Custom Search

Friday, March 06, 2009

Prop 8 Likely To Stand And Pre-Vote Marriages Likely To Stand

The California Supreme Court heard arguments on Proposition 8 and indications are that they were unlikely to overturn the ban on gay marriages and likely to allow the marriages that occurred before the Prop 8 passed in November, to stay legal.


In November 2008's election, a highly contested amendment was on the ballot called Proposition 8, which would ban same-sex marriages. Both sides went all out in advertising and up-to-election campaigning and when the votes were all in, Prop 8 passed with 52 percent of the vote.

After the vote passed, some gay activists went completely out of control as evidenced by reports at the time.

Previous posts linked to the original stories:

Nancy Pelosi Believes Voters Too Stupid To Know What They Have Done

Theater Director Forced to Resign Because Prop 8 Support-THE BLACKLIST IS BACK

Utah Mormon Temple Evacuated After Receiving White Powder Substance

Businesses, Blacks and Mormons Targeted By Gay Activists

Prop 8: Enraged Gays Attack Elderly and Minorities

San Francisco Gay Activists Out Of Control

Full Statement- California Supreme Court Refuses To Halt Enforcement Of Proposition 8

Gay Activists Angry At Obama

Present day news.

Back to where we started this post, the California Supreme Court has now heard arguments, with activists parked outside the court house, and reports seem to indicate that they are not likely to overturn the ban which was voted on and passed with 52 percent of California's vote.

They also seem likely to leave the marriages performed before the ban took effect as legal.

Reporting from San Francisco -- The California Supreme Court strongly indicated Thursday it would rule that Proposition 8 validly abolished the right for gays to marry but would allow same-sex couples who wed before the November election to remain legally married.

The long-awaited hearing, which came as dueling demonstrators chanted and carried banners outside, was a disappointment for gay rights lawyers.

From SFGate:

Prop. 8 was challenged by two groups of same-sex couples and by a group of local governments led by San Francisco. They argued that the measure, though drafted as an amendment to the Constitution, violated that document's core principle of equality and exceeded the voters' initiative powers.

"A guarantee of equality that is subject to exceptions by the majority is no guarantee at all," said Therese Stewart, San Francisco's chief deputy city attorney.

Opponents argued that Prop. 8 was not merely a constitutional amendment, which can be circulated as an initiative for voter approval, but was a revision of the Constitution, which requires approval from either two-thirds of the Legislature or delegates to a constitutional convention to reach the ballot.

Should they refuse to overturn the ban, which the court has 90 days in which to issue a ruling, then opponents of proposition 8 will probably campaign to get it put back on the ballot in 2010 and this merry-go-round will continue.

That is, unless, the gay activists throw their hissy fits again, in that case they will be spending so much time harassing people, they might not get it back on 2010's ballot.