Throughout, Dolan slants the story by calling the constitutional amendment a "measure" or "initiative", and describes it as "anti-gay marriage".The California Supreme Court decided Wednesday to determine whether the sponsors of Proposition 8 have special authority to defend the [California Marriage Amendment] in court.
The state high court, meeting in closed session, agreed to a request by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to determine the status California law gives initiative sponsors.
The court was unanimous in deciding to accept the case. The court's order set an expedited briefing schedule to permit a hearing by "as early as September." The court must rule on a case 90 days after oral argument.
The state high court already has ruled twice on same-sex marriage. In a May 2008 ruling, the court voted 4-3 to end California’s ban on gay nuptials. Voters reinstated the ban six months later.It's… not… a… ban.
The state court rejected a challenge of Proposition 8 the following year, ruling 6-1 that it was not an illegal revision of the state Constitution.
And who was defending the amendment before the state court? Oh, that’s right. The people they have to now decide about. After they already allowed them to defend the amendment before them, so how can they deny them standing? They shouldn't.
Comments from a previous entry are below.
"Regan DuCasse" at February 16, 2011 at 09:06 AM:
What individual, nation or society has EVER suffered for the expansion of equality and justice to those previously without it?
The question is flawed, as it assumes that neutering state marriage licensing, especially against a vote of the governed to amend their state constitution, is “justice”. As for equality, it is usually, if not always, detrimental to force the government and the governed to treat very different behaviors and different kinds of associations as though they were the same.
"Josh S" at February 16, 2011 at 09:53 AM:
Gays do have full right to marry. The right to marry someone of the opposite sex, if they choose not to that is their choice. Marriage was designed for added security for children and families- not to legitimize a sexual relationship which would be tantamount to adding legal protections to relationships based on other hobbies like tennis partners.
He's right.
"Pam" at February 16, 2011 at 10:24 AM:
The only people against gay marriage could only be people who don't think they know any gay people! But they do! They just don't know it.Not true. I know many gay people, including at least one same-sex couple that opposes the neutering of marriage. I'd support them committing to each other in a monogamous situation as opposed to promiscuity, but I do not support the neutering of state marriage licenses.
The only difference between gay and straight people is what they do in their bedrooms.Even granting that to be true, this is like asking, "How can you deny our chess club the status of an NFL franchise? The only thing we do differently is play chess instead of football!" Marriage isn't some way to validate an existing sexual-social relationship or recognize that people love each other. The very core of marriage is the uniting of both sexes that comprise all of society.
Apparently people against gay marriage spend way too much time thinking about other peoples' sex lives.We didn't pick this fight.
Mind your own business!State-issued licenses are my business.
If gay people want to get married and be as cranky as the rest of us, I say good and it's time to make it legal everywhere.
Ah. Another marriage critic who doesn't see the problem with neutering marriage. What a surprise.
"tw" at February 16, 2011 at 11:35 AM:
I don't impose my beliefs on you and your family and would expect the same respect from youForcing us to neuter our marriage licensing is exactly imposing your beliefs on us, and is disrespecting us.
marraige is a contract between two peopleWhy just two, and who decided that? Sounds like... discrimination... to me.
Well, at least this is a slapdown for Ted Olson, who was trying to argue that there was not even anything for the California Supreme Court to consider here, despite the request of the 9th Circuit panel that they do so.
ReplyDelete