.

Supreme Court to Review Prop. 8

The highest court will examine the constitutionality of the gay marriage law.

Bloomberg News is reporting that the US Supreme Court will examine California's gay marriage law to see if the 14th Amendment bars the state from defining marriage in a traditional way.

The SCOTUS Blog posted this update Friday afternoon via CoveritLive:

“Prop. 8 is granted on the petition question -- whether 14th Am. bars Calif. from defining marriage in traditional way. Plus an added question: Whether the backers of Prop.. 8 have standing in the case under Art. III.”

In 2008, 52 percent of California voters approved Proposition 8. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the law in February, ruling Prop. 8 unconstitutional. Prop. 8 supporters then appealed to the country's highest court.

This chronology of the history of gay marriage on the LA Times explains the complex road that has led to today.

The SCOTUS Blog also clarified the immediate impact of the court's decision Friday—there is none.

“Although the Court is ruling on Prop. 8, there is nothing in the order that would lift the 9th CA's stay. So marriage licenses in Calif. will have to wait until this case is decided.”

Friday, the Supreme Court also granted a review of Windsor, a challenge to federal Defense of Marriage Act, according to Bloomberg.

DOMA bars the federal government from recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples.

State Attorney General Kamala D. Harris spoke in support of the court's decision to review Prop. 8.

“Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to consider marriage equality takes our nation one step closer to realizing the American ideal of equal protection under the law for all people,” Harris said in a prepared statement. “For justice to prevail, Proposition 8 must be invalidated so that gay and lesbian families are finally treated with equality and dignity.”

Others echoed her sentiments.

“We are pleased that the court has agreed to decide once and for all whether these blatantly discriminatory marriage bans are permitted under our Constitution,” Ilona Turner, Legal Director of Transgender Law Center in San Francisco said in a prepared statement. “These laws that unconstitutionally restrict access to marriage based solely on gender must be struck down.”

Eight other cases involving same-sex marriage were not added to the Supreme Court's “orders list,” essentially its docket for the next term. Most involved the Defense of Marriage Act.

It's expected the court will hear the marriage cases in the March sitting, March 18-27.

pusddad December 12, 2012 at 02:24 AM
the issue is right to marry, not the right to commit incest.
desertpatriot December 12, 2012 at 03:48 AM
@pusdad: the issue is the preservation of traditional marriage. the point i was trying to make was the word 'marriage' loses its meaning when we allow it to become perverted
desertpatriot December 12, 2012 at 03:55 AM
@markymark: could you be persuaded to add an intelligent comment to the discussion vs. the consistent sophomoric drivel?
Mark Paxson December 12, 2012 at 02:13 PM
Desertpatriot ... odd thing is that nobody is doing anything to traditional marriage. You may want to take you own advice about avoiding sophomoric drivel.
desertpatriot December 12, 2012 at 04:22 PM
@markymark: by misusing the word 'marriage' to legitimize perversion between two males then yes, somebody -the homosexual coalition- is doing something 'wrong' in this case to traditional marriage. again, the word marriage is taken; please choose another word
patchreader December 12, 2012 at 04:49 PM
What is "traditional" about marriage? Cheating? divorce? Homosexual marriage will have ZERO effect on a heterosexual marriage. Heterosexuals are doing more damage to marriage than gays certainly could. If two people fall in love and decide they want to commit themselves to each other for the rest of their lives, who are you, or I, do stand in their way? Why do you even care what two other people do? Is your marriage somehow less valid or worthy if two men marry, or two women? If your religious views say homosexual marriage is wrong-that is your religion, and between you and your god. But I'm pretty sure no god thinks it is your job to judge anyone else. And your god isn't the same as my god. So your rules don't apply to everyone else.
pusddad December 12, 2012 at 04:51 PM
just because you find something distasteful does not mean its perverted or immoral.
desertpatriot December 12, 2012 at 05:23 PM
@patch: “What is "traditional" about marriage?” -the union of one man and one woman- “Homosexual marriage will have ZERO effect on a heterosexual marriage” -homosexual marriage (oxymoron) legitimizes perverted acts like anal sex between two males- “If two people fall in love and decide they want to commit themselves to each other for the rest of their lives, who are you, or I, do stand in their way?” -what about three people? what about my biological mother? or my sister for that matter? who are you to stand in our way? do you see where this is going?- “Why do you even care what two other people do? Is your marriage somehow less valid or worthy if two men marry, or two women?” -this is not about me but rather upholding the traditions of marriage- “If your religious views…” -when did religion enter into the fray? suggestion: the word ‘marriage’ is taken. choose another word-
desertpatriot December 12, 2012 at 05:54 PM
@psdad: "just because you find something distasteful does not mean its perverted or immoral" -do you find anal sex between two males to be tasteful, normal and moral?-
patchreader December 12, 2012 at 07:47 PM
I don't find sex between any people, rather two of the same sex or opposite sexes-distasteful, abnormal, or immoral. Why should I care how they have sex? I'm a happily married heterosexual and others might be find my sex life with my husband to be distasteful or perverted. Guess what-it's nobody's business. All your "slippery slope" arguments in the world won't change the fact there is no valid reason (and no, hatred and closed mindedness are not valid) to deny two adults the ability to marry.
desertpatriot December 12, 2012 at 08:29 PM
@soulpatch: i doubt if you, being a woman will ever understand the disgusting nature of two males having anal sex with each other. who knows, you may even enjoy watching it! it's a man thing so let's let it go at that "...there is no valid reason to deny two adults the ability to marry" -so you don't take issue with an adult son and his biological mother marrying, fornicating and having children between them?-
pusddad December 12, 2012 at 10:52 PM
again, the issue is marriage, not incest, and just because you find certain sex practices to be disgusting does not make them perverted or immoral nor a legitimate basis for discrimination.
desertpatriot December 13, 2012 at 01:31 AM
@psdad: please answer my question again, do you find anal sex between two males to be tasteful, normal and moral?
Mark Paxson December 13, 2012 at 02:00 AM
Desert patriot ... what you don't get is that your question is irrelevant. Ultimately, anal sex has nothing to do with morality. As for the other two criteria you're applying, my definition of tasteful or normal is irrelevant. Please feel free to explain who you think anal sex is more or less moral than any other sex act. By the way, your focus on this one particular aspect of this issue is a total and complete red herring and evidence of your sophomoric intellect. Let's see if you can bring it up a notch.
Mark Paxson December 13, 2012 at 02:07 AM
desertpatriot ... I'm curious, who appointed you the arbiter of the definition of marriage for other people? By the way, back to the sophomoric charge ... your inability to refer to me by name while you hid behind a fake identity is, well, somewhat sophomoric.
desertpatriot December 13, 2012 at 02:45 AM
words of endearment my boy. chill
pusddad December 13, 2012 at 03:44 AM
its not my business what other people do consensually in privacy. its not yours, and its not the governments either. to some, war is immoral, and its certainly not tasteful.
desertpatriot December 13, 2012 at 04:18 PM
@markymark: “what you don't get is that your question is irrelevant” -for clarification the question was not addressed toward you- “anal sex has nothing to do with morality” -au contraire, if males are allowed to marry then anal sex will follow and become the norm. children will pick up on this filthy practice via tv, the internet, at public schools etc. and will equate the perversion as being good. this is where it becomes a moral issue- “As for the other two criteria you're applying, my definition of tasteful or normal is irrelevant” -but anal sex between males is not normal; it violates their bodies and leads to disease. to allow them to marry would condone abnormal behavior. clear? “your focus on this one particular aspect of this issue is a total and complete red herring” anal sex is a violation of one’s body and leads to disease. to write off this behavior as irrelevant is pure ignorance- “…and evidence of your sophomoric intellect” -you sir are an ignoramus of the highest order-
pusddad December 13, 2012 at 04:24 PM
assuming the proliferation of male gay sex will be an evil byproduct of legalized gay marriage, why should women be prohibited from marrying?
desertpatriot December 13, 2012 at 06:16 PM
@psdad "...why should women be prohibited from marrying?" you mean women marrying each other i presume? in a physical sense there is no violation, no disease being spread etc. and so i place this issue on the back burner. but in a moral sense i must condemn this behavior much like i condemn single women having / raising out of wedlock children -it sends the wrong message to families, to children and is harmful for society btw i do wish you'd answer my question. i've answered all of yours...no?
pusddad December 13, 2012 at 08:14 PM
I believe it can be just as tasteful, moral and normal for 2 gay guys in love as hetrosexual sex between a straight couple in love, but its not my concern, and its not the government's in free society. Why are you so hung up on what others do in private?
desertpatriot December 13, 2012 at 09:09 PM
answer my question(s) and i'll answer yours
patchreader December 13, 2012 at 09:36 PM
Do you think you have to be married to spread diseases to a partner? If "spreading of disease" is a problem for you, them men should never have sex with women, because women have the potential to get all kinds of things from a man. But guess what-condoms are effective to prevent the spread of diseases to both women and men. But that doesn't solve the of issue of the fact that it is NO business of yours what two consenting adults do in the bedroom.
Bopifas December 13, 2012 at 10:27 PM
The opposition to gay marriage is dying. Sure they could drag out this fight a few more years but they will not accomplish their goals. They lost the battle to protect the word marriage right around the point when people could be married at a drive thru in Vegas or via a reality show. They have failed to offer equal benefits via gay marriage at a federal level. They simply have lost too much ground. A victory now is but a small battle in a large war they are losing. The debate is in the process of being brought to a slow close as older American's die.
desertpatriot December 13, 2012 at 11:21 PM
@soulpatch: same goes with you -answer my question(s) first and i'll answer yours
Mark Paxson December 14, 2012 at 04:03 AM
Dessertpatch: Are you opposed to anal sex as practiced by heterosexual couples? How is normal vaginal intercourse any less invasive or violative than the anal variety? Are you opposed to people drinking from a drinking fountain -- spreads disease, you know? Are you opposed to people sneezing in public -- spreads disease you know? In fact, are you opposed to people engaging in sex of any kind -- spreads disease you know? See the problem is that if one follows your train of comments here, it's pretty clear. You find it absolutely repugnant that a man might stick his thing in that hole -- something tells me you're kind of paranoid about it happening to you. And because you find it repugnant and would never do it yourself, you simply cannot understand or tolerate the idea that other people might not be so repulsed, so you manufacture all of these "justifications" that have basically no relevance or foundation. Keep it up, though, you continue to demonstrate that the opposition to gay marriage is based on nothing other than irrational fear.
Aaron December 14, 2012 at 05:15 AM
I'm against the idea of changing the definition of the word marriage. I don't want the SCOTUS to rule in favor of "gay marriage" (nor do I want them to rule against it). I've said it before and I'll keep saying it because it's the best answer....I want the SCOTUS to rule in a way that will require state governments to recognize (and issue licenses for) "Civil Unions" for everyone. Marriage ceremonies can be done in church to ratify the "civil union" if the participants wish. "Marriage" should not be a government issue. All unions should be "civil unions". If individuals want to call what they have a marriage, so be it. If they want to call what they have a Frizbee, let them call their civil union a Frizbee. Who cares?
Ian Arnold December 14, 2012 at 06:12 AM
I think Aaron's onto something. In fact, he may have cribbed it from me elsewhere--though I came at it from the other angle. My wife and I chose to celebrate our commitment to each other with a religious service, but our actual "marriage" was accomplished with three signatures on a piece of paper immediately following the ceremony. The act of standing in front of a priest, rabbi, pastor or shaman does not constitute marriage under the law; so perhaps we should clarify that. If the signatures are what constitutes a "legal" marriage, then it matters not what religious or quasi-religious cermonies a couple engages in. A wedding ceremony, whether performed by a justice of the peace, a member of the clergy or your drunk cousin who got ordained on the internet for a $5 donation shouldn't be referred to as a "marriage." In legal terms, it isn't. If it makes anyone feel better, I've seen nothing in the law that would require a member of the clergy to perform a same-sex marriage--just as some churches still refuse to perform interracial wedding rites or wedding rites between persons of different faiths. So let's continue to have wedding ceremonies, while understanding they have no legal standing; but let's recognize that the appropriately completed certificate turned into the appropriate office constitutes the official act of marriage.
Eric Dee December 15, 2012 at 06:02 PM
Tom you are joking no? Sorry my crystal ball is in wrapping paper and a box and it says do not open til Supreme Court ruling has been announced on Prop 8. You have no idea either, anyone who says they do is smoking something semi legal!
xiaolinzi December 26, 2012 at 07:58 AM
http://www.coachoutletonlinebfd.com/ Coach Outlet Online http://www.guccibeltstb.com/ Gucci Belt http://www.coachoutletonlinetsy.net/ Coach Online Outlet http://www.coachoutletstoredet.net/ Coach Outlet Online http://www.hermesbeltsst.com/ Hermes Belts

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something