California court to hear gay marriage case in March

[eppur_se_muova]

Source: Reuters

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California's Supreme Court early next month will hear arguments over whether to allow a ban on same-sex marriage that has become a national rallying point for gays and their supporters.

California voters on November 4 approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. A ruling by the same state top court which is now considering the ban had opened the way to same-sex marriage in May of last year, ushering in a summer of gay nuptials ended by the vote.

Trend-setting California fell in line with the majority of U.S. states when it passed the ban, but it spurred nationwide protests that were not seen when other states passed similar legislation.

Supporters on both sides have deluged the California Supreme Court with dozens of briefs. The court has agreed to hear the case on March 5, extremely quickly by judicial standards, and it has three months after oral arguments to rule.



Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE51305320090204

[krister]

1. How is this even happening?

Prop 22 passed with 62% in favor and the courts shat all over it and now prop 8 only passed with 51%.

There should be no courts needed.

The Equal Protection clause already prohibits discrimination based on gender/sex so if a man can marry a woman but another woman cannot, that is discrimination based on sex/gender clear as day.

[harmonicon]

3. lets hope that the court see it that way too

[AtheistCrusader]

4. It's not really a popularity contest.

A measure with only 51% support could be perfectly legal, even if another with higher public support is not. But I agree, and hope that it is overturned. I think there's a pretty good chance it will be overturned in court.

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. Prop 22 was a law; the Court said it was unconstitutional

Prop 8 amended the state constitution; by definition, it is constitutional.

My understanding is that there is still room to declare Prop 8 invalid. The California constitution recognizes two types of modifications to the constitution: amendments and revisions. Amendments are for minor changes, and can be proposed by either the Assembly or by initiative. Revisions are for larger, more substantive changes, and can only be proposed by the Assembly. The question was raised, even before the election, as to whether eliminating a recognized consitutional right could be done by amendment or if it required a revision; the state Attorney General said at that time that no one would have standing to press suit on this until and unless Prop 8 passed. He has opined since that Prop 8 is invalid -- and thus, cannot be put into effect -- because it would require a revision. I believe that is the heart of the case that will be heard. There are several precedents where the Court overturned amendments on these grounds.

Another possibility is that the Court will rule Prop 8 valid, and then immediately override Prop 8 by reiterating the constitutional arguments it issued in In re Marriage Cases, ie that marriage remains a fundamental right under the state's Declaration of Rights. That is less likely.

[xchrom]

2. recommend

[Rob Gregory Browne]

6. Somebody please tell me

What exactly is the argument AGAINST gay marriage? Not the religious argument. The legal argument.