State justices liking Prop. 8 backers’ claims?

September 7, 2011

State Supreme Court justices Tuesday appeared to be receptive to arguments by backers of California’s same-sex marriage ban that proponents of Prop. 8 should have legal authority to defend their measure in court. [SanFranciscoChronicle]

Several justices suggested during oral arguments that the high court has always, as a matter of practice, allowed sponsors of ballot questions to appear before it when challenges arise.

“Never in any recorded (case) have proponents been denied the right to advance their interests,” Associate Justice Kathryn Werdegar noted during the closely watched arguments. “The present state of California law is we allow liberal intervention.”

Both California Gov. Jerry Brown and Attorney General Kamala D. Harris have declined to become involved in the appeal, asserting the ban was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is responding to a “scope of power” question posed by a 9th U.S. Circuit Court after a federal judge ruled last year the ban violates the rights of same-sex partners.

Other federal judges, however, have pushed away the controversy, saying it is a state’s right issue. The state court has 90 days in which to issue its opinion, and a decision on the ban’s constitutionality is expected to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Sanctity of marriage. Like the Bachelor and the Bachelorette? Like who wants to marry a millionaire?

If you feel that your marriage is sacred then great! You are very fortunate to have found a partner in life to share your experiences in life.

But to feel you somehow own that feeling so much as to dicate what it means to others is creepy.

President Clinton tried to define the word “is”, remember? Not a stretch for the government to try and redefine marriage to it’s own purpose.

I thought he tried to redefine the word’s “sexual relationship”.

The initiative itself is irrelevant here. The Court would be correct to rule that proponents have a right to be heard. The initiative process is intended to allow the People to override the Legislature. If an initiative fails because the State does not defend it, then the State has trumped the People. Hence, the Court should allow the proponents to defend the initiative on its merits.


An initiative does not, however, trump the constitution. That’s the real issue. The proponents should have the right to defend the initiative. The Governor and Attorney General shouldn’t be forced to waste tax dollars defending something that they think is unconstitutional.

I thought you were against government waste?

Love it or hate it, it doesn’t matter. The law is so clearly unconstitutional on its face that it’s ridiculous. NOT that the Constitution is the basis for any political or decisions, but theoretically.. Quite simply, it violates the 14th amendment by not applying equal protection of the law to specific classes of people. A 12 year old could tell you that.

Don’t be silly. The tail doesn’t wag the dog. Government took an ancient and sacred institution from faith/religion and applied some laws to it, largely in the area of taxation. OK, even though some would suggest it best that gov’t keep its nose completely out of marriage, most people accept that.

NOW the government wants to change what’s not theirs to change — namely the very definition of marriage — a sacred covenant between a man and woman (and for many, God)? No freaking way. I would support the gov’t getting out of the marriage “business” in its entirety. Homosexual unions bother me not. But for the gov’t to try and redefine marriage? As I said, no freaking way — it’s not theirs to redefine. Violation of the 14th Amendment? That’s ludicrous, even in today’s sordid society.

It is the area of privileges and liability that is driving the issue. Supporters of change want the same rights afforded to other citizens.

Those who support no change cite that the institution of marriage is being tarnished and that the change threatens the health of society. But the primary issue seems to be that change would conflict with ancient values.

The gay’s could easily gain all the rights they seek while choosing another word for their union. They want to take the word marriage. They insist that they want to be exactly the same as a married man and woman. Try as they like, they aren’t the same, never can be the same and never will be. That’s just plain common sense.

Everyone is different, not just gays. You say that they want to ‘take’ the word marriage, what do you mean, they want to take it away from you? Where are they going to take it to? They don’t want to ‘take’ the word, they want the right to ‘share’ the word. Why can’t they? Are they lower class citizens that don’t require the same rights as you, are you better than they are?

No more scarlet letters on their chest, they deserve to be treated like you and me. As Lady Ga Ga says, ‘they were born that way’, why should they punished because of something that they have no control over?

Get a clue, they can have the rights but that isn’t what the main agenda is. The agenda is to use a term that applies to heterosexual couples. Just ask them why they insist on the word marriage rather than concentrating on the rights they want. They will tell you themselves that they don’t want to be any different than any married man and woman. As if we can’t tell the difference by looking!

What they really want is for the next generation of children to be raised to believe that there is no difference between a mom and dad or two dad’s. There is a big difference and please go argue with someone else about it. I don’t have any patience for you when you start trying on your obtuse posts with me. No doubt you’ll start with the personal attacks, you always do.

Case Closed

“No doubt you’ll start with the personal attacks, you always do.”

What do you mean? “Get a clue,” You mean like that?

“Case Closed” No, the only thing closed are peoples minds that don’t have good talking points or good arguments. Instead of learning they ‘close the case’ ie minds. You can close your side of this because there isn’t much to it. But I will keep my argument open.

FYI, I only as you say attack others when they first either attack me or others. If you bite me I’ll bite back.

“Just ask them why they insist on the word marriage rather than concentrating on the rights they want. They will tell you themselves that they don’t want to be any different than any married man and woman. As if we can’t tell the difference by looking!”

Gee, where have I heard this same concept, oh that’s right it was during the civil rights movement. They could tell that the ‘colored people’ were different just by looking at them so they also didn’t deserve equal rights. Those pesky different people eh.

Of course you don’t have the patience or the time to argue (I like to call it debating) with me because you simply don’t have a good argument.

You’re right. The real agenda is to get people to believe that homosexuality is “normal”, that people are “born that way.” It ain’t and they aren’t…

You’re right, it is not “normal.” And you or I have no idea whether or not people are actually born that way. I believe some are, some aren’t. But it’s irrelevant really. It always has and always will exist for a certain part of the population. So in THAT sense it is normal. But it doesn’t matter whether someone is born that way or wants to be that way, it’s nobody else’s right to tell them what they can and cannot do, or that it precludes them from an other rights.

Naw, it’s not normal. It’s disordered. And the claim that homosexual are “born that way” is simply unproven.

And that’s really neither here nor there UNTIL as someone else pointed out some try to make the disorder more palatable to society. To take actions to make the disorder appear “normal.” That’s when problems begin

Take a look at the last couple of thousands of years of history is you doubt my comments.

we are going to deny human rights to the dis ordered? whose history are you talking about?

Crusader, I’m very happy that you had a choice to pick which sex you’re attracted to. Unlike you, I didn’t have that choice, I have always been straight. So you made a conscience effort to be straight but let me inform you that most people instinctively know which way they go from a very young age. Unlike you most people know right from the start which sex they’re attracted, I hope you are happy with your choice.

Oh, well if Lady Ga Ga says it….

No kidding. That had to be one of the dumbest retorts I have yet to see here…

Lady Ga Ga is a very smart person, not my type of music but she’s no dummy. I didn’t say that if Lady Ga Ga said it that it must be, just quoting some lyrics.. No Crusader, if you want to see dumb retorts read your posts. BTW, are you one of these ‘normal’ people that gay people are supposed to be like?……God help us.

Its called Domestic Partnership. They get all the benefits as a marriage does, its just not called marriage. But they can say they are married, my sister did when she had a domestic partner. These gays need to back off! Its just a word and they are blowing it way out of proportion!!

The “its just a word” argument goes both ways. If it is “just a word” then why not let “these gays” have it?

Excessive quotations I know.

I am sympathetic to all of those who want to protect the word marriage I absolutely agree that the government should get out of marriage altogether. Legally speaking, ALL marriages should be domestic partnerships, and “marriage” should be left up to the churches. Of course, that doesn’t mean gay people can’t invent their own religion and also call their unions marriage, but whatever.. the issue here is equal protection under the law.. as long as any two people can make identical legal agreements/contracts, then we’re good to go as far as I am concerned.

I think a lot of gay people want the word marriage because they believe that gay kids suffer from a lot of psychological issues for being “different.” But personally. I don’t think there is anything wrong with being and feeling different.

I agree with you mkaney but I also feel that a lot of gay people were brought up in traditional homes with traditional beliefs including religious beliefs so they want to live that way. Personally I can’t figure out why any woman would want to spend 40K on a wedding and wear an 8K dress for one day. I don’t get it, it seems like an incredible waste of money. Even if I were wealthy I could think of much better things to do with my money. But like gay people, if that’s how they were raised and if that’s what they want, no matter how absurd it might seem to me, all the power to them.