Stout, Stout, Get it Worked Out!
Box Office Review: American Teens Are Morons
'Kick a Ginger Day' Spawned At Least 5 Attacks on Redheaded Kids
Books for L.A. Nerds: Saints of California
Intrepid L.A. Foodies Tackle 11-in-11 Nocturnal Challenge
Whether you watched at home, in your office or in public like at West Hollywood's Auditorium, this morning's Prop 8 state Supreme Court hearing was a long three hours as lawyers from both side were hammered with questions from the seven justices.
Raymond C. Marshall of the Asian Pacific American Legal Center was one of the first to speak to the justices. "This is the first time a ballot initiative will have been used to take away a fundamental right from a suspect class," he said.
Later, Kenneth Starr from Pepperdine University (Alumni = not happy) took the stand. "One of the inalienable rights articulated in the [California] Constitution is control over the Constitution," he said defending Prop 8's legality when held up against the light of it denying fundamental right to gay citizens. It's not up to the government to dictate the constitution, he said. "Governors change, legislatures change, but the enduring structure is there to protect liberty."
When it came to the 18,000 couples who legally married between June--when this very same court said gay marriage was legal--and November, Justice Carol Corrigan seemed to be against nullifying them. "If Californians can't rely on what this court says ... who should they ask?"
The court has up to 90 days to come out with a decision.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
It's looking like it might be time to start getting those recall petitions written up.
as a NO on 8 voter, i was sad that the proceedings seemed so discouraging.
the supreme court should overturn the vote... a vote that should've never taken place.
I abstained from voting on Prop 8 because it's invalid to put a Civil Rights issue on a ballot for a majority vote. Gay rights lawyers should've fought this BEFORE it went to a vote. Not after. (see massachusetts).
now, the "Yes on 8" people could argue that millions of people voted "No," thereby validating the Proposition.
That being said, the "No on 8" people are going to lose this battle if they can't find some real lawyers to challenge a heavyweight like Ken Starr.
i am a believer that constitutional changes should require more than a simple majority. to amend the us constitution, it requires a 2/3 vote. you've got to really want that change. i would love to see a proposition written that would require a true mandate, not this 51% nonsense, for amending the state's constitution.
after they repeal prop 8, though.
I too was discouraged at what the outcome looks like. I have to say that while I am most definately a NO on 8, the court is being asked to decide a limited set of items.
1. if Prop 8 was an amendment or a revision. It's looking to me on the face of the arguments that its an amendment.
2. Ken Starr's weakest point came trying to argue that the existing legally recognized marriages should be nullified. He barely could even acknowledge that they ARE legitimately performed marriages.
I hope its' prop 8 is reversed with this court decision but my gut is telling me that it won't be. The existing marriages I think will remain intact.
Has anyone tried tackling this issue from an economic standpoint?
California is in severe economic pain. Worse than the country at large. Thousands of new marriages could put hundreds of millions of dollars into the hands of businesses both small and large.
This should be a valid argument on either side for at least a temporary lifting of the ban, right?
(Then again, so should the legalization of pot, I guess.)
weird looking people