame me, I wish to clarify that I do not support stripping these people of their marriages and I am not against gay people. I'm not talking about anyone in particular, but this is a touchy subject and I thought I'd preempt the possibility that someone would try that particular strawman.

First of all I never said that Obama's win was by such an outstandingly wide margin that he has free reign and immunity to do whatever he wants. Not in this article, not in the aftermath of the election. So bringing that up is a little pointless to me.

Secondly, voting for Obama in no way interferes with a McCain or Ron Paul voter's rights at all, while voting for Prop 8 stripped people of their rights. When voting on laws as opposed to offices, the rights of the minority must be taken into account. The concerns of the minority are different in the aftermath of an election as opposed to lawmaking.

[Edi]

And where does anyone get off by referring to "the will of the voters" when the ballot only had 52% in favor. Jesus Fucking Shit on a Stick.

By that argument couldn't you just as fairly say that Obama's election was not "the will of the voters?" Didn't he also get 52%? Well for all you know maybe you don't find his victory "the will of the voters" either, but you're most likely using a different standard than the one most people use.

Bottom line is, 50%+ is a win, however repulsive you may find that victory. And given how close votes often are in the US, 52% is a comparatively solid win. Not a landslide by any means, but its as much "the will of the people" as any Presidential election we've had in a while.

Now, before you flame me, I wish to clarify that I do not support stripping these people of their marriages and I am not against gay people. I'm not talking about anyone in particular, but this is a touchy subject and I thought I'd preempt the possibility that someone would try that particular strawman.

This is an idiotic argument, as a person winning an election does not deprive anyone else of constitutional rights. Furthermore, amendments that remove such rights need to pass by two thirds, not 50% + 1 vote, so Prop 8 is invalid just on that basis alone. The reason why it must be evaluated according to the stricter criteria is that taking away rights limits people in what they can and can't do, while granting them removes such limitations. And such limitations must always be justified. In a secular state, a religious argument is not sufficient just by itself.

[Lord of the Abyss]

This is an idiotic argument, as a person winning an election does not deprive anyone else of constitutional rights. Furthermore, amendments that remove such rights need to pass by two thirds, not 50% + 1 vote, so Prop 8 is invalid just on that basis alone.

Unfortunately, not in California. Legally, it only takes a simple majority.

[Gigaliel]

Such profound changes, the plaintiffs argue, amount to a constitutional revision - not merely an amendment - and require a two-thirds legislative vote to reach the ballot.

Um, isn't the point of an amendment to revise the constitution? I'm not a legal expert but:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION


SEC. 1. The Legislature by rollcall vote entered in the journal,
two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, may propose an
amendment or revision of the Constitution and in the same manner may
amend or withdraw its proposal. Each amendment shall be so prepared
and submitted that it can be voted on separately.

or

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION


SEC. 4. A proposed amendment or revision shall be submitted to the
electors and if approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect
the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise. If
provisions of 2 or more measures approved at the same election
conflict, those of the measure receiving the highest affirmative vote
shall prevail.

I don't see any difference between legislative and and ballot initiative amendments. I mean the word 'revising' is right there.

Putting amendments to a state vote always struck me as pretty dumb, but I'm not really seeing any wiggle room here.

[Durandal]

The California Constitution distinguishes between amendments and revisions. A revision is a substantial change to the entire Constitution and would require approval by 2/3 of the state legislature to make it onto the ballot. An amendment is a substantial change to one or more of the Constitution's provisions.

It's a blurry line, but the argument from the anti-Prop 8 camp is that removing the rights enjoyed by a specific group of people is a significant change to the entire Constitution, which I think is a pretty easy argument to make, since Prop 8 stands in conflict with the Constitution's equal protection and anti-gender discrimination provisions. A fundamental document of law should not contradict itself, and introducing a contradiction qualifies as a substantial change to the entire document.

[Edi]

Thanks, Durandal. That's a very important distinction and you put it very well.

[The Romulan Republic]

And where does anyone get off by referring to "the will of the voters" when the ballot only had 52% in favor. Jesus Fucking Shit on a Stick.

By that argument couldn't you just as fairly say that Obama's election was not "the will of the voters?" Didn't he also get 52%? Well for all you know maybe you don't find his victory "the will of the voters" either, but you're most likely using a different standard than the one most people use.

Bottom line is, 50%+ is a win, however repulsive you may find that victory. And given how close votes often are in the US, 52% is a comparatively solid win. Not a landslide by any means, but its as much "the will of the people" as any Presidential election we've had in a while.

Now, before you flame me, I wish to clarify that I do not support stripping these people of their marriages and I am not against gay people. I'm not talking about anyone in particular, but this is a touchy subject and I thought I'd preempt the possibility that someone would try that particular strawman.

This is an idiotic argument, as a person winning an election does not deprive anyone else of constitutional rights. Furthermore, amendments that remove such rights need to pass by two thirds, not 50% + 1 vote, so Prop 8 is invalid just on that basis alone. The reason why it must be evaluated according to the stricter criteria is that taking away rights limits people in what they can and can't do, while granting them removes such limitations. And such limitations must always be justified. In a secular state, a religious argument is not sufficient just by itself.

I'm not saying it is. I am not defending Prop 8, or even commenting on it specifically at all. No, you shouldn't be able to take away anyone's rights with 50%+1. However, none of that changes the fact that Prop 8 was passed by a majority vote. Rather than arguing that Prop 8 was not "the will of the people", it would probably be better to say that "the will of the people" is not (or given California's laws, should not be) sufficient grounds to alter the Constitution or take away someone's rights.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

I think I speak for more than myself when I say that I take offense to the way the prop 8 people fling the term "the will of the people" as if the vote was anywhere close to being unanimous. It was barely a majority vote and they're rhetorically implying it wasn't.

That said, while Obama won a slim popular majority, his electoral victory was anything but slim. And in the presidential election, it's the electoral count that matters. That's why Obama's victory isn't viewed as a slim victory.

[CmdrWilkens]

I think I speak for more than myself when I say that I take offense to the way the prop 8 people fling the term "the will of the people" as if the vote was anywhere close to being unanimous. It was barely a majority vote and they're rhetorically implying it wasn't.

That said, while Obama won a slim popular majority, his electoral victory was anything but slim. And in the presidential election, it's the electoral count that matters. That's why Obama's victory isn't viewed as a slim victory.

Defeintions of "landslide" versus "slim" aside that's the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard. The electoral college exists to create a slim buffer betwene the will of the people and the politicians charged with running the country. A huge majority in the electoral college is meaningless in and of itself relative to the political capital a President holds. Remember that it was the electoral colelge that gave Bush the 2000 victory despite losing the popular vote total (see also 1876). In other words electoral majoritieis are matters of strategic landscape but they do not relate to the "will of the voters."

No the popular vote is, has been, and will remain, the best way of looking at this.

For prop 8 what it means that out of a randmon 100 people you'd have 6 extra folks on the "Yes" side as against the "No" side. Its a pretty noticeable difference and it certianly qualifies as the intent (if not the "will") of the voters.


The problem here remains that the California Constitution seems, to my lay reading, rather clear in that sweeping changes of this order of magnitude require not just majority approval of the electorate but also super majority approval of the legislature.

[Havok]

Nice Jerry Brown.

[Ford Prefect]

Right on Jerry Brown. As for this Pugno retard, I can't believe he's a lawyer. You know what I learnt on the first day of LAW121 Introduction to Law? Dura Lex, Sed Lex. The law isn't determined by the popular vote of the majority. Being a judge is not about serving the will of the people, it's about correctly applying the laws of the state for the people. I can ramble on endlessly about this.

[Darth Yoshi]

Jerry Brown? *checks wiki* Holy shit, it is the former mayor of Oakland! Good for you, AG Brown. Here's hoping the judges agree.

[Broomstick]

Can't say I'm at all surprised there are Prop 8 supporter who want to annull the legally made same-sex marriages. They accuse the homosexuals of having an agenda when, in reality, it is THEY who have the agenda.

[ray245]

Seriously, is there any tangible benefit for those prop 8 supporters if Homosexual marriages is allowed, other than letting people feel good?

Come on. Feeling good is a good justification now?

[General Zod]

Seriously, is there any tangible benefit for those prop 8 supporters if Homosexual marriages is allowed, other than letting people feel good?

Come on. Feeling good is a good justification now?

What the hell are you talking about? Why would prop 8 supporters be getting any benefits at all if gay marriage was allowed when they're the ones who want it illegal?

[ray245]

Seriously, is there any tangible benefit for those prop 8 supporters if Homosexual marriages is allowed, other than letting people feel good?

Come on. Feeling good is a good justification now?

What the hell are you talking about? Why would prop 8 supporters be getting any benefits at all if gay marriage was allowed when they're the ones who want it illegal?

Sigh, I guess I really need to work on my phrasing of sentences. What I am trying to say is, is there any benefit for prop 8 supporters if Homsexual marriage banned.

I keep getting confused with which side does the prop 8 supporters take.

[General Zod]

Sigh, I guess I really need to work on my phrasing of sentences. What I am trying to say is, is there any benefit for prop 8 supporters if Homsexual marriage banned.

I keep getting confused with which side does the prop 8 supporters take.

Aside from making themselves feel good about the traditional definition of marriage, there isn't any. Not that it especially matters since their goal is to take away the rights of a minority group (not that they'll ever admit it), which should not be determined by popular vote.

[ray245]

Sigh, I guess I really need to work on my phrasing of sentences. What I am trying to say is, is there any benefit for prop 8 supporters if Homsexual marriage banned.

I keep getting confused with which side does the prop 8 supporters take.

Aside from making themselves feel good about the traditional definition of marriage, there isn't any. Not that it especially matters since their goal is to take away the rights of a minority group (not that they'll ever admit it), which should not be determined by popular vote.

Oh crap, just noticed my grammatical errors. ' What I am trying to say is, is there any benefit for prop 8 supporters if Homosexual marriage was banned? '

Back to topic, why is it so hard for people to see that legalizing homosexual marriages does not mean society as a whole will be homosexuals? If anything, the issue of homosexuality should be taught in schools, in science class. The government needs to teach people and society as a whole, what is homosexuality.

Saying OK to gays and lesbians is different from asking you to BE homosexual. ( Come on, never mind the fact that it is morally wrong to force a person to change their sexual preferences, that changing a person's preferences work both ways, they forget the fact that it is impossible to force a sexual preference onto people.)

From what I understand from the pro-prop 8 people, they believe that tolerance is the same as oppression. That by tolerating a homosexual, this mean that every homosexuals are now going to oppress the Heterosexuals.

It seems to me, those people are thinking that people in the classical age, like Alexander or the Roman emperors are bisexual or homosexual is due society saying OK to homosexuality. That societal norms 'forced' great leaders like Alexander to be bisexual.

Rather than focusing on talking and teaching gay marriages in schools, efforts should be directed towards teaching about what is homosexuality in the first place. That homosexuality is not a choice.