SAN FRANCISCO – California's highest court agreed Wednesday to hear several legal challenges to the state's new ban on same-sex marriage but refused to allow gay couples to resume marrying before it rules.
The California Supreme Court accepted three lawsuits seeking to nullify Proposition 8, a voter-approved constitutional amendment that overruled the court's decision in May that legalized gay marriage.
All three cases claim the measure abridges the civil rights of a vulnerable minority group. They argue that voters alone did not have the authority to enact such a significant constitutional change.
As is its custom when it takes up cases, the court did not elaborate on its decision.
Along with the gay rights groups and local governments petitioning to overturn the ban, the measure's sponsors and Attorney General Jerry Brown had urged the Supreme Court to consider whether Proposition 8 passes legal muster.
The court directed Brown and lawyers for the Yes on 8 campaign to submit their arguments for why the ballot initiative should not be nullified by Dec. 19. It said lawyers for the plaintiffs, who include same-sex couples who did not wed before the election, must respond before Jan. 5. Oral arguments could be scheduled as early as March, according to court spokeswoman Lynn Holton.
Both opponents and supporters of Proposition 8 expressed confidence Wednesday that their arguments would prevail.
But they also agreed that the cases present the court's seven justices — six of whom voted to review the challenges — with complex questions that have few precedents in state case law.
RSS
To be a Christian is to love God and to willingly be obedient to him. What part of being a Christian is so difficult to understand? How can Christians support laws that support sin and consider it to be a Christian act?
PROTECTION FROM DISCRIMINATION based on gender, religion, race, etc
what is it about this phrase that you do not understand?
"the civil rights movement"
As I recall, the civil rights movement was based on the concept that God created all men equal. No one denies that gay people should have the same individual rights as none gay people thus equal rights. Marriage is not nor can be considered a civil right.
Wikipedia:
"Civil and political rights are a class of rights ensuring things such as the protection of peoples' physical integrity; procedural fairness in law; protection from discrimination based on gender, religion, race, etc; individual freedom of belief, speech, association, and the press; and political participation. Contrast with economic, social and cultural rights"
Marriage is a cultural right and not a civil right.
in essence the laws are instituted are those support specific legal precepts...............even the majority cannot overrule these, ergo, the civil rights movement.
" the fact that a group wants to institute laws based on a particular religion's understanding, makes it important that they not be instituted"
We are ruled by majority. So that 'group' you speak of is the majority as proven by the Prop 8 vote. I want the founding fathers directives preserved. Rule of the majority.
"lamb, the fight is not against gays, but in upholding God's original design for marriage and sexual intimacy."
no............in a country where there is seperation between church and state......the concern of the people is the intentions of the founders of the law. the fact that a group wants to institute laws based on a particular religion's understanding, makes it important that they not be instituted.
"the fight is not against gays, but in upholding God's original design"
Well said! I am FOR Biblical marriage and relationships. God does NOT put boundaries up to spoil our fun or be a party pooper. He puts up boundaries as any good Father does to protect His children. Good children respect the boundaries now don't they? Those who are disobedient do not.
What's amazing is how the high couty would not prevent gay marriage from occurring until after the voters made their decision on propsition 8. They knew if it passed that it create a legal quagmire of what about the legal standing of those who were married during that period. It seems to me that the high court could care less about the will of the people, from whom all governmental authority and power is supposed to originate, than they do about making their own "historic, indelible mark on history". Is anyone going to be really suprised when they strike this measure down as well? The California Supreme Court made up its mind a long time ago, the only hope will be with the Supreme Court.
so remind me again why we vote??? isn't this the 2nd time it passed? i see something terribly wrong with all this.
lamb, the fight is not against gays, but in upholding God's original design for marriage and sexual intimacy.
"nobody is forcing any body's way of living a life on anyone else"
Bullspit. Children in public schools where Courts have decided to let Gays prevail and have their 'marriages', now have to be indoctrinated about the 'merits' and equality of same sex marriage using taxpayer money. The parents certainly feel like someone's way of living is being forced on them. Voters do to!
There's a whole lot of difference between granting "a way of life" civil rights and the real civil rights movement where skin color was an issue.
Using the civil rights argument just shows how self important these militant gays think they are.
I believe the government is for the people and of the people. The majority of whom voted to amend the constitution of CA to define marriage between one man and one woman. How many times does the people of CA need to let their voices be heard about this issue? Does Prop 22 ring a bell?
(Pro 28:4 NASB) - Those who forsake the law praise the wicked, But those who keep the law strive with them.
I am sure that you have facts based on the Singapore constitution. I suggest you review it again.
Yes, Sometimes I feel it is run out of a church as you say, but you still can't preach to the Muslims, in the country, and to the North and South of it. So how can it be? And for the rights on immorality? the straight people have taken all the rights indeed.
There is also so much idolatory everywhere but I suppose gays are the greatest problem and so they must be banned.
Gentle Lamb, Singapore
http://www.psa91.com
sorry feet but the country you live in was founded on biblical values and the government being run out of the church..Meaning the basis of the government is built on the WORD of GOD. So why should I stand for something that wants to take it away just because people need to have "the right" to spread immorality. NO I will not stand for that .
It's a very narrow passing of proposition 8, so to say that it is the will of the people is not really reflective.
If Christians intends to emphasis this fact, then the will of the people must also apply to a lot of countries where Christians are not influential, and so the will of the people may mean banning of Christianity.
Yes, we are in a war - the war for the souls of men and women - all round the world. If we behave like King David and thought the war is on gays, then we are destracted from our commission by a high level demonic deception.
Gentle Lamb, Singapore
http://www.psa91.com
The constant reference the civil rights movement is a slap-in-face.
How can a gay person actually catagorize themselves as a race of people when the differences in races are physical appearance such as skin color and the gay person's difference is sexual tendencies?
Major league baseball players can, by this logic, be a different race of people because they were born to play baseball.
Lawyers (although arguable, I admit - that was a funny) can be a differnt race of people.
Oh how about all those that have down's syndrome or mental retardation, wouldn't they be considered a different race of people?
i fail to see any difference between the civil rights battle of the 60's over integration and gays battle over marriage.
in the 60's people who fought against civil rights were offended because they were being forced to associate with persons they chose not. some objected for biblical reasons, others some for cultural.
today there are objections to gays being allowed to marry some for biblical, some for cultural. nobody is forcing any body's way of living a life on anyone else. they merely are asking as they did in the 60's for equal opportunity.
what is it about homosexuality being legal. and this country having a seperation of church and state mandate that you dont understand.
you dont seriously think that the 60's civil rights battle could have been won thru public referendum, do you?
then why the battle?
"You seem to have abridged a prior right of a particular class."
Are you saying that gays are a second class of people? They are not a seperate class. They are people who want to force their life-style on the rest of us. African Americans did not seek to force their life-style on us. They wanted civil rights. Gays do not. They want to take away MY civil rights by criminalizing my faith and belief in the Bible as written.
We are a country governed by law. That law is to rest on the foundation of the Constitution. When a law or a court case violates the Constitution then we are no longer ruled by a government of the people, for the people and by the people. We become a government of a particular group of people. This is what our founding fathers wanted to avoid because that is what they left in England.
It's a war for California folks we as the BODY need to take a stand against unrighteousness and join our brothers and sisters there.
Phat Wrote: "It is up to the judges to determine, without bias"
Judges are appointed b/c of their bias. They are appointed by their views of certain issues. This is bias.
As a follower of Christ, I see the "gay marriage is a constitutional freedom" as a red herring. It's not the real issue. The real issue is a spiritual one. Supporters of gay marriage are suppress the truth that there is a God (this is evident in creation; at the day of judgment no one will have a valid excuse for denying the existing of the God of the Bible). I oppose gay marriage because it goes against what Scripture defines as a union of man and woman. For me to support, or passively allow, gay marriage would be equivalent to me supporting legalized moral sin of any kind. I am called to speak out for my Lord.
philo777, interpreted by the courts, yes, but dictated by the courts, NO!
Life and death are in the power of the tongue. The Body of Christ has more than just a ballot , we have the POWER of GOD . I speak that once again HIS justice will prevail and gay marriage will NOT be overturned in JESUS name. IT may be the end times but we don't have to speak the negative outcome.
The California Constitution reads:
"All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require."
So why in the world is the court wanting to hear these lawsuits. The should have the guts and say "the people have spoken" lets move on.
More AP biases:
Prop 8 does not ban gay marriages; it defines marriage as between a man and a woman. A technical difference that is legally significant.
Only the mainstream press can't seem to appreciate the nuances.
"For the court to overturn this ammendment would be to turn CA into a state ruled by the court and not the people. Some dare call it treason...."
Daniel Paul:
Did you think about the above sentence as you typed it? I wonder, 'cause it kind of misses the FACT that we are a nation ruled by LAWS (as interpreted by the courts), not the whim of the people, and the US has always been that way.
I don't know how the court will rule in this matter, but the case made by the plaintiffs seems to say that prop 8 made a change to the constitution of CA that may have been improper. You seem to have abridged a prior right of a particular class. Some say that a constitutional convention would be necessary to make this change.
Believe me, neither your marriage or those of other Christians in the state will suffer one bit regardless of the court's ruling. God probably won't strike either, he hasn't done anything like that in a long, long time.
Just in case, though, I'm buying "beachfront" land in Nevada.
If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? (Psalm 11:3).
Psalm 12:8
The wicked freely strut about when what is vile is honored among men.
Ridiculous! ...but are we really suprised?
Hasn't this already happened in CA? In 2000 the voters approved a prop for marriage between one man and one women, but then this year the Supreme Court went ahead with legalizing same-sex marriages, which brought back up the issue of putting it to the people. Prop 8 was then also approved thereby banning same-sex marriages. My concern really is that if our courts can overturn a majority vote then how will it affect all majority votes in the future?
Being gay may be a civil liberty but doesn't meet the criteria for a civil right. Until such a time that concrete absolute proof can be brought to the court as to the basis of homosexuality it will only be a liberty.
Absolute proof would be a black person proving he was born black or a woman saying she was born female. To date there is nothing but specualation and wishful thinking to support the concept that people are born gay. If there was there would be no arguement now would there?
For the court to overturn this ammendment would be to turn CA into a state ruled by the court and not the people. Some dare call it treason....
the Courts will overturn the ban on gay marriage. the church must then preach the Word of God concerning homosexuality, but this will cause persecution.
We are living in the last days.
We are going to see the Wrath of God poured out on the perversion of homosexuality.
OK - so here's what's going to happen:
The courts will overturn the will of the people yet again-because most on the court are godless and can careless what the people say.
The church and her allies will protest in the streets, but they will be charged with HATE CRIMES! LOL!
Please STOP THE INSANITY! May God have mercy!