Prop 8: Really Most Sincerely Dead

Breaking news out of California:

The California Supreme Court refused Wednesday to revive Proposition 8, ending the last remaining legal challenge to same-sex marriage in the state. Meeting in closed session, the state high court rejected arguments by ProtectMarriage, Proposition 8’s sponsors, that only an appellate court could overturn a statewide law. In its challenge before the state’s highest court, ProtectMarriage argued that a single judge lacked the authority to overturn a state constitutional amendment. The group also contended that Walker’s injunction applied to two counties at most and that state officials had overstepped their authority by ordering county clerks throughout California to issue same-sex marriage licenses. State officials countered that the challenge was a veiled attempt to persuade a state court to interfere with a federal judge’s order in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

And that's that, folks!

California Supreme Court Denies Another Bid To Stop Same-Sex Marriages

SCOTUSblog has the news:

For the second time in the past eight days, the California Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to order county clerks across the state to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. In a brief order, without a noted dissent, the state court turned down a plea by the clerk of San Diego County to halt all such licensing until the legal status of the “Proposition 8″ ban is further clarified.

The state court is still considering two pleas to keep “Proposition 8″ intact throughout most if not all of California, on the theory that it remains binding in the state despite a federal judge’s 2010 decision striking it down in the case of two same-sex couples. One of those challenges is by the sponsors of the ballot measure, the other by the San Diego County clerk. State officials and the clerks of 20 other California counties are resisting those requests.

California Supreme Court Denies Bid To Stop Same-Sex Marriages

Via SCOTUSblog:

The California Supreme Court on Monday afternoon refused to order county clerks throughout the state to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The state court noted on the docket for the case (Hollingsworth v. O’Connell, S211990) that it had refused a stay or injunction that would immediately mean that licenses would be allowed only to opposite-sex couples in the state. Because the docket notation did not mention the state’s plea to deny all relief to the supporters of the ban on same-sex marriage, the larger issue of whether “Proposition 8″ remains in force anywhere in the state presumably will go forward before the state’s highest court under an already existing briefing schedule. July 22 is the due date for state officials to react to the broader question.

Judicial activists! Black robed tyrants! Revolution!

UPDATE: Chad Griffin, HRC head and former AFER leader, reacts via press release.

Our opponents have failed in a desperate attempt to deny happiness and protections to lesbian and gay couples and their children and no amount of legal wrangling is going to undo that joy. Marriage equality has returned to the Golden State and just as David Blankenhorn, the star witness for Prop 8 came to support marriage equality, I hope others will open their hearts and minds and realize that marriage will soon come to all 50 states in this country. On that day we will all be more American.

Protect Marriage Files CA Supreme Court Demand To Reinstate Proposition 8

Via press release from Protect Marriage:

Moments ago, we filed a new petition in the California Supreme Court against all of California’s 58 county clerks, and state officials, seeking to restore the enforcement of Proposition 8, the state’s constitutional amendment limiting marriage to a man and a woman.  The undeniable fact is, the man-woman definition of marriage, as passed by a majority the voters, is still a valid part of our state constitution.

Yet county clerks statewide are lawlessly defying that law by issuing gender-neutral marriage licenses. We are asking California’s Supreme Court to restore the rule of law and the public’s confidence in the integrity of the initiative process.

The action we filed today contends that at least 56 of the 58 county clerks must continue to follow Proposition 8 because they were not parties to the recent federal lawsuit against Prop 8, and that the state’s governor and attorney general have no legal authority to order local county clerks to disregard the state constitution.

Our petition also reminds the justices that our opponents, the attorneys for the plaintiffs who challenged Prop 8, have repeatedly admitted that the 56 county clerks not involved in their case “are not directly bound by the injunction” issued by a single San Francisco judge against Prop 8. In fact, "super-lawyer" David Boies told the courts that “the scope of the injunction is quite limited”, and at least the 56 county clerks would remain free to “refuse a marriage license to a same-sex couple…without violating the injunction.”

Read the full filing by Protect Marriage.

CA Supreme Court Issues Opinion: Haters Have Standing To Defend Proposition 8

As many insiders predicted, today the California Supreme Court issued its opinion that the backers of Proposition 8 should have standing to defend the measure. The question had been punted to the California court by the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, who will now take the opinion into consideration while formulating their own decision on the issue. And the beat goes on...

The above excerpt comes via Good As You, where you can find the entire opinion.

AFER knew this was coming and just posted this reaction.

Prop 8 Standing Ruling Comes Tomorrow

It looks like standing will be granted.

REWIND: Yesterday's Prop 8 Hearing

At Yesterday's Prop 8 Hearing

More excellent work from prolific JMG reader Sean Chapin.

TODAY: Prop 8 Standing Hearing

UPDATE: Things are about to begin.

UPDATE II: California Channel is overloaded. Try ABC News' webcast.

Today the California Supreme Court will hear Protect Marriage's argument that they should have standing to defend Proposition 8. The hearing is scheduled to begin around 10am (San Francisco time) and will be carried live on the California Channel. I'll hunt around for embeddable live stream, but hang on to the above link.

CALIFORNIA: Newly Seated Pro-Gay Justice Likely To Hear Prop 8 Arguments

Newly seated California Supreme Court Justice Goodwin Liu, who has expressed support for same-sex marriage, is expected to hear Prop 8 arguments next week when the issue of standing is represented to the Court. Anti-gay groups have loudly called for Goodwin to recuse himself from the case based on his past statements. That, apparently, will not be happening. And as you'd expect, the Family Research Council is ever so pissed. Fantastic.

Alzheimer's Patient Wants To Marry While He Still Recognizes His Partner

Californians Ed Watson and Derence Kernik have been together for 40 years, but Ed has been been diagnosed with Alzheimer's and the couple is desperately hoping to marry while he can still recognize Derence. In a totally fucking related development, today the American Family Association denounced attempts to have the stay on Prop 8 lifted, using the headline, "Patience Is Not A Homosexual Virtue."

Prop 8 Reactions

Lambda Legal

"Because the federal appeals judges said they need clarification, we look forward to a decision by the California Supreme Court confirming that initiative proponents lack legal standing to continue the Perry case. They are not law enforcers, and have the same limited rights as everyone else to litigate only when their own rights are at stake, not merely to assert their opinions about others' rights." Initiative proponents also cannot step into the shoes of the attorney general, the governor or other state officials. The reason for this is basic: the governor and attorney general are elected by the people to represent all the people, not just one point of view on one issue, out of countless, competing concerns. Most importantly, state officials swear an oath to uphold the federal and state constitutions, including their abiding promises of equal protection and due process for everyone. Initiative proponents take no such oath, and have no such duties.

AFER

“More than six months ago, the federal district court declared unequivocally that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional and that it causes grave harm to gay and lesbian couples and their families each day that it is in effect. We look forward to assisting the California Supreme Court reach an answer to the question before them so that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals can affirm the district court’s ruling and end the state-sanctioned discrimination of Prop. 8. The American Foundation for Equal Rights is committed to achieving the freedom to marry for all Americans. We look forward to taking this case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which 14 times before has declared that marriage is a fundamental right for every American.”

NCLR

For same-sex couples waiting to marry, and for all LGBT Californians waiting to be treated as equal citizens, the knowledge that they must endure further delay is incredibly painful and frustrating. Prop 8 should never have been permitted on the ballot. The rights of a minority should never be put to a popular vote. Prop 8 was a toxic, anti-democratic measure that continues to wreak havoc in the lives of real people and families. The court should move as quickly as possible to resolve this issue. It is clear that California law does not give initiative proponents the power to override elected state officials who have decided not to appeal a federal court decision holding that a challenged state law is unconstitutional. The California Supreme Court should rule accordingly, and the Ninth Circuit should affirm Judge Walker's ruling. Prop 8 is blatantly unconstitutional, and it is past time for it to be gone.

Equality California

For same-sex couples waiting to marry, and for all LGBT Californians waiting to be treated as equal citizens, the knowledge that they must endure further delay is incredibly painful and frustrating. Prop 8 should never have been permitted on the ballot. The rights of a minority should never be put to a popular vote. Prop 8 was a toxic, anti-democratic measure that continues to wreak havoc in the lives of real people and families. The court should move as quickly as possible to resolve this issue. It is clear that California law does not give initiative proponents the power to override elected state officials who have decided not to appeal a federal court decision holding that a challenged state law is unconstitutional. The California Supreme Court should rule accordingly, and the Ninth Circuit should affirm Judge Walker's ruling. Prop 8 is blatantly unconstitutional, and it is past time for it to be gone.

Courage Campaign

“Today’s California Supreme Court ruling does not change the fact that a federal court has ruled Proposition 8 unconstitutional, but it does mean that thousands of loving LGBT families remain in legal limbo---unable to exercise their constitutional right to access the security and recognition that only comes with marriage. It is unfortunate that while many California families are able to marry at a time and place of their choosing, equally loving LGBT families must endure months and years of legal uncertainty. They have waited long enough. That is why we are asking the California Supreme Court to move expeditiously to resolve the standing question once and for all. And we are confident that no matter what their decision, Judge Walker’s ruling will ultimately be upheld and the days of second class citizenship for thousands of California families will be relegated to the dustbin of history.”

CA Supes To Hear Standing Issue

And on we go. Some will say this is a good thing, as it could be the next step to getting Prop 8 before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Stand By....

Excellent breakdown of what today's any-minute-now decision might mean.

CALIFORNIA: State Supreme Court May Weigh In On Prop 8 Request Next Week

Today the San Francisco Chronicle reports:

Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakayue says the California Supreme Court will decide soon, maybe next week, on whether to enter the Proposition 8 gay marriage fray. The 9th U.S. Court of Appeals said last month that it cannot decide if the gay marriage ban is constitutional until the state high court weighs in on whether proposition sponsors have authority to defend the measure. A three-judge panel asked the California Supreme Court to decide if ballot proposition backers can step in to defend voter-approved initiatives in court when state officials refuse to do so. The panel suggested it would have to dismiss the case if there's no state high court input.

If I'm reading this right, the Court is going to decide if it wants to decide.

American Family Association: No Gay Person Is Qualified For The Supreme Court

The American Family Association, judging for yesterday's furious flurry of press releases, is launching an all-out campaign against Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. They want to her admit her "guilt" of being a lesbian, because no gay person could ever be qualified for the job.

A refusal to answer is a tacit admission of guilt. But she may not be able publicly to deny she's a lesbian, likely because it's true. She may not be able to admit it either, because it could cost her a Supreme Court post. So she's likely to refuse to answer the question at all, and the only plausible explanation for her evasion would be because rumors of her lesbianism aren't rumors at all but based in fact. Think about it for a minute. If you were falsely accused of engaging in sexually aberrant behavior, would you waste a single minute challenging such a scurrilous rumor? It's time we got over the myth that what a public servant does in his private life is of no consequence. We cannot afford to have another sexually abnormal individual in a position of important civic responsibility, especially when that individual could become one of nine votes in an out of control oligarchy that constantly usurps constitutional prerogatives to unethically and illegally legislate for 300 million Americans. The stakes are too high. Social conservatives must rise up as one and say no lesbian is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. Will they?

Many on the left are calling for Kagan to come out as well. When was the last time THIS happened?

The Faces Of Christian Love

NPR: Gays Conducting Witch Hunt

Plenty of people are pissed off about a NPR report yesterday that characterized gay activists as conducting a "witch hunt" against donors to Yes On 8.

"This seems to be an effort to indiscriminately go after anyone who contributed money, regardless of their position on gay issues," says Frank Schubert, spokesman for the Yes on 8 campaign. He says the backlash has endangered individuals who exercised their constitutional right to freedom of religion. "I think that overall the attempt here is to intimidate and punish people so that they are less inclined to speak out in the future," he says. And it's given rise to charges that as gay rights advocates tried to change public opinion, some stepped over the line and turned their protest into a witch hunt.

Yawn. Old news, yes? But the story rankled many, coming on the day of the CA Supreme Court hearing as it did. Dan Savage is angry that not one gay person was interviewed for their point of view.

Gee, maybe a gay person should've been asked to respond to those charges. Perhaps a gay person could've pointed out that we are under no obligation to patronize businesses that are owned and operated by our enemies, discussed other boycotts launched during other civil rights struggles, and pointed out that gays and lesbians have just as much right as faithful Mormons or devout Roman Catholics to act on our consciences and spend our money accordingly, and, again, that boycotts are a peaceful and legitimate form of protest, not "witch hunts." Direct complaints about KGB's idiotic and unfair "reporting" to NPR's ombudsman here, or call 202-513-3245.

HomoQuotable - Rex Wockner

"Disaster. They constantly interrupted the gay side with aggressive questions, but let Ken Starr go on and on and on. They were obsessed with the fact that the domestic-partnership law gives the same rights as marriage, and they completely ignored the fact that they so eloquently argued that separate isn't equal in their previous ruling. They seemed enamored of the notion that the people can do almost whatever they want via the ballot-box amendment process -- including repealing freedom of speech, banning gay adoption, pretty much any damned thing they choose. We're not winning this one. It could even be unanimous." - Reporter Rex Wockner, writing on his blog about yesterday's CA Supreme Court hearings.

(Photo credit: Mike Tidmus)

CA Papers React To Prop 8 Hearing

According to most of California's major newspapers, today was not our day.

San Francisco Chronicle:

California Supreme Court justices directed sharp questioning today at attorneys seeking to overturn Proposition 8, the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage. Justice Joyce Kennard, one of the justices in the majority of the 4-3 ruling last year that legalized gay and lesbian marriages - a decision that voters overturned in approving Prop. 8 in November - said at one point that opponents of the measure would have the court choose between "two rights ... the inalienable right to marry and the right of the people to change the constitution as they see fit. And what I'm picking up from the oral argument in this case is this court should willy-nilly disregard the will of the people."

San Jose Mercury News:

The California Supreme Court today appeared inclined to uphold Proposition 8, but showed obvious reluctance to void thousands of same-sex marriages already in place when voters restored a ban on gay marriage last fall. During three hours of arguments in San Francisco, the justices peppered lawyers opposing Proposition 8 with questions that suggested they do not believe they have the authority to trump the will of the voters. At the same time, even justices who voted against striking down's California's previous ban on gay marriage, indicated that Proposition 8 should not wipe out an estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place last year. "Is that really fair to people who depended on what this court said was the law?" Justice Ming Chin asked Ken Starr, the former Clinton impeachment prosecutor who argued that same-sex marriages shouldn't be recognized under Proposition 8.

Los Angeles Times:

The California Supreme Court appeared ready today to vote to uphold Proposition 8, the November ballot measure that banned gay marriage, but also seemed ready to decide unanimously to recognize existing same-sex marriages. During a three-hour televised hearing in San Francisco, only two of the court's seven justices indicated a possible readiness to overturn the initiative. Chief Justice Ronald M. George noted that the court was following a different Constitution when it approved gay marriage last May. "Today we have a different state Constitution," he said. Justice Joyce L. Kennard, who usually votes in favor of gay rights, voted against accepting the revision challenge to Proposition 8 but said she would hear arguments over the validity of existing same-sex marriages. Kennard said during the hearing that "Prop. 8 did not take away the whole bundle of rights that this court articulated in the marriage case."

Sacramento Bee:

The seven justices, who will render their decision on Proposition 8 within 90 days, immediately questioned opponents' view that the November initiative was an improper revision of the state constitution. Justice Joyce Kennard noted that the Proposition 8 added just 14 words to the state constitution: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," and so could not be considered a revision based simply on length. Chief Justice Ron George noted that the California constitution has been properly amended hundreds of times, much more frequently than the U.S. constitution. He raised the possibility that the change gay-marriage proponents oppose is simply the result of California's system, which gives the people the right to amend the constitution through the initiative process.