11/20/2008
'Swift' Timetable to Result in Prop 8 Decision Possibly by March
Speculation begins on whether the California Supreme Court's "swift" timetable for its decision about the validity of Prop 8 is a good thing, or a bad thing, and what's behind the votes of certain justices:
"The court may hold a hearing on the lawsuits as early as March, a timetable that scholars said was swift considering the complexity and importance of the legal issues. The court's action, taken during a closed conference, suggested that the court wants to resolve all of the legal issues surrounding Proposition 8, including the fate of existing gay marriages, in a single ruling. It also indicated that at least one of the court's seven members, Justice Carlos R. Moreno, may be leaning in favor of overturning the measure. Moreno, who joined the state high court's 4-3 ruling in May to strike down a state ban on same-sex marriage, was the only justice to support granting a stay of the proposition. In a move that puzzled some legal analysts, Justice Joyce L. Kennard, a generally reliable supporter of gay rights, voted to deny review of the Proposition 8 challenges. The court gave no indication of her reasons but said she was willing to hear a separate case on the validity of existing gay marriages. Some analysts said the timeline for a hearing in the spring bodes well for the challengers, while others said it indicated nothing about the court's leanings."
Prop. 8 gay marriage ban goes to Supreme Court [la times]
Posted 8:41 AM EST by Andy Towle in California, Gay Marriage, News, Proposition 8 | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Uh....F*** the "complexities of legal issues". EQUALITY is SIMPLE when you simply include EVERYONE.
Honestly, the Q community's response to PROP 8 and discrimination in general is tantamount to a child asking a parent for a cookie.
"May I have a cookie, please?"
"No, not right now. You may have one in 2028, or maybe if you're really good by 2015"
I have a serious problem with that. Since WHEN do we allow taxation without equality as US citizens? Maybe it's my Italian heritage, since historically my people DON'T PLAY that noise. If anyone thinks that DEMANDING what we ALREADY DESERVE is "bullying" or "social fascism" [a recent Idiocy-by-Newt Production], then that is THEIR problem.
Are we really worried what Mrs. Kravitz will think?
Is our struggle for equality really just a popularity contest?
Isn't that what PROP 8 was, and why were we surprised when we found out we're NOT "popular" with the masses?
Regarding ASKING for what we have DESERVED SINCE BIRTH, we are a bunch of [insert highly misogynistic and homophobic terms here]. I won't type these words here, but they are still part of our vernacular and seem quite fitting.
Begging for crumbs is for children; demanding equal rights to protect my family and children is NOT child's play. I don't care if you "like" me, but you damn well better respect myself, my spouse, and my children in U.S. law!
We need to grow up as U.S. taxpaying citizens.
Posted by: John Bisceglia | Nov 20, 2008 3:22:23 PM
I about freaked out when I read that Justice Kennard voted to deny review of the Prop 8 challenges. But after looking at the order I think she denied it because the order agreed to hear an argument on the validity of marriages performed before Prop 8 was passed. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong but I think she protested that part of the order.
This is what the order reads:
Kennard, J. would deny these petitions without prejudice to the filing in this court of an appropriate action to determine Proposition 8’s effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before Proposition 8’s adoption.
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/presscenter/newsreleases/NR66-08.PDF
It’s a little hard to understand. But my take is that she denied the order because she didn’t agree to 1 of the 3 issues to be argued. Who knows how she would have voted if that 1 issue had been left out.
Posted by: Kelly in New Jersey | Nov 21, 2008 1:32:48 PM