Anti-gay marriage ban backers win one

November 18, 2011

Supporters of this state’s anti-gay marriage prohibition will be allowed to defend the ban in court after the California Supreme Court ruled unanimously in their favor Thursday.

A legal challenge to Proposition 8, passed by voters in 2008, was halted by refusal of the Brown Administration to litigate the issue on the grounds that the initiative is unconstitutional.

The 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals will now decide the issue after the high court justices ruled the proposal’s backers should be able to appeal a 2010 court decision which struck it down.

While it was at it, the court warned attorneys that the state ballot initiative process would be “undermined” if the governor and attorney general can trump voters by refusing to defend such laws in court.

“This frees up the 9th Circuit to go ahead and decide the constitutional issues on the merits,” said Theodore Olson, former U.S. Solicitor General during the Bush administration. “We’re anxious to get to a decision on the merits that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.”

Proponents of the ban were pleased with the decision, which allows them to proceed with their appeal, calling the Supreme Court decision a “huge disaster for the homosexual marriage extremists.”


Loading...

38 Comments

  1. racket says:

    I probably ought to get to work, as I am doing no good here on the internet, but here goes:

    Can we discriminate against people who like swimming? Or, giving equal time, can we discriminate against people who don’t like swimming?

    In my hypothetical restaurant, I cannot discriminate against blacks/whites/olds/youngs and several other groups. But am I free to discriminate against people who like swimming? How about those who don’t? Am I free to discriminate against people with red hair? How about people with bad manners, bad breath, or open sores? Where is the line? Upon which side of the line do gays fall? How is discrimination in my restaurant different than discrimination at the courthouse regarding nuptials?

    I do not know. The way to find out is in the courts. In this Prop 8 saga, Jerry Brown tried to take that test off the table.

    (-4) 12 Total Votes - 4 up - 8 down
    • easymoney says:

      Ok, Let’s take this one step further and a little closer to reality. Let’s say a person wants to go swimming and they are of the non straight persuasion, should they be allowed to swim at a public pool, yes it is a “public pool”. But should they be give them special locker rooms or their own non straight pool, NO…
      Discrimination of any kind is wrong…
      This whole PC issue has gotten so stupid and out of control, who really cares what a person does in their own bedroom or if they want to live with someone of the same sex? But to get special treatment because of their choices is also wrong. You are correct, where do we draw the line, not allow gays into public pools or buildings, what how about animals, how about not giving primates the same special considerations given today to gays? Why not let primates marry? How far do we go down this road?

      (3) 11 Total Votes - 7 up - 4 down
      • zaphod says:

        how about not giving primates the same special considerations given today to gays?
        what special considerations are you talking about?
        PRIMATES and GAYS? EXACTLY what correlation you attempt to achieve here?
        another step BEYOND reality ?
        what about birds, what about queer penguins.

        (10) 20 Total Votes - 15 up - 5 down
        • easymoney says:

          As I see it, the entire issue is about a certain small percentage of Americans who feel un happy that they do not have equal rights.
          That is just not so, every single American citizen (regardless of race, ethnics or gender)enjoys the same and equal rights and always have for over 200 years.
          http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights

          Also I see no where in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the USA, where it says anything about gay marriage or gay rights.

          (-2) 8 Total Votes - 3 up - 5 down
          • zaphod says:

            The preamble is the part that covers this misunderstanding (profound) the meaning of the words of the preamble casts a light whereby one can distinguish implicit from explicit, the founders intent, the more perfect union mentioned is inclusive of all not necessarily limited to fellow citizens but extended to “all men” including womb men living in the real world a globe IMHO.
            now explain the business about primates I am as very curious bout them.. as you seem to be about the same sex attracted gay folk not part of the union (mentioned in the preamble)? .

            (2) 6 Total Votes - 4 up - 2 down
          • blondehare says:

            2009 I sat in my condo.. at ocean oaks senior living. We had a noise flooring problem in upper unit that was not disclosed to us as new buyers. We asked for Builder Gary Young and manager Jeromy Gardner with the then president of the HOA and his wife.. Were all in my living room. Obama was just voted for. Out of the presidents wife mouth she said we are all waiting for him to be shot before he even get’s into office. This is the most racist area i have ever lived in Ca..Mormon builder asking two agents only to be contracted to sell these units. come on. Not one black family in AG?Every time i go to the park I hear the old men just hating away with the thought of Obama being reelected. I am ashamed of this town.I was discriminated against by Board of realtors in pismo beach. They held an ethics board meeting to say they refused to sell my mothers senior condo due to fabricated illnesses . They won and had tapes for sale..My mother and I were harassed out of the condo complex by the HOA and blacklisted by all brokers. My mother paid that mortgage of $2.000 plus HOA dues for 3 years while a renter said she wanted to buy it. Turns out she was friends with the builder. breached her lease.My mother paid over her rent $600.00 and all this renter did was slander us with the HOA..Threatening a class action law suit as I do not stand for discrimination. Can you imagine going to an ethics board meeting. They say due to you having cancer they fear they will not sell your home? Ocean Oaks HOA followed right along with it. Now hopefully this will be investigated. This is a small town and everyone is in each pockets.They think they can get away with anything. here. I am glad to see something happen to open the racist old farts who go around spewing hate..I have heard it.My mother was part of it. I have all the documentation to prove it.

            (0) 0 Total Votes - 0 up - 0 down
      • racket says:

        easy: I think we’re saying the same thing.

        “How far do we go down this road?” That’s the question, and the and the answer must come from the judicial branch. Not from the court of public opinion. Or from Jerry Brown’s whim (regardless of how well-thought-out his whim is).

        (1) 5 Total Votes - 3 up - 2 down
    • Ted Slanders says:

      Racket,

      Have you heard of the term; “apples and oranges?” I am sure you have.

      Comparing gays in relation to swimmer discrimination is a weak analogy. One goes directly against Christian scripture, and the other is inane, and cannot be compared equally.

      Your analogies all become moot when it relates to the one supreme being, our Christian God! It is what He thinks about gay marriage, of which, is not very appealing whatsoever in what the inspired word of God says should be done with the gay faction. Therefore, I shall not biblically state what He proposes.

      Again, I ask my fellow Christians, WWJD?

      (-5) 13 Total Votes - 4 up - 9 down
      • racket says:

        W. E. . . .

        At one level, my swimmer analogy is inane; but at that same level, your concern about what other people do in their bedroom is also inane.

        On another front: How we gonna keep church and state separate if you bring God into a secular controversy?

        (7) 7 Total Votes - 7 up - 0 down
      • bobfromsanluis says:

        WWJD? Well, for one thing, he wouldn’t judge people, he would accept them for who they are. For another, he wouldn’t demonize them, scorn them, or attempt to hurt them in any manner. Would he understand how different times are in this day and age as to compared to his time? Maybe, but then again, he might not, and I think that is what many anti-gay Christian bigots count on, their “faith” that Jesus would most likely want to “smite” those pesky sinners. Grow up.

        (2) 10 Total Votes - 6 up - 4 down
      • zaphod says:

        WWJD?
        hang out with a dozen guys all evening bibbing wine then he goes home to talk to his wife about it .He had to have a wife, no place in Hebrew priesthood for a celibate, he was a high priest says so in Hebrews .

        (11) 13 Total Votes - 12 up - 1 down
  2. shelworth says:

    Isn’t there a way to have these “Propositions” vetted by Judges as to whether they are constitutional or not BEFORE they are put on a ballot? It doesn’t matter which side wins, the other side always sues to overturn. I wish we would elect people who would do their job instead of passing it off to a vote of the “people”.

    (2) 6 Total Votes - 4 up - 2 down
    • racket says:

      Good point. I think it’s incumbent upon the sponsors of the initiative to ensure that it is legal/constitutional. Otherwise, their efforts at getting the initiative passed are for naught, as it will simply be struck down by the courts.

      Which, I suppose, begs the question: Did the initiative sponsors believe Prop 8 was fatally flawed? From the beginning? If so, what was their motive for putting so much effort behind its passage?

      (I am still sidestepping the issue of whether this initiative is constitutional, because I have no deep knowledge nor opinion in this regard. A cursory look at the 13th and 14th amendments does not seem to indicate that “sexual orientation” is a protected group in the same way that age, race, sex, color, religion are.)

      (2) 6 Total Votes - 4 up - 2 down
  3. racket says:

    Regardless of how you feel about same-sex marriage, how do you feel about the governor unilaterally “deciding” what is constitutional and what is not?

    Isn’t that really what Brown’s action is about. Without a legal opinion, he simply decided that the suit was without merit.

    Or am I missing something?

    (14) 16 Total Votes - 15 up - 1 down
    • choprzrul says:

      That would be a correct analysis.

      Also probably violates his oath of office.

      (10) 14 Total Votes - 12 up - 2 down
    • bobfromsanluis says:

      I don’t believe that Governor Brown “decided” that the initiative was unconstitutional, more like it is his “belief” that it is unconstitutional, and as such did not want to use government resources to mount a defense of an initiative that he did not agree with. The backers of the initiative are going to be allowed to argue their point of view with this newest decision and the focus should now shift to the merits of the initiative’s constitutionality. I don’t believe that the Governor overstepped his bounds at all.

      (-3) 9 Total Votes - 3 up - 6 down
    • Typoqueen says:

      Brown hasn’t done anything wrong he’s going through this as it should be through the courts,. Many of you underestimate the intelligence of Gov. Brown. I would say that he’s covering all the bases and that’s perfectly legal.

      (-3) 11 Total Votes - 4 up - 7 down
  4. Mike says:

    This is good news. The backers of a proposition should be allowed to argue in court over the legality of that proposition. It shouldn’t be up to the govt officials what they consider Constitutional or not. There should be no back room deal making to over ride the will of voters.

    (8) 16 Total Votes - 12 up - 4 down
  5. bobfromsanluis says:

    I disagree that this is a “win” for the backers of Prop 8; all this ruling means is that those who were behind this proposition can defend the law in court. Thinking of myself as someone who thinks in a rational manner, I cannot see how a court can allow a proposition that takes away rights from a select group of citizens is constitutional; anyone care to educate me on this? My only request is that you don’t rely on “voter approval”; voters could approve a bill that legalizes slavery again, would that make it “legal”? Of course not, it would still be unconstitutional. To take away any rights of any group, anytime, for any reason would seem to me to go against what the Constitution stands for, so let’s hear your best arguments other than “the will of the voters”.

    (-2) 22 Total Votes - 10 up - 12 down
    • gomeztogo says:

      Do yourself a favor and lookup both slippery slope and straw man fallacies before posting such nonsense.

      (3) 11 Total Votes - 7 up - 4 down
    • choprzrul says:

      I am curious about this. Please point me to an amendment in the US Constitution that guarantees the right to marriage. Failing that, please reference a case decided by the US Supreme Court that affirms the civil right of marriage.

      If it isn’t enumerated in the Constitution and/or affirmed by the Supreme Court, it simply is not a civil right.

      This position in no way reflects my personal views regarding any and all issues surrounding prop 8, but rather enumeration and/or affirmation of civil rights.

      .

      (3) 11 Total Votes - 7 up - 4 down
      • bobfromsanluis says:

        chop: Just in case you have never read it: the NInth Amendment of the Constitution:
        “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
        Now, explain to me how your statement “If it isn’t enumerated in the Constitution and/or affirmed by the Supreme Court, it simply is not a civil right.” is in alignment with the Ninth Amendment.
        The Ninth Amendment is very simple, very plain, very easy to understand; nowhere does the Constitution allow rights to be taken away from anyone, even if those rights are not specifically stated. If you think I am wrong in how I am reading this, convince me I’m wrong, please.

        (1) 9 Total Votes - 5 up - 4 down
        • choprzrul says:

          You are getting there Bob. What you are failing to take into account is the 14th Amendment and the subsequent Slaughterhouse decision by the USSC. “Privileges or immunities” was established by them in 1873. After that decision, each and every right enumerated or not enumerated in the Constitution had to be re-established by the USSC. This is exactly why the 2nd Amendment did not apply until the Heller and McDonald decisions.

          Absent a Supreme Court decision confirming and incorporating a right, that right is in theory only. That is why, if you look in my post above, I specifically added “…and/or affirmed by the Supreme Court, it simply is not a civil right.”. While the 9th might add a blanket coverage, it takes the Supreme Court of the United States to etch it in stone.

          Hope this helps.

          .

          (1) 7 Total Votes - 4 up - 3 down
          • bobfromsanluis says:

            If you really want to stretch this discussion a little more broadly, show me in the wording of the Constitution where it states, plainly and clearly that it is the job of the Supreme Court to decide what is and what is not “constitutional”. The Supreme Court itself “took” that power in a decision in “Marbury v. Madison” in 1803, claiming that this decision gave the court an “equal position” in comparison to the Legislative and Executive branches. Some to this day disagree with that decision, some will waffle depending on which case the court is deciding and how they decide that particular case, and I would suspect that those who are of a “Federalist” mindset would disagree with the court ruling in that one case that gave themselves such broad and sweeping powers. The reason I brought this up though is to point out how this was not written into the Constitution, but was ultimately decided anyway.
            Another “right” that was never written into the Constitution was the right to “privacy”, which is a very peculiar situation due to the fact that in those times (1770s to much, much later) “privacy” was code language for bathroom needs, i.e., “He is unavailable right now, he is in the privacy” since the facilities of the time were never called a “bathroom” up until indoor plumbing was invented and the toilet was put in the same room as the bathtubs of the day. But the court did ultimately decide that there was an inherent right to privacy when the decided the case “Griswold v. Connecticut” in 1965 which paved the way for citizens to use birth control without interference from regulations and laws that were prohibiting the use and sales of the same.
            I do feel that Prop 8 will ultimately end up at the Supreme Court and eventually that court will decide that to take away or deny any “right” that one group may have cannot be denied or taken away from another group based upon their religious beliefs, color of skin, gender or sexual orientation, no matter what any state may try to regulate or deny. I am just sad that it is going to take so long to get there.

            (-1) 1 Total Votes - 0 up - 1 down
  6. Cindy says:

    Per the CA Supreme Court:

    “Neither the governor, the attorney general, nor any other executive or legislative official has the authority to veto or invalidate an initiative measure that has been approved by the voters,”

    and that included GAY JUDGES, thank Gawd.

    (-3) 27 Total Votes - 12 up - 15 down
    • SanSimeonSam says:

      Cindy, so you have never read either the state or US Constitution i gather…..Our country’s government is founded on the principle of checks and balance. Of course branches of government have rights to veto or overrule or adjudicate when a measure is deemed unconstitutional no matter what the source. I have no dog in the prop 8 hunt but the challenge to the constitutionality of the measure has merit.

      (7) 15 Total Votes - 11 up - 4 down
      • Cindy says:

        That quote I posted was straight from the CA Supreme Court. Go argue with them.

        (2) 10 Total Votes - 6 up - 4 down
        • Cindy says:

          PS, I disagree that the law is unconstitutional. Two people of the same sex want to form a legal union and pass themselves off as the same as a heterosexual union. Talk about fraud.

          (-4) 20 Total Votes - 8 up - 12 down
          • Vagabond says:

            How is two people that want the same rights as heterosexual people fraud? What is the difference between gay couples and lets say, married couples with no children?
            I’d believe the defend marriage people a lot more if they would also propose a ban on divorce.

            (5) 13 Total Votes - 9 up - 4 down
            • Cindy says:

              This isn’t about right’s, they aren’t asking for only the same right’s. They could have those rights anytime they asked and I’ve said that a 1000 times and I’m sick of hearing the spin. What they want is to call themselves “married” , just ask them what they want and they will tell you the same thing I’m telling you. They refuse to pick another word to identify their union. They are attempting to commit FRAUD and mislead the public into believing that they are the same as a heterosexual married couple. They are not the same and never can be, this is about nothing but FRAUD.

              (-2) 12 Total Votes - 5 up - 7 down
          • Typoqueen says:

            yeah, how could any gay couple come close to maintaining that sacred union like a regular straight ‘good’ couple. Perhaps the gays could get lessons from the Kardashians on the sanctity and that oh so sacred traditional marriage. After all, we wouldn’t want that marriage tradition to become a joke.

            (3) 17 Total Votes - 10 up - 7 down
            • LittleAcorn says:

              A good percentage of heterosexual couples have already thoroughly disgraced the sanctity of marriage. And yet, people claim they are trying to protect that sanctity by preventing homosexuals from being married.

              If people trust you, they will tell you things that you would have never guessed. The heterosexual people you know aren’t as “normal” as you believe. But go ahead and cling to your sanctimonious fallacies.

              In my opinion, it is all based on prejudice. (I already know that some readers don’t welcome my opinion, such a pity … )

              (6) 6 Total Votes - 6 up - 0 down
              • Typoqueen says:

                “(I already know that some readers don’t welcome my opinion, such a pity … )”

                You’re not alone there.

                You’re right though, it’s a bunch of sanctimonious cr@p meant to degrade certain people. They think they’re better than the ‘evil gays’ and we can’t change that.

                (2) 8 Total Votes - 5 up - 3 down
  7. SanSimeonSam says:

    I am not any longer no longer not confused by the lack of not enough double negatives in this articles. Its hard to tell who to cheer for without not having pictures and well i certainly am not sure that i dont want pictures

    (15) 19 Total Votes - 17 up - 2 down
    • Typoqueen says:

      People in glass houses,,aw, never mind ‘i’ don’t want to get into this.

      (-7) 13 Total Votes - 3 up - 10 down

Comments are closed.