[mobile site, backup mobile]
[SoapBlox Help]
Menu & About Calitics

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

- About Calitics
- The Rules (Legal Stuff)
- Event Calendar
- Calitics' ActBlue Page
- Calitics RSS Feed
- Additional Advertisers
Daily Email Summary


View All Calitics Tags Or Search with Google:
 
Web Calitics
Event Calendar
February 2010
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* 01 02 03 04 05 06
07 08 09 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 * * * * * *
<< (add event) >>

Wire Services
Advertise Liberally

MBA Member

Blue CA Ad Network
Join Our eMail List
Email:

Photobucket

Prop 8 Decision Web Address

by: Open Thread

Tue May 26, 2009 at 09:05:31 AM PDT


In the spirit of helpfulness, here is a link to the Supreme Court's Prop 8 High Profile Cases page. You'll find the decision posted there in just under an hour.

IMAG0118

UPDATE by Dave...I guess we can all go home, because Tommy Christopher already posted his story on the ruling at 8am, two hours before the opinion is released. (h/t msblucow)

UPDATE by Dave: The egg stays off Tommy Christopher's face, as the Court upholds Prop. 8 by a 6-1 count, with Judge Moreno the only dissenting vote.  The judges unanimously uphold the 18,000 existing marriages.

UPDATE by Robert: The decision is about as bad as it can get - the logic used to uphold Prop 8 is everything Ken Starr hoped it would be. Two key excerpts:

Contrary to petitioners' assertion,
Proposition 8 does not entirely repeal or abrogate the aspect of a same-sex couple's state constitutional right of privacy and due process that was analyzed in the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases - that is, the constitutional right of same-sex couples to "choose one's life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage"  (Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 829).  Nor does Proposition 8 fundamentally alter the meaning and substance of state constitutional equal protection principles as articulated in that opinion.  Instead, the measure carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights, reserving the official designation of the term "marriage" for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law, but leaving undisturbed all of the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple's state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws.

And the clear embrace of the Starr Doctrine:

Neither the language of the relevant constitutional provisions, nor our past cases, support the proposition that any of these rights is totally exempt from modification by a constitutional amendment adopted by a majority of the voters through the initiative process.

To the CA Supreme Court, voters can do whatever the fuck they want to via the initiative process.

CA is officially broken.

UPDATE by Dave: State Senator Mark Leno, who wrote the two gay marriage bills passed by the legislature and vetoed by Arnold Schwarzenegger, has released a statement.  So has Sen. Feinstein, CDP Chair John Burton, House Speaker Pelosi and Lt. Governor Garamendi.  I'll catalog them on the flip:

UPDATE by Brian:I'll post videos from SF City Attorney Dennis Herrera's press conference as soon as I can upload them.

Open Thread :: Prop 8 Decision Web Address
Sen. Leno:

"Today's decision is extremely disappointing for California and hurts thousands of caring couples who wish to make lifelong commitments to one another through marriage. Let today's decision be a rallying cry for all Californians who believe in equality and fairness, and encourage thousands more to stand up and fight the pervasive injustices LGBT people face in our community and our nation."

"The issue before this court was much greater than marriage equality. The question asked of our justices goes to the core of our society. Can a majority vote undermine a foundation stone of our constitutional democracy, equal protection under the law? Today our highest court ruled that minorities do not matter."

"Through our disappointment, we will still find hope and encouragement, including the 18,000 couples whose marriages in California remain secure and protected today. Through our sadness, our resolve to fight for justice and equality only grows stronger. Love is an unstoppable force, and equality is right around the corner."

Speaker Pelosi:

Today's ruling by the Supreme Court in support of Proposition 8 is deeply disappointing because this ballot initiative takes away individual rights.

I have long fought for equality for all of California's families and will strongly support efforts to restore marriage equality in California, so it can join the ranks of states such as Iowa and Vermont.

Lt. Gov. Garamendi:

Today we lost an important battle, but on this disappointing day, it's worth remembering that the final outcome of this struggle has already been determined. Time is on our side, and Californians will one day soon repeal Proposition 8. Patti and I have been married for 43 years, and we stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the LGBT community and their allies as they work to convince the electorate that all Californians, regardless of sexual orientation, deserve access to marriage and equality. While we will always face roadblocks, our society journeys down a path of increased equality under the law.

Sen. Feinstein:

I know today's decision is a tremendous disappointment for many people. But I also know that the opinions of Californians are changing on this issue, and I believe that equal marriage rights will one day be the law in this state. This is already the case in Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts and Vermont. So, I believe this issue will come before the voters again, and I am very hopeful that the result will be different next time.

Today's State Supreme Court ruling also declares that the 18,000 same-sex marriages that have already taken place in California are valid, and I believe these marriages will allow people to see for themselves that marriage equality is a step forward for California and not a step back.

Chairman Burton:

Today's decision, while heartbreaking, doesn't end the historic struggle for marriage equality. It renews our dedication to making sure all California families can again enjoy the dignity, commitment and responsibility of marriage.

I commend the California Supreme Court for validating the rights of the 18,000 lesbian and gay couples who married last year before Proposition 8 passed.  These couples and their children will continue to enjoy the full security and legal protection of marriage.    

Within the next few years, I know California will restore legal, civil marriages for gay and lesbian couples.  The California Democratic Party will play a leading role in ending marriage discrimination in California and I look forward to the day when that happens.

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
As luck would have it (0.00 / 0)
I will be sitting in a dentist's chair when the decision comes down.  I'll be joining the conversation as soon as I can break free.

Lucky... (0.00 / 0)
Don't ever let them tell you your priorities are out of whack...  ;-)

[ Parent ]
That might be less painful (0.00 / 0)
than sitting here waiting for the decision.  

[ Parent ]
Tommy Christopher has got to be bullshitting us. nt (0.00 / 0)


Is it just me (0.00 / 0)
Or did the CASC's website take a dump? Probably the result of a billion people constantly f5ing it.

Seems to be down (0.00 / 0)
I fully expected it to crash.

No Real Housewives, but plenty of action at Orange County Progressive.

Come for the politics. Stay for dessert.


[ Parent ]
Totallly crashing or overwhelmed. (0.00 / 0)
Interesting how Christopher's link is also to the court website, which presumably (although as I mentioned, I can't access) still doesn't have the info up.



[ Parent ]
is it white smoke or black smoke? n/t (0.00 / 0)


surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

cowards n/t (8.00 / 2)


surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

[ Parent ]
safety in numbers (8.00 / 1)
cowards

[ Parent ]
If anyone has the text of the decision (0.00 / 0)
I'm very curious to read it (the court website won't load). Did they embrace the Starr Doctrine? What was their reasoning for upholding?

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

somber at the court house (0.00 / 0)
after the decision came out there was a big chant of shame on u then a big communal scream

I'm proud to work for Kamala Harris for AG.

waiting for SF press conference (0.00 / 0)
Waiting for the press conference in City Hall. Many long faces around here.

I'm proud to work for Kamala Harris for AG.

As I read through the decision (5.00 / 1)
The Supreme Court is saying the same thing we have - "the Constitution is broken" - but is also refusing to do a damn thing about it.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

Because only the people can do a damn thing about it (0.00 / 0)
The Court played the "But the people rule here" argument.

Their ruling has clarified that we have direct democracy here in California.  They have codified direct democracy.  The Assembly might as well turn in their voting cards.  Arnold, for legal reasons, can now stay in Brentwood.    


[ Parent ]
Unfortunately, that's the problem. (4.00 / 1)
A Supreme Court, interpreting a bad constitution, is like the basic programming doctrine of GIGO - garbage in, garbage out.  Unless they wanted to go to the federal constitution to overturn Prop 8 (a dubious tactic at best, since Federal constitutional jurisprudence isn't there yet, and would lead to the SCOTUS overturning San Francisco and setting gay marriage back 10 years), they have to work with what they have.

The Supreme Court rules based on the Constitution, and unless there are conflicting provisions in the Constitution (today's argument) or the State Constitution is in violation of the Federal Constitution or a treaty, there is not much else to be done.

So instead, to me, the Supreme Court is saying - "the California Constitution is broken - please fix it so we stop regurgitating bad policy."


[ Parent ]
Logic? (0.00 / 0)
the reasoning behind the decision was based on the revision argument. Essentially the court said that the word marriage wasn't necessary for the equal protection reasoning in the previous case. It essentially says declaring separate but equal is ok under our constitution. It says that marriage is  not necessary under the const.

I'm proud to work for Kamala Harris for AG.

the amazing thing (0.00 / 0)
is having this ruling come so soon after the decision to legalize marriage equality in extremely strong terms. boggles.

surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

[ Parent ]
It's an insane decision (0.00 / 0)
They're saying that "Prop 8 sucks, and it's the product of a broken system, but we won't do anything about it."

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

[ Parent ]
The dead hand of George Deukmejian and Pete Wilson (0.00 / 0)
ruled on Prop 8 today.  That they upheld the existing marriages, flying directly in the face of the plain meaning of the proposition, strongly indicates that the outcome was determined before the analysis -- because if they had honestly confronted the task of whether to enforce the proposition as written, they would have been compelled to overturn it.  Pretending that it doesn't apply to existing marriages shrank the footprint of the proposition and made it easier for them to uphold Prop 8 as a somewhat technical matter, claiming that it simply deprived some of the word "marriage," while leaving the rights and privileges of civil unions intact, as well as full protections for people already married.

[ Parent ]
WTF? (0.00 / 0)
Upholding the previous 18,000 marriages says that the The Court has the power to protect the rights of minorities... until the mob votes to assault their liberties democratically!

It's just embarassing to see judicial reason fail in a confrontation with of religious superstition.


In a bad economy (0.00 / 0)
Six justices voted to keep their jobs.

Sad, really, that mob rule can remove rights that only one year ago were thought by this same Court to be "fundamental."


If they were worried about their jobs (5.00 / 1)
They wouldn't have ruled the way they did in IRMC.

What the California Supreme Court said is that fundamental rights can be removed from the Constitution.  I suspect that if the 14th Amendment were repealed, the SCOTUS would come to a similar conclusion.  But repealing the 14th Amendment would be a hell of a lot harder than passing Prop 8, so thankfully we're never going to test that theory on the Federal level.


[ Parent ]
someone please explain to me (0.00 / 0)
how this decision couldn't be used to support a law forbidding jews (or, to use a classic californian example in the 19th century) ethnic chinese  to own property?

HUGE pandora's box just got opened.

surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat


What this decision says (0.00 / 0)
is that the federal constitution is the floor on fundamental rights in California.  So there's now nothing in the California constitution that could stop the law you suggest, but the federal constitution would in theory prevent that sort of thing (except to the extent the Federalist Society has colonized the federal courts with bogus originalist "scholarship").

[ Parent ]
Thankfully, the originalists lack a majority on the SCOTUS (0.00 / 0)
And after seeing Sotomayor appointed to the bench, I don't believe that they will be getting one in the next 4 years.

[ Parent ]
Robert said it above (0.00 / 0)
If "the mob" wants to take away any right of any class of people, all they need is 50% plus one.  

[ Parent ]
No, it didn't. (8.00 / 2)
There, the California Supreme Court would overturn without needing oral arguments based on the Federal Constitution, no matter what the California Constitution had to say on the subject.  See my above comment.

I'm pissed right now, but I'm accepting that this is not the fault of cowardly justices.  If they were cowards, they never would've decided IRMC the way they did.  As I said above, this is a GIGO problem - Garbage In, Garbage Out.  Indeed, it's incumbent on us to reform (or, eliminate, b'hashem) the referendum process.

I am hoping and praying that the past year is a clarion call for a Constitutional Convention, and I am hoping moreover that, instead of simply adding to our already terrible Constitution, we shred it and start over; it's like trying to fix a 30-year-old Trabant - it is beyond repair.  As a lawyer, I read the California Constitution after having come from Boston, where reading the Commonwealth's Constitution is like listening to the Boston Symphony Orchestra, and I feel like the California Constitution in comparison is like listening to the screaming of a toddler.


[ Parent ]
Right. (8.00 / 2)
It's very clear from the opinion that the author doesn't like Proposition 8 but that he feels constrained to uphold it because of precedent on the revision/amendment distinction ... so instead he reads it very narrowly, in effect reading into the constitution a requirement for seperate-but-equal domestic partnerships.

I think the court did the best job it could, and that it's now on us to get Prop. 8 repealed by the voters.


[ Parent ]
Scalia-fear (6.50 / 4)
In that scenario, the affected would not be afraid of being reversed by Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, if they brought their suit under the federal constitution.

Really, I don't think this forum is being fair to the California Supreme Court. If this suit was brought under the Federal Constitution, it'd be a safe bet that the California Supreme Court would have struck down Prop 8 (only to likely be reversed by the US Supreme Court, setting a harmful precedent for the marriage equality movement).

Instead, they were practically being asked to set a precedent where provisions inside of our State Constitution could be judiciously deemed superior to other provisions within the same document. To rule against Prop 8, the court would have had to have altered California's current 3-tier hierarchy of law from Statutes brought by the Legislature < Statutes brought by voter initiative < State Constitution to a 4-tier hierarchy of Statutes brought by the Legislature < Statutes brought by voter initiative < Provisions of State Constitution which seem trivial < Provisions of State Constitution which seem important. It's hard to find legal merit for such a thing (regardless of who the 'bad guys' are and who the 'good guys' are, in the case).

The fact is, California, like many states, has a weak constitutional system. After a couple of million dollars are spent collecting signatures, 50% + 1 voter can amend the constitution one way, and the same figure can change it back  anytime (after another couple of million dollars are spent to collect signatures). While this system might be dreadful,  it's not the fault of the California Supreme Court.

It is likely, that if our Federal Constitution could be amended in the same fashion, the United States would have maintained hardly a modicum of decent constitutional principles. Rather, with States being permitted to have all sorts of weak processes for amending their State Constitutions, the Federal Constitution serves as a vital backup. While the constitutional arguments of the marriage equality movement would likely not fare as well with the particular people who sit on the US Supreme Court as with those who sit on the California Supreme Court, the California Supreme Court should not be blamed (or meritoriously ridiculed) for their unwillingness to carve out strange law in order to compensate for that.


[ Parent ]
Write Equality into new CA State Constitution (0.00 / 0)
Join Repair California: http://www.repaircalifornia.org and lets write equality into a new state constitution!

Well... (8.00 / 1)
The coalition behind a Constitutional Convention is at this point NOT looking to use the convention to solve the equality issue.

However, it would be an appropriate place to fix the broken initiative process that has brought us to this point.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave


[ Parent ]
Convention (0.00 / 0)
Wouldn't the end product of a Constitutional Convention be a new Constitution that the voters can vote up or down in its entirety?  If so, is it likely that the Prop 8 language passes through the convention and stays in the Constitution that's submitted to the voters to approve?

[ Parent ]
Not necessarily, no (0.00 / 0)
The current plan is that the Convention submits a package of amendments to be voted on as a single proposition. There isn't support right now for writing a totally new document.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

[ Parent ]
Rules (0.00 / 0)

Can a convention be called to address only specific issues? Who decides the rules for a convention once it's called (I assume the Legislature)? It seems that Article 18, section 2 is pretty ambiguous about what happens after a convention is called:

The Legislature by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, may submit at a general election the question whether to call a convention to revise the Constitution. If the majority vote yes on that question, within 6 months the Legislature shall provide for the convention. Delegates to a constitutional convention shall be voters elected from districts as nearly equal in population as may be practicable.

Once the convention is called, it seems that it could take on a life of its own dictated only by the delegates.



[ Parent ]
It is indeed ambiguous (0.00 / 0)
At least it is in the existing constitution.

The current talk is of putting two propositions on the ballot. The first would amend the Constitution to enable the people to call a convention once every 10 years and to be able to limit its scope. The second would actually call the convention and set out the limitations.

I've seen some legal advice that suggests this is possible and permissible.

I don't know of anybody who supports a convention who is willing to do so if there's a risk it will become a runaway train.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave


[ Parent ]
Which is to say (0.00 / 0)
That the progressive faction in a CC wouldn't have to kick marriage-equality ass to keep it out as a "poison pill"? Because that would be nice.

Disclosure: I'm awesome.

[ Parent ]
What about an initiative or Constitutional change (0.00 / 0)
that said that all fundamental rights recognized in the state Constitution or by the Supreme Court cannot be abrogated with less that a 2/3 supermajority vote of the people or both houses of the legislature?

That would have solved this problem.


[ Parent ]
Calitics in the Media
Archives & Bookings
The Calitics Radio Show
Calitics Premium Ads
Photobucket


Support Calitics:

Shop on Amazon.com

Advertisers

California Friends
Shared Communities
Resources
California News
Progressive Organizations
The Big BlogRoll

Referrals
Technorati
Google Blogsearch
Powered by: SoapBlox