Prop 8 proponents seek to nullify same-sex marriages

[Dave Lane]

What a waste of time jeez... And why does anyone care??


http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/19/california.proposition/index.html

(CNN) -- Spons[/B]ors of the California ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage are seeking to nullify thousands of marriages between gay and lesbian couples performed after the state Supreme Court ruled them constitutional.

The passage of Proposition 8 left the future of thousands of marriages between same-sex couples unclear.

The sponsors Friday filed responses to three anti-Proposition 8 lawsuits with the state Supreme Court. The briefs also defend Proposition 8 against opponents' legal challenges, including an argument that the amendment needed a constitutional convention to be added to the state's constitution.

"We are confident that the will of the voters and Proposition 8 will ultimately be upheld," said Andrew Pugno, General Counsel for ProtectMarriage.com and the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund.

California Attorney General Edmund "Jerry" Brown called on the court to reject the initiative.

"Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification," Brown said in a written statement.

Rick Jacobs, founder and chair of the anti-Proposition 8 Courage Campaign, said he was "appalled" that the initiative's supporters wanted to nullify the same-sex marriages that are already on the books.

"The motivation behind this mean-spirited and heart-breaking action should not be allowed to be buried in legal brief," he said. "If Proposition 8's sponsors plan to destroy lives, they should at least have the courage to admit it publicly."

Opponents filed suit quickly after the November 4 election in which Proposition 8 passed 52 percent to 48 percent, effectively reversing a California Supreme Court decision that it was unconstitutional to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The vote also prompted a series of protests, some aimed at supporters of the proposition.

The proposition, which added an amendment to the state constitution, defined marriage as between one man and one woman.

Opponents argue that the amendment cannot be applied retroactively, but proponents say the amendment is clear on that issue.

"Proposition 8's brevity is matched by its clarity," one of the briefs read. "There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions, or exclusions: 'Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.'

" ... Its plain language encompasses both pre-existing and later-created same-sex (and polygamous) marriages, whether performed in California or elsewhere. With crystal clarity, it declares that they are not valid or recognized in California."

Opponents are also seeking to have the amendment nullified, arguing that it alters the state's constitution -- meaning the state Supreme Court's May ruling -- and therefore, according to state law, is a revision that requires a constitutional convention. Proponents of the amendment disagree.

"Petitioners' challenge depends on characterizing Proposition 8 as a radical departure from the fundamental principles of the California Constitution," their briefs said. " ... But that portrayal is wildly wrong. Proposition 8 is limited in nature and effect. It does nothing more than restore the definition of marriage to what it was and always had been under California law before June 16, 2008 -- and to what the people had repeatedly willed that it be throughout California's history."

California voters passed a ballot initiative in 2000 that changed the state's Family Code to formally define marriage in the state between a man and a woman. After San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom performed same-sex marriages in 2004, which were promptly annulled, Newsom and others sought to have the ballot initiative struck down.

The California Supreme Court did so in May, and same-sex marriages were performed legally in California a month later.

The court's ruling said the right to marry is among a set of basic human rights "so integral to an individual's liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process."

But opponents had already been at work on Proposition 8, seeking to enshrine the marriage definition in the constitution, and the initiative was approved for the November 4 vote.

Proposition 8 supporters also announced the addition of Kenneth Starr to their legal team. Starr will serve as lead counsel and argue their case to the Supreme Court.

Starr, the dean of Pepperdine Law School, investigated the suicide of Clinton deputy White House counsel Vince Foster and the Whitewater affair. The $70 million investigation turned up evidence of President Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky and led to Clinton's impeachment by the House of Representatives. He was acquitted by the Senate.

[SportsRacer]

I'm not homophobic, but gays scare the fuck out of me!

[bango]

Someone should try to nullify ever other marriage. That would be for the best. Then there would not be this battle over trivial issues. Outlaw all marriages. Then there will not be anyone pretending that they are special, and there wil not be anyone feeling like they are being left out of the picture.

[Taco John]

What hateful, hellish people.

[Taco John]

Someone should try to nullify ever other marriage. That would be for the best. Then there would not be this battle over trivial issues. Outlaw all marriages. Then there will not be anyone pretending that they are special, and there wil not be anyone feeling like they are being left out of the picture.


The problem isn't marraige. It's income tax.

[whoman69]

Someone should try to nullify ever other marriage. That would be for the best. Then there would not be this battle over trivial issues. Outlaw all marriages. Then there will not be anyone pretending that they are special, and there wil not be anyone feeling like they are being left out of the picture.

That could be the next step, countersue on grounds of unequal protection.

[ClevelandBronco]

That could be the next step, countersue on grounds of unequal protection.

I'd be in favor of removing any advantages that heterosexual married people are granted by the government.

[bango]

The problem isn't marraige. It's income tax.

...and the Religious Right, and the Feds, and the...

[patteeu]

As much as I disagree with the motivations of the pro-prop 8 crowd, I oppose abuse of power by courts (let's call it an "imperial judiciary" just for demagogic grins) even more. I haven't heard a compelling argument for why the will of the people as expressed through this state constitution amendment ought to be overturned on legal grounds. It's time for gay marriage proponents to dig in and focus on persuading people rather than trying to do an end run around our democratic process. Gay marriage is coming. It's inevitable, IMO. But let's get there the right way.

[ClevelandBronco]

As much as I disagree with the motivations of the pro-prop 8 crowd, I oppose abuse of power by courts (let's call it an "imperial judiciary" just for demagogic grins) even more. I haven't heard a compelling argument for why the will of the people as expressed through this state constitution amendment ought to be overturned on legal grounds. It's time for gay marriage proponents to dig in and focus on persuading people rather than trying to do an end run around our democratic process. Gay marriage is coming. It's inevitable, IMO. But let's get there the right way.

Exactly. Let's do it through the legislature or the electorate of any given state. The courts have no business enforcing their will.

Well, except for having to say that another court overstepped their bounds.

I hate this freaking system, except that I love it.

[Ultra Peanut]

Oh yes. The courts have no business determining whether or not a law is constitutional. Let's leave it up to the majority to determine what happens to the (irrationally feared, hated) minority.

What hateful, hellish people.But they're so polite!

[Laz]

teh gheys will destroy the world!!!!!!

[alanm]

As much as I disagree with the motivations of the pro-prop 8 crowd, I oppose abuse of power by courts (let's call it an "imperial judiciary" just for demagogic grins) even more. I haven't heard a compelling argument for why the will of the people as expressed through this state constitution amendment ought to be overturned on legal grounds. It's time for gay marriage proponents to dig in and focus on persuading people rather than trying to do an end run around our democratic process. Gay marriage is coming. It's inevitable, IMO. But let's get there the right way.
What ever happened to separation of church and state? The state has no business telling any church who they can and cannot marry.

[Psyko Tek]

I gotta agree with Bango
outlaw all marriages
they infringe on my constitutional rights

the one about pursuit of happiness

[patteeu]

Oh yes. The courts have no business determining whether or not a law is constitutional. Let's leave it up to the majority to determine what happens to the (irrationally feared, hated) minority.

But they're so polite!

We're not talking about a law here, we're talking about a constitutional amendment. I'm skeptical about whether they had any business in mandating gay marriage in the first place, but since I'm not familiar with the California constitutional provision on which they based their decision I'll defer judgment.

What does polite have to do with this (or even irrational fear or hatred)? Courts aren't supposed to fix the misjudgments of our democracy just because they're born of irrational fear, hatred or impoliteness. What's the difference between that idea and letting a President rule by decree based on his own personal opinion other than the fact that the decision comes from a small group instead of a single person?

[Laz]

What ever happened to separation of church and state? The state has no business telling any church who they can and cannot marry.

"the state" shouldn't have anything to do with marriage at all.

marriage is strictly a religious area


everyone should be able to get a civil union ..... let the churches do whatever stupid ass thing they want.

[alanm]

"the state" shouldn't have anything to do with marriage at all.

marriage is strictly a religious area


everyone should be able to get a civil union ..... let the churches do whatever stupid ass thing they want.
And if the churches don't advocate same sex marriage it shouldn't even come up for a vote anywhere. End of debate.
Civil unions are just fine with me.

[Laz]

And if the churches don't advocate same sex marriage it shouldn't even come up for a vote anywhere. End of debate.
Civil unions are just fine with me.

yep ... marriage is strictly a religious ceremony


as far as the government is concern is should be nothing but civil unions ..... for everyone.


all the pomp and ceremony is for the churches to decide and perform.

[bango]

yep ... marriage is strictly a religious ceremony


as far as the government is concern is should be nothing but civil unions ..... for everyone.


all the pomp and ceremony is for the churches to decide and perform.


I agree with you, but it has been brought up at other times, and even in this thread. Why would the feds get involved in marriage? For the same reason that they have started becoming involved in most aspects of people's lives, money.

[alnorth]

And if the churches don't advocate same sex marriage it shouldn't even come up for a vote anywhere. End of debate.
Civil unions are just fine with me.

This isnt really relevant to the argument. If gay marriages are legal, no church has to take part. This was one of the most dishonest arguments of the campaign, that if prop 8 failed, then every church would be forced by CA to marry gay people. Not true, there are plenty of "churches" who were willing to do this, and you dont really even need a church, so its not an availability issue.

To those who dont agree, lets take a young Jewish couple and send them to a Catholic church to get married without converting, and see what kind of answer they get! Churches are legally allowed to discriminate in their private marriage ceremonies.

[alanm]

yep ... marriage is strictly a religious ceremony


as far as the government is concern is should be nothing but civil unions ..... for everyone.


all the pomp and ceremony is for the churches to decide and perform.
And yet gays are trying to define church doctrine. Well tough shit.

[Ultra Peanut]

And yet gays are trying to define church doctrine. Well tough shit.Bzzzzzzzt.

[alanm]

This isnt really relevant to the argument. If gay marriages are legal, no church has to take part. This was one of the most dishonest arguments of the campaign, that if prop 8 failed, then every church would be forced by CA to marry gay people. Not true, there are plenty of "churches" who were willing to do this, and you dont really even need a church, so its not an availability issue.

To those who dont agree, lets take a young Jewish couple and send them to a Catholic church to get married without converting, and see what kind of answer they get! Churches are legally allowed to discriminate in their private marriage ceremonies.
Well then they can go to what ever church they can get to marry them and shut the f*ck up. It sounds to me like their more concerned with the Mormons or Catholics and their not going to change their views until the end of time. So why beat your head against a brick wall for a losing cause.

[Ultra Peanut]

Well then they can go to what ever church they can get to marry them and shut the f*ck up. It sounds to me like their more concerned with the Mormons or Catholics and their not going to change their views until the end of time. So why beat your head against a brick wall for a losing cause.Uhhhhhhhhh, they're concerned with the Mormons because the Mormons just successfully led a push to make it illegal for gays to get married in California.

[alanm]

Uhhhhhhhhh, they're concerned with the Mormons because the Mormons just successfully led a push to make it illegal for gays to get married in California.They have civil unions there don't they? What's the problem?

[alanm]

Uhhhhhhhhh, they're concerned with the Mormons because the Mormons just successfully led a push to make it illegal for gays to get married in California.Don't forget Blacks and Hispanics overwhelmingly voted against it also.
I've yet to see gays protest in those respective communities.
They would rather pick on old ladies.

[Iowanian]

Judges should stop legisltating from the bench.


It was already not-legal for gheys to marry in Kalee For yNA, until an activist judge provoked this by legislating from his seat.


Like the outcome or not, It seems to me, the voters of california have spoken.

[LOCOChief]

I'd be in favor of removing any advantages that heterosexual married people are granted by the government.


why?

[dirk digler]

I am against gay marriage but this whole idea of going back and invalidating these people's marriages is really a slap in the face to all gays and lesbians. Why would they want to do this and what purpose does it serve because they aren't hurting anybody or anything. At the time what they did was legal.

It is complete and utter BS.

[Adept Havelock]

why?

I don't know about him, but AFAICS:

Special governmental privileges for married folk = government social engineering.

Social engineering by the Govt. is an "evul librul" very bad thing, right? That's what I keep hearing. :shrug:


Wait, let me guess. It's not really "social engineering" when it's done with an agenda you agree with. LMAO

[Taco John]

And yet gays are trying to define church doctrine. Well tough shit.



That's just ignorant.

[patteeu]

I am against gay marriage but this whole idea of going back and invalidating these people's marriages is really a slap in the face to all gays and lesbians. Why would they want to do this and what purpose does it serve because they aren't hurting anybody or anything. At the time what they did was legal.

It is complete and utter BS.

The tax benefit given to married couples impacts everyone. That's just one example.

[dirk digler]

The tax benefit given to married couples impacts everyone. That's just one example.

Is that such a big deal to invalidate thousands of people's marriages?

IMHO this is like kicking someone in the head while they are down and knocked out.

[patteeu]

Is that such a big deal to invalidate thousands of people's marriages?

IMHO this is like kicking someone in the head while they are down and knocked out.

You made a sweeping statement that wasn't true when you said they aren't hurting anybody. The tax break isn't the only cost shifted to the collective by gay marriage, it's just an example. Obviously it's not a big deal to me since I support gay marriage.

BTW, aren't you one of the people who thinks it's a big deal when the wealthy get what you consider to be a tax break?

[dirk digler]

You made a sweeping statement that wasn't true when you said they aren't hurting anybody. The tax break isn't the only cost shifted to the collective by gay marriage, it's just an example. Obviously it's not a big deal to me since I support gay marriage.

BTW, aren't you one of the people who thinks it's a big deal when the wealthy get what you consider to be a tax break?

CA already has Domestic partnership law which they can file as married as far as state taxes go. So you are only talking about federal taxes which probably isn't that great of a difference.

We all know this isn't about taxes this is about kicking them when they are down.

[patteeu]

CA already has Domestic partnership law which they can file as married as far as state taxes go. So you are only talking about federal taxes which probably isn't that great of a difference.

We all know this isn't about taxes this is about kicking them when they are down.

If you hadn't incorrectly claimed that gay marriage doesn't have an impact on anyone else, I wouldn't have corrected you. As for whether the impact is actually hurtful or not, that's a matter of opinion. I don't consider myself hurt by it, but then I wouldn't consider myself hurt if the tax rate on the wealthy were the same as it is on me either.

I'm sure that there are people who hate gays who supported prop 8 just as I'm sure there are gays who hate straight people who opposed it. But you paint with too broad a brush when you pretend that everyone who supported the proposition did so to "[kick] them when they are down". AFAIC, there are perfectly good reasons to support prop 8 that have nothing to do with love or hate of gay people.

[dirk digler]

If you hadn't incorrectly claimed that gay marriage doesn't have an impact on anyone else, I wouldn't have corrected you. As for whether the impact is actually hurtful or not, that's a matter of opinion. I don't consider myself hurt by it, but then I wouldn't consider myself hurt if the tax rate on the wealthy were the same as it is on me either.

I'm sure that there are people who hate gays who supported prop 8 just as I'm sure there are gays who hate straight people who opposed it. But you paint with too broad a brush when you pretend that everyone who supported the proposition did so to "[kick] them when they are down". AFAIC, there are perfectly good reasons to support prop 8 that have nothing to do with love or hate of gay people.

I corrected you by saying that CA already has a Domestic Partnership law that allows them the same benefits as married couples even as far as state and local taxes. I guess you can make the claim that gays being married in CA impacts the whole nation because they get a federal tax break but at the state level it doesn't impact anybody.

As far as the rest goes I don't care about Prop 8 because the voters voted for it.

My problem is now the supporters are going back to court trying to get all those who got married not to count and my point is they won and now they are trying to kick them when they are down.

[patteeu]

I corrected you by saying that CA already has a Domestic Partnership law that allows them the same benefits as married couples even as far as state and local taxes. I guess you can make the claim that gays being married in CA impacts the whole nation because they get a federal tax break but at the state level it doesn't impact anybody.

As far as the rest goes I don't care about Prop 8 because the voters voted for it.

My problem is now the supporters are going back to court trying to get all those who got married not to count and my point is they won and now they are trying to kick them when they are down.

The supporters succeeded in passing an amendment that appears to eliminate recognition of those marriages to me. Your emotional arguments shouldn't be relevant. There's no more reason for a judge to depart from the will of the people as expressed in the language of their amendment than there would be for them to reject the amendment altogether.

[Laz]

And yet gays are trying to define church doctrine. Well tough shit.
no more than Churchs are trying to abolish 'Gay'


in fact, much much less



the religious right is hell bent on doing everything they can to "cure" people of being gay

[dirk digler]

The supporters succeeded in passing an amendment that appears to eliminate recognition of those marriages to me. Your emotional arguments shouldn't be relevant. There's no more reason for a judge to depart from the will of the people as expressed in the language of their amendment than there would be for them to reject the amendment altogether.

It will be interesting to see how the courts interpret the amendment because at the time what the gays and lesbians did was legal so to go back and undo all that is going to be a tough decision.

Especially since it was that court that said it was legal to do.