First article is here: CLICK
Second article is here: CLICK
FIRST ARTICLE: The Los Angeles Times, May 27, 2009
California high court upholds Prop. 8
In a 6-1 ruling, the court said the November ballot measure that restored a ban on same-sex marriage was a limited constitutional amendment, not a wholesale revision that would have required a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to be placed before voters.
Proposition 8 merely "carves out a narrow and limited exception" to the state constitutional protection gays and lesbians now receive, Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote for the majority.
The court majority said same-sex couples would continue to have the right to choose life partners and enter into "committed, officially recognized and protected family relationships" that enjoy all the benefits of marriage under the state's domestic partnership law.
UC Berkeley constitutional law professor Goodwin Liu said the ruling shows "the court continues to be very deferential to the processes of direct democracy in California."
In a separate, concurring opinion, Associate Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar noted some rights married couples have that domestic partners do not, and suggested that the state now has the duty "to eliminate the remaining important differences."
She agreed with the majority that Proposition 8 was not an illegal constitutional revision, but said the ruling's definition of revision was too inflexible.
Describing Proposition 8's "limited effect," the majority said that simply reserving the term "marriage" for opposite-sex couples "does not have a substantial, or, indeed, even a minimal effect on the governmental plan or framework of California that existed prior to the amendment."
In deciding that gay couples who married in California before the November election will remain married, the court said it would be unfair and might even invite chaos to nullify marriages those couples entered into lawfully.
Ending those marriages would be akin to "throwing property rights into disarray, destroying the legal interests and expectations of thousands of couples and their families, and potentially undermining the ability of citizens to plan their lives according to the law as it has been determined by the state's highest court," George wrote.
Portions of the majority ruling read as a lament over the ease with which the California Constitution can be amended.
The 136-page majority decision contained a lengthy history of the state Constitution and the ballot amendment process and distinguished California's amendment process from those of other states and the federal Constitution.
"If the process for amending the constitution is to be restricted," George wrote, "this is an effort that the people themselves may undertake."
It is neither impossible nor improper to limit how voters may change the Constitution, George wrote.
"We have no doubt that an express restriction could be fashioned that would limit the use of the initiative power in the manner proposed by petitioners -- but the California Constitution presently contains no limits of this nature," he said.
By stressing that only the term "marriage" was affected by the November election, the court seemed to signal that a broader ballot measure might not be upheld.
But the court's definition of what would be an impermissible constitutional revision was also narrow and left gay rights activists nervous and several legal scholars skeptical.
"It leaves us to the kindness of strangers," said Jon W. Davidson, legal director of Lambda Legal, a gay rights organization. "They could take away anything."UC Davis law professor Vikram Amar agreed, saying the court defined an illegal revision as a measure that changes the structure of government, not one that takes away individual rights.
"It is hard to see how any repeal of any person's liberty or property would affect the structure of government" and be deemed an improper revision, Amar said.
"The court wasn't happy about this. Proposition 8 changed their opinion" last year that gave gays and lesbians marriage rights, he said. "The justices stood up and said, 'OK, people have the right to do so, and it is not a revision because it is limited in scope.' "
Justice Carlos R. Moreno dissented, calling the ruling "not just a defeat for same-sex couples, but for any minority group that seeks the protection of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution.
Gay rights advocates and several legal scholars said they were surprised that the court did not attempt to rein in constitutional amendments.
"For the court to see only structural changes as those requiring a greater majority is perhaps the worst feature of the opinion today," said Pepperdine University law professor Douglas W. Kmiec, who voted for Proposition 8 on religious grounds. "It makes it much too casual for individual rights to be withdrawn."
Andrew Pugno, a lawyer for the Proposition 8 campaign, said the court simply embraced what had been the law.
"Under this ruling, voters -- no matter what the hypothetical -- the voters can do anything they want with the state Constitution," Pugno said. If interracial marriage were not protected by the federal Constitution, voters could repeal it, he said.
During oral arguments in March, the court appeared to struggle over how to ensure that minority rights would not be trampled while still upholding Proposition 8.
But instead of curbing the amendment process, the court gave "a blank check to the voters without any limiting principle enunciated," said Kate Kendell, head of the National Center for Lesbian Rights.
Shannon Price Minter, who helped argue the challenge for Kendell's group, said he doubted the ruling would have much influence outside California.
"It is such an internally contradictory ruling that I doubt it will be followed anywhere else," he said.
Ted Olson and David Boies, two prominent lawyers who had been on opposite sides in the Bush vs. Gore case, said they are coming together to challenge Proposition 8 in federal court. Gay rights lawyers have urged supporters to stay out of federal court, fearful of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that could set the same-sex marriage movement back decades.
In addition to rejecting the gay rights groups' argument that Proposition 8 was an illegal revision, the court flatly discarded Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown's contention that the measure should be overturned because it took away an inalienable right.
"No authority supports the attorney general's claim," the court said.
SECOND ARTICLE: The Christian Post
The California Supreme Court issued a ruling Tuesday upholding Proposition 8, the state's constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
The court ruled 6-1 that the amendment was not an illegal constitutional revision by the people nor unconstitutional.
According to the ruling, the justices rejected complaints by Proposition 8 challengers "that it is just too easy to amend the California constitution through the initiative process."
"[I]t is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it," the ruling said.
Lauding the decision, Andrew Pugno, general counsel of ProtectMarriage.com, responded, “We are very gratified that the California Supreme Court has upheld Proposition 8. This is the culmination of years of hard work to preserve marriage in California."
Austin R. Nimocks, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which helped defend Proposition 8 in court hearings, praised the court for respecting the results of fair elections and arriving "at the only correct conclusion: the people of California have a fundamental right to amend their own constitution."
Last November, 52 percent of California voters approved the ballot initiative, which overruled an earlier court decision that had legalized marriage for same-sex couples.
Although same-sex marriage is now banned in the state, the 18,000 gay and lesbian marriages that took place before the November vote have not been invalidated and will continue to be recognized under state law.
Gay rights supporters, however, still denounced the ruling and shouted "shame on you" outside the San Francisco courthouse.
They vowed to continue their fight and take the gay marriage issue back to the voters to repeal Proposition 8.
The Alliance Defense Fund warned that they may see a backlash by "radical activists" as they did when Proposition 8 was approved last year.
"The Alliance Defense Fund and our allies will not be bullied. These attacks will come, but we are prepared."
In the weeks following the November vote, churches and Christians reported acts of vandalism, bullying and some violence from gay rights activists.
According to Pastor Jim Garlow of Skyline Church in San Diego, there were instances of intimidation and bricks being thrown through church windows. Pastors also needed security guards to ensure their protection, he noted.
"I didn't know how violent the radical left was with this issue," Garlow commented earlier to The Christian Post.
Garlow, who rallied the support of thousands last year to help pass Proposition 8, is organizing another rally on Sunday "in support and thanksgiving of natural marriage."
What do you think about these articles? Did they seem biased? How do you feel about the sources? Did they present the issue effectively? What's your opinion on this subject?
Thanks,
Sofie
I think the Christian Post one is obviously biased, with so many quotes being from Prop 8 supporters. It would've been fine, I think, if they tried balancing it out properly. I think the first paragraph in the first article also established a sort of bias. That aside, it really is disturbing that this ruling only makes it possible for similar initiatives against minority rights. California has a really strange process.
ReplyDelete