Here we have the minority attempting to overturn a fair election and impose
their viewpoints onto the majority.  It will be interesting to see how the
court rules.  Is this another example of a few justices opposing the will of
the people and legislating from the bench ?  Or will democracy prevail ?

================================

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,505126,00.html

California High Court Reviews Gay Marriage Ban

Thursday, March 05, 2009

SAN FRANCISCO   Same-sex marriage advocates are pinning their hopes on
California's highest court as it prepares to hear arguments on a trio of
lawsuits seeking to overturn the state's voter-approved ban on gay unions.

Thursday's three-hour hearing was expected to draw an audience much larger than
the California Supreme Court's courtroom can accommodate. Gay rights groups
rented out a nearby auditorium and a big screen television for the outdoor
plaza where a group of clergy scheduled a pre-argument prayer service.

"It's important to show the Supreme Court justices history is on our side,"
said Paul Sousa, 22, of Boston, who flew to San Francisco on Wednesday and
planned to camp out by the courthouse overnight to be closer to the action.
"Courts often can be a couple steps ahead of the curve on civil rights issues.
We just have to help them get there."

The ballot initiative, which passed with 52 percent of the vote in November,
changed the California Constitution to trump last year's 4-3 Supreme Court
decision that held that denying same-sex couples the right to wed was an
unconstitutional civil rights violation.

On Wednesday night, several thousand people marched from San Francisco's
pro-gay Castro District to City Hall both to demonstrate public support for
invalidating Proposition 8 and as an outlet for their anxiety. The Supreme
Court's seven justices have 90 days after the oral arguments in which to issue
a ruling.

"This is really about what the rest of the world sees  the rest of the world
seeing there are huge numbers of people this issue touches," said Cherie Tony,
52, of San Francisco, who was among the crowd carrying candles and chanting
"What do we want? Equal rights! When we do we want it? Now!"

Similar vigils were held in Los Angeles, other California cities, and as far
away as New York. At the Los Angeles event, gay and lesbian couples decked out
in wedding finery participated in a public "recommitment" ceremony.

Todd Barrett said he and his partner Joe Witmore, who were married during the 4
1/2-month window last year when same-sex couples could wed in California,
brought their 5-year-old daughter to show that Proposition 8's passage affected
families.

"I don't know how I would explain to her that Daddy and Pappa aren't married
anymore," Barrett said.

The coalition of religious and conservative groups that sponsored the ballot
initiative organized a statewide day of prayer last Sunday to rally support for
upholding the measure and encouraged supporters to peacefully join same-sex
marriage advocates outside the Supreme Court on Thursday.

"Our only purpose is to remind the media, Californians and Americans everywhere
that support for traditional marriage is the majority position in the state,"
Ron Prentice, chairman of the ProtectMarriage coalition, said in a statement.
"We won the Prop 8 election. The constitution has been amended. The will of the
people should now prevail."

Gay rights groups, couples and more than a dozen local governments are urging
the court to overturn the measure on the grounds that it was put before voters
improperly, or at least prematurely. Under state law, the Legislature must
approve significant constitutional changes before they can go on the ballot.

Attorney General Jerry Brown has taken the unusual step of refusing to defend
the gay marriage ban in court. His office argues that because the court has
already recognized marriage as a fundamental right and gays as a minority group
deserving of judicial protection, outlawing same-sex marriage is a
constitutional breach.

Both Brown and the parties behind the lawsuits also claim that the ballot
measure abrogates the court's role as the ultimate guardian of civil rights and
if allowed to stand would leave other groups vulnerable to having their
liberties curtailed.

The Supreme Court has asked the attorney general and lawyers for the couples,
local governments and Proposition 8's sponsors to limit their arguments to
three specific questions:

 Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an
amendment to, the California Constitution?

 Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the
California Constitution?

 If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the
marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?

Proposition 8's sponsors are being represented in court by former Pepperdine
law school dean Kenneth Starr, who investigated President Bill Clinton during
the Monica Lewinsky scandal. He argues that the ballot initiative was approved
correctly and that it would be a miscarriage of justice for the court to
overturn the results of a fair election.

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10