CA Prop 8 - news and alerts [updated & merged]

[metta]

The CA Supreme Crt will hear oral argument on Thursday, March 5, 2009, at 9:00 a.m., in San Francisco in the case of STRAUSS v. HORTON case no. S168047.

The issues are (1) whether proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution? (See Cal. Const., art. XVIII, sections 1-4.) (2) whether Proposition 8 violates the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution? (3) If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?

​

The Supreme Court has announced that an oral argument will be held in the Prop. 8 cases on Thursday, March 5, 2009, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. The court will issue a written opinion in the cases within 90 days of oral argument. To increase public access to the court session, the Supreme Court has designated the California Channel This is an external link. Click this icon for our external linking policy., a public affairs cable network, to provide a live TV broadcast of the session. See news release: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/presscenter/newsreleases/NR08-09.PDF

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/prop8.htm

 

[metta]

Dishonesty is for Mormons!

Mormon church lists more Proposition 8 expenses

Church is being investigated by Fair Political Practices Commission



Mormon church officials say they spent $190,000 more supporting the Proposition 8 gay marriage ban than they previously reported.

They previously listed just $2,078 to support the ban.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is being investigated by the state Fair Political Practices Commission.



The report filed Friday with the secretary of state lists church leaders' travel expenses; $20,575 to use facilities and equipment at the church's Salt Lake City headquarters; and $96,849 to pay employees who worked for the ban.




Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate says the disclosures show the church previously failed to properly report spending. His group, which opposed Proposition 8, filed the complaint with campaign watchdogs in November.

http://washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=23787

 

[scream4ever]

How the trial will be divided up:

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/02/04/on-march-5-set-your-tivos-to-the-california-channel/

It looks like we've got a little more time then the Yes on 8 side! Also, Jerry Brown gets a full half hour!!!

 

[metta]

Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family gave $727,250 in cash and services to the anti-gay marriage Proposition 8 campaign in California, according to records released by the California secretary of state, including a $100,000 check in late October, just days before the evangelical media empire announced it planned to lay off nearly 20 percent of its employees. …

http://coloradoindependent.com/2127...tly-outpaced-mormon-spending-on-proposition-8

 

[scream4ever]

http://marriageequalitynow.com/2009...-that-state-shouldnt-be-in-marriage-business/

Could this be a sign he expects the Yes on 8 side to lose?

 

[metta]

One woman’s roller coaster ride to the altar
Plaintiff in the Supreme Court’s landmark marriage cases talks exclusively with the ‘Gay & Lesbian Times’

Interesting story and details. Please see the following link:

http://www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=14043

 

[metta]

Suze Orman's Valentine's wish

 

[metta]

'I DO'
like these new items....

http://www.supportido.com





Oh my goodness....
time for me to do some online shopping!!!!!
I want everything!!!










.
​

 

[Ninja108]

just should mention that none of the bills in UTah that would have given gay couples more rights passed. So much for the Mormon Church willing to support gay rights

 

[metta]

CA: State Senate passes resolution opposing Prop 8

An identical measure in the Assembly, House Resolution 5, authored by Assemblymember Tom Ammiano, passed the Assembly today. Resolutions do not require the governor's signature, so both SR 7 and HR 5 immediately become the official position of the legislature. "Both houses of the Legislature recognize that Proposition 8 undermines the fundamental principle of equal protection guaranteed by the California Constitution," said Senator Leno. "Proposition 8's revision to the California Constitution violated key structural checks and balances in the state's legal system when it was approved by a slim majority of voters last November. If Proposition 8 stands, we would be setting a dangerous precedent in California that allows a majority of the people to deny equal protection under the law to a minority of Californians."
SR 7 was co-authored by 16 senators, including Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and Senator Christine Kehoe, a member of the LGBT Legislative Caucus. It was also supported by many civil rights groups that opposed Proposition 8.
"This is the first time in our state's history that the initiative process has been used to take away a fundamental freedom from one particular group," said EQCA Executive Director Geoff Kors. "Our legislators understand this is an unequivocal change to our State's Constitution, which is to protect and empower all people equally. We are thankful that our elected representatives have sided with the people in standing up against this dangerous and unprecedented revision. We are hopeful that the Supreme Court will do the same."

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=9717

 

[scream4ever]

^^^Wow, why didn't they use that!!!

 

[metta]

One Guess As To What The California Supreme Court May Decide:


1. Does not overturn prop 8. Marriage between a man and a woman.

2. Removes the term marriage and only recognizes civil unions in the future.

3. Grandfathers in couples that are already married: straight and gay couples.

3. People could still get married through a church but the state would not recognize it as a marriage. They would recognize only civil unions, with the exception of the grandfathered in couples. Who can get married will depend on the church or organization.

I'm not sure how they will deal with marriages from other states but the gay and straight marriages should be treated the same.

Again, this is just a guess.

 

[scream4ever]

Or they could simply overturn Prop. 8 altogether and avoid all the legal bullshit that will happen if they go for just civil unions.

 

[metta]

Change the Conversation on the Freedom to Marry
Do you have a unique take on why same-sex couples should be allowed to marry?
Are you tired of our opponents setting the terms of the debate?





http://laglc.convio.net/site/PageServer?pagename=Project_Pushback

 

[metta]

History Is on My Side, Says Calif. Justice Who Voted Against Gay-Marriage Ban

Carlos Moreno stood alone in May when he dissented from the decision upholding Proposition 8. But the California Supreme Court justice says history will prove him right -- that denying gays and lesbians the right to marry is illegal discrimination.

"Someday at some point my dissent will be the majority view in California," he said during an interview in his San Francisco chambers late Wednesday. "I think that's where the law is headed."

"Equal protection is either equal or it's not," he added. "It's not the kind of thing you can chip away at."

Moreno, one of four justices to back same-sex marriage last year and the sole vote against Prop 8 this year, took time to talk to The Recorder about his votes, his brief moment on the Obama administration's short list for the nation's highest court, and U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's controversial "wise Latina" comment.

Moreno's dissent in Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal.4th 364, came at a touchy time for him. He had been contacted by the Obama administration a week earlier as a possible replacement for retiring U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter. Since President Obama has officially stated his opposition to same-sex marriage, it could be assumed Moreno's position on marriage and Prop 8 might be troublesome.

But, Moreno said, Obama's vetters didn't ask him how his Prop 8 vote -- which wasn't yet public -- would go.

"They just asked if there were any high-profile cases -- past or present, including on the trial court -- that would be the kind of case that would draw attention."

Moreno said he reminded them of the gay marriage cases the California Supreme Court had ruled on over the past few years and noted that the Prop 8 decision was coming out soon.

"It's uncertain whether or not the principles the court upheld [in the Prop 8 ruling] will be extended to other groups," Moreno said Wednesday. "But it's a possibility."

Asked if Prop 8 would have been upheld if it banned interracial marriage, he said "clearly not." The court, he said, would have been obliged to follow Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, the U.S. Supreme Court's 1967 ruling that ended anti-miscegenation laws.

"Even if looking at the California Constitution, race is a protected class," Moreno said. "So under state or federal law, this kind of discrimination would be unlawful."

But didn't the California Supreme Court in In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757, find sexual orientation a suspect class?

"That was my dissent," Moreno said, noting that he "relied heavily on language in the marriage cases affording specific protections against discrimination."

Moreno, who classifies himself as a moderate, is up for retention on the 2010 ballot along with Chief Justice Ronald George and Justice Ming Chin. He said he doesn't expect any major challenges.

"I don't think anybody looks at our court," he said, "as unprincipled or political."

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202432531466&rss=newswire