Weather Alert: Winter Storm Warning expires at 10:00 PM on 2/14, issued at 2:54 AM Alton, UT | Antimony, UT | Beaver, UT | Bicknell, UT

Calif. Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8


Story Comments Share
Updated: 5/26/2009 12:22 pm | Published: 5/26/2009 11:04 am
Proposition 8 demonstrators
Proposition 8 demonstrators
By LISA LEFF
Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - The California Supreme Court upheld a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage Tuesday, but it also decided that the estimated 18,000 gay couples who tied the knot before the law took effect will stay wed.

Demonstrators outside the court yelled "shame on you!"

The 6-1 decision written by Chief Justice Ron George rejected an argument by gay rights activists that the ban revised the California Constitution's equal protection clause to such a dramatic degree that it first needed the Legislature's approval.

The court said the Californians have a right, through the ballot box, to change their constitution.

"In a sense, petitioners' and the attorney general's complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California Constitution through the initiative process. But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it," the ruling said.

The justices said the 136-page majority ruling does not speak to whether they agree with Proposition 8 or "believe it should be a part of the California Constitution."

They said they were "limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values."

The announcement of the decision set off an outcry among a sea of demonstrators who had gathered in front of the San Francisco courthouse awaiting the ruling. Holding signs and many waving rainbow flags, they yelled "shame on you." Many people also held hands in a chain around an intersection in an act of protest.

Gay rights activists immediately promised to resume their fight, saying they would go back to voters as early as next year in a bid to repeal Proposition 8.

The split decision provided some relief for the 18,000 gay couples who married in the brief time same-sex marriage was legal last year but that wasn't enough to dull the anger over the ruling that banned gay marriage.

"It's not about whether we get to stay married. Our fight is far from over," said Jeannie Rizzo, 62, who was one of the lead plaintiffs along with her wife, Polly Cooper. "I have about 20 years left on this earth, and I'm going to continue to fight for equality every day."

Also in the crowd gathered at City Hall, near the courthouse, were Sharon Papo, 30, and Amber Weiss, 32, who were married on the first day gay marriage was legal last year, June 17.

"We're relieved our marriage was not invalidated, but this is a hollow victory because there are so many that are not allowed to marry those they love," Weiss said.

"I feel very uncomfortable being in a special class of citizens," Papo said.

The state Supreme Court had ruled last May that it was unconstitutional to deny gay couples the right to wed. Many same-sex couples had rushed to get married before the November vote on Proposition 8, fearing it could be passed. When it was, gay rights activists went back to the court arguing that the ban was improperly put to voters and amounted to a revision - which required legislative approval - not an amendment.

That was the issue justices decided Tuesday.

"After comparing this initiative measure to the many other constitutional changes that have been reviewed and evaluated in numerous prior decisions of this court, we conclude Proposition 8 constitutes a constitutional amendment rather than a constitutional revision," the ruling said.

Justice Carlos Moreno wrote the dissenting opinion disagreeing that the proposition did not change the constitution's equal protection clause. He said the law denying same-sex couples the right to wed "strikes at the core of the promise of equality that underlies our California Constitution." He said it represents a "drastic and far-reaching change."

"Promising equal treatment to some is fundamentally different from promising equal treatment for all," said Moreno, who had been mentioned as a possible contender for the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Promising treatment that is almost equal is fundamentally different from ensuring truly equal treatment."

(Copyright 2009 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

Story Comments Share
3 Comment(s)
Comments: Show | Hide

Here are the most recent story comments.View All

The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of ABC4

jonsey - 5/26/2009 9:08 PM
I don't see the Mormons as passing judgement, or trying to tell anyone how to run their lives. As far as I can tell, their views are based on what they believe to be God's laws -- not something that they themselves made up. They have their right to this, in this, the Land of the Free. They were also only a portion of the voters on that Prop, hardly the majority, yet they seem to be everyone's target for criticism and anger. This is very sad. I haven't heard one thing about all the other religious groups represented in the voters that decided the outcome of that Prop. Everyone yelling about respect, but then excusing themselves from being respectful. I think that if the Mormons want to stand for something they believe in, they should be able to without all the finger-pointing. I would want the same right if I felt so strongly about something. Nobody seems to want to admit that the majority of people in California just plain old believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. I don't see what this has to do with the Mormons in particular. I think, in the face of such nastiness, even from their own members, they have been dignified and patient. Leave them alone.

FamilesR4Ever - 5/26/2009 1:56 PM
This is such an important decision in our country, it's good it was upheld, If we don't live the principles that we're set for up in holy covenant then what's the point. Way to go California Supreme Court on upholding the proposition, but sad that you allowed the other many of thousand of gay marriages to stay nullified.

lollers - 5/26/2009 11:55 AM
First- abc4 has no affilitaion with the LDS church. Second- not everybody that disagrees with gay marriage is LDS. Third- we live in a country called the UNITED States of America. If you think that what one state does has no impact on other states you are mistaken. Due to reciprocity laws, if I get married in California and then move to Utah, my new home state has to recognize my marriage as legal. That is why states have begun to change their constitutions to specifically prohibit the recognition of gay marriage. I personally have gay friends, some of whom are in very long term relationships. Do I want them to be happy? Yes. Do I want my children being taught in school this is an acceptable lifestyle? No. Take a look at what has been happening in MA. Parents there have been labeled as intolerant because they don't want their children being taught things in school that completely clash with their personal value systems. Gay marriage is openly and actively taught, while nothing is mentioned about the "traditional" family. It is time to stop letting the minority dictate what the majority have to do.
38°
High: 38° | Low: 33°
Partly Cloudy
Inergize Digital This site is hosted and managed by Inergize Digital.
Mobile advertising for this site is available on Local Ad Buy.