Supreme Court rejects bid to remove gay marriage ban measure from November

[FreeState]

Source: Mercury News

The California Supreme Court today rejected a bid to remove a measure from the November ballot that would restore the state's ban on gay marriage.

Without comment, the court unanimously refused to hear the legal challenge, filed last month by civil rights groups. The organizations argued that the ballot measure was legally flawed and should not be put before the voters.

The latest legal salvo most likely ensures that voters will consider the measure, which would amend the state Constitution to confine marriage to a union between a man and a woman.

The state Supreme Court this spring struck down California's previous ban on gay marriage, concluding that those laws violated the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian couples by treating them differently than heterosexual couples.

Read more: http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_9900069

---

Looks like we have a battle on our hands...

[happygoluckytoyou]

1. ANYTHING TO TURN OUT THE GOP VOTE.... hope it does NOT work

[pleah]

2. Well if it is a flawed measure, and it does

happen to pass, won't it be struck down again?

[DarienComp]

3. Depends on whether the California courts can knock down a state constitutional Amendment...

[exothermic]

5. Unfortunately they can't.

...

[FreeState]

13. Are you sure about that?

If the amendment violates the constitution in the first place I believe they can - remember the court today just refused to hear the case - they did not rule it constitutional, its possible after the election if it passes for it to be brought up to the court again IMO.

[slackmaster]

6. I believe they can only do that if an amendment violates the federal constitution

Interesting question.

[Zhade]

11. It would.

Minority rights don't get to be constrained by majority rule - that's not how our Constitution works.

[slackmaster]

12. Then it would make a perfect test case to see if the federal government's non-recognition...

...of same-sex marriage is Constitutional.

[Zhade]

16. I'm not willing to let the ban pass to test it.

NT!

[FreeState]

7. It will actually most likely do away with all marriages in CA

the ruling the Supreme Court issued made gays and lesbians a suspect class. If it passes, it will define marriage in the constitution. It will not, however guaranty it. The court plainly ruled that you cannot give a government benefit to one group of people and deny it to another group of people.

The ruling is based on the equal protection clause of the CA Constitution. California State Constitution Section 7 Paragraph B states:

"A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked. "

[pleah]

8. Thanks!

:)

[slackmaster]

14. That would just boil down to a semantic argument and go nowhere

"A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked. "

Playing Devil's Advocate here, the state could say simply that gay men and lesbians have the same privilege to marry someone of the opposite sex as do heterosexuals.

[FreeState]

15. Nope

Read the ruling from June. It specifically spells out that rather than remove marriage for all, because gays are a suspect calls, in the tradition of the court, they grant the rights to all the groups.

Edit to add refering text:

page 9 of the ruling:

"Furthermore, the circumstance that the current California statutes assign a different name for the official family relationship of same-sex couples as contrasted with the name for the official family relationship of opposite-sex couples raises constitutional concerns not only under the state constitutional right to marry, but also under the state constitutional equal protection clause. In analyzing the validity of this differential treatment under the latter clause, we first must determine which standard of review should be applied to the statutory classification here at issue. Although in most instances the deferential “rational basis” standard of review is applicable in determining whether different treatment accorded by a statutory provision violates the state equal protection clause, a more exacting and rigorous standard of review — “strict scrutiny” — is applied when the distinction drawn by a statute rests upon a so-called “suspect classification” or impinges upon a fundamental right. As we shall explain, although we do not agree with the claim advanced by the parties challenging the validity of the current statutory scheme6 that the applicable statutes properly should be viewed as an instance of discrimination on the basis of the suspect characteristic of sex or gender and should be subjected to strict scrutiny on that ground, we conclude that strict scrutiny nonetheless is applicable here because (1) the statutes in question properly must be understood as classifying or discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, a characteristic that we conclude represents — like gender, race, and religion —a constitutionally suspect basis upon which to impose differential treatment, and (2) the differential treatment at issue impinges upon a same-sex couple’s fundamental interest in having their family relationship accorded the same respect and dignity enjoyed by an opposite-sex couple. "

[slackmaster]

17. I've read it before, and I agree with it

That does not guarantee anything about the future. The bottom line for me is that the issue will never be satisfactorily resolved until it is addressed at the federal level.

[xxqqqzme]

4. I do not think it will pass this time.

From behind the orange curtain, there is a shift in the publicans here. They are starting to nderstand that it IS a civil rights issue.


Took 'em long enough.

[customerserviceguy]

9. The last I heard

was that I hadn't heard if the proposed measure had enough valid signatures to even qualify for the ballot. Perhaps one of our California correspondents can enlighten us as to how the count is going/went.

[FreeState]

10. They had more than enough signatures

they needed just over 700,000 and turned in 1.1 mil. The votes were certified in early June before the marriages started to take place.

[cobalt1999]

18. Mixed feelings on this

On one hand, I'm all for gay marriage. Who cares if gays marry? It doesn't hurt anyone.

On the other hand, I believe in the democratic process and following that process.

Throw it on the ballot and hopefully people are smart enough to defeat such a move. People are getting their minds around the concept, in time this won't be an issue...by November though???

[exothermic]

19. The problem with that approach is that some venues could legalize slavery.

The Democratic process doesn't embrace tyranny of a majority. Well not theoretically anyhow...
:shrug: