Prop 8?

You've got that right, but it remains that her handlers were getting the publicity they wanted to get her into a professional position for a career where she might never have had the opportunity. She had already given over her services to anti-gay marriage organizations and continued to do so after she was made runner-up, so she was an advocate. Perez Hilton asked, “Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?”

The "why or why not" cannot be her own personal advocacy but whether or not each state's legislators, voting public and/or judicial system would have the right, not how she felt about marriage being expanded to same-sex couples. She's not a legislator, a judge not would her one vote in California make any difference. As an advocate against gay marriage, she spoke to advance the cause of organizations who want to ban gay marriage in the attempt to influence legislators, judges and the public. That's where she stepped over the line of opinion and into the role of an advocate using the pageant as a dias for propaganda.

If she hadn't had any ties to anti-gay marriage organizations and hadn't subsequently sloughed off her Miss California duties, it would be a wholly different picture. But she did and a previous Miss USA, Shanna Moakler, resigned:

http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b123705_Shanna_Moakler_Resigns_Over_Miss_California_Controversy.html

Notice the body english of The Donald after the announcement -- a phony, even if he is a rich phony.

I don't know if Shannon wrote her own statement but she stated "clear conscIous" for "clear conscience." At least, I think she was conscious and not propped up with CGI moving her lips. Even with that mistake, she got her point over.

In Trump's world, there's no such thing as bad publicity. He kept the bigoted and moronic contract breaker because the controversy was a publicity gold mine. As he admitted on the Larry King show, Trump likes to be in the middle of a public squabble:

King: Joanny, where did you come up with that 'worse than Hitler' crack?

Rivers: Oh, I don't know. You know, you're always saying things. Hitler is the worst villain in the world. So when you really get furious at someone, you say, 'Oh, you're a female Hitler' or something, you know? It's just an expression. But I stand behind it.

King: What did she do to you?

Rivers: She was very duplicitous ... there was so much mud-slinging, which I'm not going to go into. I was told she said she wished I would die; she said I was a cancer.

King: What did you make of that squabble, Donald?

Trump: Well, I liked it very much. ... Especially this morning, when the ratings came in, because it was a ratings bonanza last night for NBC.


http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/TV/05/12/lkl.joan.rivers/index.html

Just the commercials for CA kept me from switching the channel to NBC as my new flat screen might turn into HAL and kill me.

I think he's fantasizing it will bring any ratings to Miss USA -- I think they've already lost half their audience to LOGO.

Of course, next year they could ask a new ditsy blond with a boob job, "No states consider eating crustaceans as an abomination. Do you think other states should follow suit?" I know somehow, Pre-Jeans would make some sense out of that, "I believe marriage is between a shrimp and a lobster, not to offend any seared ahi eaters out there."

The California Supreme Court announced that it will issue a written opinion in three cases challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8 on Tuesday, May 26.

The opinion will be available at 10 a.m. here:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/

New York Times -- for now, it's a draw with the existing gay marriages upheld:

California Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Gay Marriage

By JOHN SCHWARTZ
Published: May 26, 2009

The California Supreme Court upheld a ban on same-sex marriage today, ratifying a decision made by voters last year that runs counter to a growing trend of states allowing the practice.

The decision, however, preserves the 18,000 marriages performed between the court’s decision last May that same-sex marriage was lawful and the passage by voters in November of Proposition 8, which banned it. Supporters of the proposition argued that the marriages should no longer be recognized.

Today’s decision, written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George for a 6-to-1 majority, said that same-sex couples still have the right to civil unions, which gives them the ability to “choose one’s life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage.” But the justices said that the voters had clearly expressed their will to limit the formality of marriage to heterosexual couples.

Heated reaction to the decision began immediately, with protestors blocking traffic in front of San Francisco City Hall, their hands locked.

The same court had ruled in May that same-sex couples enjoyed the same fundamental “right to marry” as heterosexual couples. That sweeping 4-3 decision provoked a backlash from opponents that led to Proposition 8, which garnered 52 percent of the vote last November after a bitter electoral fight.

The opinion marks a new round in the long-running battle in California over the issue, and will almost certainly lead to a counter-initiative intended to overturn Proposition 8, which changed the state constitution, as early as next year.

The opinion focused on whether the use of a voter initiative to narrow constitutional rights under Proposition 8 went too far.

Supporters of same-sex marriage, who filed several suits challenging the proposition, argued that the change to the state’s constitution was so fundamental that the initiative was not an amendment to the constitution but a “revision,” a term for measures that rework core constitutional principles.

Revisions, under California law, cannot be decided through a simple signature drive and majority vote, which is what led to Proposition 8; they can only be placed on the ballot with a two-thirds vote by the legislature.

It has historically been rare, however, for the state’s courts to overturn initiatives on the ground that they are actually revisions, and many legal scholars deemed the challenge against Proposition 8 a long shot.

The question of whether Proposition 8 was an amendment or revision was the centerpiece of the oral arguments before the State Supreme Court during its hearing on March 5.

The justices who had issued the ringing support of same-sex marriage in 2008 presented a far less supportive front during the three-hour hearing. A number of justices who had voted in the majority in the 2008 case, particularly Joyce L. Kennard, strongly suggested in their questions from the bench that they were reluctant to overturn the will of the voters or to undercut the initiative process.

The justices had seemed to be seeking a middle ground that would allow the rights they had affirmed the year before to be preserved in the form of civil unions, which would be different from marriage in name only. Justice Kennard suggested that the substantive rights of gays were the same after the proposition, and all that had changed was “the label of marriage.”

That distinction was deeply dissatisfying to an attorney for plaintiffs, Shannon Minter, who argued that without the right to the word “marriage,” same-sex couples would find “our outsider status enshrined in our Constitution.”

In the months since the case was argued, three other states have legalized same-sex marriage. On April 3, Iowa’s supreme court struck down a state statute that limited civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman " and cited California’s 2008 decision repeatedly in support of its ruling. Less than a week later, the Vermont Legislature narrowly overrode a veto by Gov. Jim Douglas of a bill that allowed same-sex couples to marry. Then on May 6, Maine’s legislature, too, passed a bill allowing same-sex marriage, and Gov. John Baldaci signed it.

Initiatives are also moving forward in New York and New Jersey; a similar measure has stalled in the New Hampshire legislature by a slim margin this month, but could come up for a new vote next month.

At the same time, attitudes of Americans toward same-sex marriage favor liberalization of the practice. In an April CBS/New York Times poll, 42 percent of those surveyed favored same-sex marriage, up from 21 percent at election time in 2004, when it was a wedge issue during the presidential campaign. That poll suggests the trend will continue into the future: 57 percent of the respondents favored legal recognition for same-sex marriage, compared with 31 percent of respondents over the age of 40.

The language of Chief Justice George’s decision seemed almost regretful, as he wrote that “our task in the present proceeding is not to determine whether the provision at issue is wise or sound as a matter of policy or whether we, as individuals, believe it should be a part of the California Constitution.” Instead, he wrote, “our role is limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values.”

It's pretty sad. I feel bad for those LGBT couples and families out in CA.

T
K
O

The judges have been threatened by the right-wing religious zealots with starting a recall if they voted Prop 8 down. I think they are watching their own back and letting this go to the US Appeals Court. Meanwhile, another Proposition is in the works to rescind that alteration of the California constitution. The legislators can do the same thing and I believe the Governator would sign it, but they're now going to be watching their back. It's being pushed gradually towards the USSC.

Those for Prop 8 are now protesting that the judges did not make the law retro-active -- Ellen is still married.

And still dancing too.

Curses!!!!!

T
K
O

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."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98E32U80&show_article=1

Getting on, ignoring the double post, there will be time for dancing -- it's just been postponed.

6 to 1 eh. Maybe we are not so out of touch as certain posters have tried to lead readers here to believe.

You peaked LW. It isn't postponed. It's finished. Somebody said Mr McCain had been "decimated" with 50,000,000 votes. 6 to 1 is liquidation. Anybody that low in the polls wouldn't have got a mention.

For those who need remedial reading:

California Court Upholds Gay Marriage Ban
By VOA News
26 May 2009


California's Supreme Court upheld a voter-approved constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in a six-to-one ruling on Tuesday.

However, the state's high court also ruled that an estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place before the ban are still valid.

Gay rights activists outside the San Francisco courthouse immediately took to the streets to protest the ruling.

The court's ruling stems from a lawsuit seeking to overturn the state constitutional amendment known as Proposition 8, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Last May, the state's high court ruled that same-sex marriage was protected under the constitution. That ruling angered religious and social conservatives who gathered enough signatures to hold a November referendum to ban same-sex marriage. California voters narrowly approved Proposition 8.

Supporters of same-sex marriage challenged the legality of the referendum, arguing the majority could not invalidate the rights of a minority.

Same-sex marriage supporters are vowing to take the issue back to the voters as early as 2010.

Five other states - Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts and Vermont - have legalized homosexual marriages.

Nevada and Rhode Island have legalised brothels.

California Supreme Court had little choice but to uphold Proposition 8

By Howard Mintz

Mercury News
Posted: 05/26/2009 03:30:50 PM PDT
Updated: 05/26/2009 04:42:39 PM PDT

Boxed in by the sweeping ability of voters to amend the state's constitution, the California Supreme Court had little recourse Tuesday when the justices overwhelmingly upheld Proposition 8 and its renewed ban on same-sex marriages.

In a 6-1 ruling, the court followed most of the predictions of legal experts, concluding the judiciary would be overstepping its authority if it overturned a gay marriage ban the voters decided to embed in the California constitution. Chief Justice Ronald George, who authored last year's historic ruling striking down the state's prior ban on gay marriage, wrote Tuesday's majority opinion, stressing that the decision is not based on whether the measure "is wise or sound as a matter of policy,'' but instead "concerns the right of the people ... to change or alter the state Constitution itself."

Only Justice Carlos Moreno dissented from the ruling, warning it "places at risk the state constitutional rights of disfavored minorities."

At the same time, the Supreme Court left intact the more than 18,000 marriages for gay and lesbian couples who wed last year before Proposition 8 went into effect. That part of the decision puts California in unusual territory for the time being, establishing a two-tiered system of marriage across the state for same-sex couples. Proposition 8 will continue to outlaw same-sex marriages in the future, but those gay and lesbian couples who got their marriage licenses before last November's
election will remain on equal footing with heterosexual couples.

The Supreme Court sided with gay marriage supporters on that issue, finding that Proposition 8 did not contain language that would strip existing marriages away retroactively.

"It is very awkward,'' said Courtney Joslin, a University of California-Davis law professor who signed onto a brief urging the court to leave existing same-sex marriages alone. "But I think what we'll see is that California doesn't come to an end because same-sex couples married here."

The state Supreme Court's ruling cannot be appealed because it was the final word under California law. Gay rights organizations have not wanted to take the challenge over gay marriage to the federal courts, but two national known attorneys Tuesday quickly moved to take the fight there anyway. In a suit filed Tuesday, they argue Proposition violates the U.S. constitution's guarantee of equal protection and due process. But before the case reaches the U.S. Supreme court, the battleground over same-sex marriage back to the political arena.

A number of local governments, including San Francisco and Santa Clara County, challenged the measure, along with civil rights groups and same-sex couples. The Supreme Court rejected their central argument, that Prop 8 amounted to an improper method of amending the state constitution. The justices also rejected Attorney General Jerry Brown's argument that Prop 8 should be invalidated because it conflicted directly with last year's state Supreme Court ruling.

For the court, Tuesday's ruling rested on very different issues than what the justices considered last May, when their historic decision rocked the state and sent thousands of same-sex couples scrambling to the altar. In that 4-3 decision, the court concluded that a prior ballot measure and family law statute outlawing same-sex marriage violated the California constitution's equal protection guarantees.

But Proposition 8 altered the legal debate because it amended the constitution, the ultimate trump card against the state Supreme Court's powers to intervene.

In the ruling, George went to great lengths to note last year's ruling continues to protect same-sex couples' legal rights and that Proposition 8 has its limits, removing only the label of marriage but not "the right of those couples to establish an officially recognized family relationship." Prop 8 also does not impact the state's strong domestic partnership protections for same-sex couples, although gay rights groups have decried such a system because it sets up a separate status from heterosexual couples.

Legal experts say the Supreme Court was sending a clear message that while the justices were forced to uphold Prop 8, same-sex couples are not necessarily back to square one in California.

"The court construes the marriage amendment very narrowly,'' said Marc Spindelman, an Ohio State University law professor. Under the ruling, "the only thing Prop 8 did was take away the word, the name 'marriage' for same-sex couples. The state otherwise has to treat the relationship exactly the same."

Associated Press
Experts not surprised by ruling to uphold Prop 8

By PAUL ELIAS, Associated Press Writer

(05-26) 15:53 PDT San Francisco, CA (AP) --

Gay marriage proponents had little chance of overturning Proposition 8 because California's notorious initiative process guarantees, in powerful legal language, voters' right to amend the state's constitution, legal analysts said Tuesday.

In the end, the California Supreme Court rejected arguments that the gay marriage ban, passed by the voters last fall, was such a fundamental change that it qualified as a constitutional revision " not just an amendment " and therefore needed to first go before lawmakers.

Chief Justice Ronald George, writing for the 6-1 majority, concluded that denying gay couples the word "marriage""does not have a substantial or, indeed, even a minimal effect on the governmental plan or framework of California."

The justices' conclusion that Proposition 8 is not a constitutional revision doesn't speak to the issue's significance, George wrote. He noted that it was California's initiative process that led to women's voting rights, the reinstatement of the state's death penalty and legislative term limits.

"Thus, it is clear that the distinction drawn by the California Constitution between an amendment and a revision does not turn on the relative importance of the measure but rather upon the measure's scope," he wrote.

George, who also wrote the majority opinion last year that legalized gay marriage, said in Tuesday's ruling that the court's task was not to determine whether Proposition 8 "is wise or sound as a matter of policy or whether we, as individuals, believe it should be a part of the California Constitution."

The justices' decision was widely expected by legal experts.

"The court did what it had to do," said Douglas Kmiec, a Pepperdine University law professor who was a high-ranking Department of Justice lawyer under President Reagan.

University of California, Davis law professor Vikram Amar agreed that the justices had little legal leeway. Amar said of George: "At the oral argument, he certainly sent the message that his hands were tied."

Justice Carlos Moreno was the lone dissenter, arguing that Proposition 8 did qualify as a constitutional revision and saying that upholding it "weakens the status of our state Constitution as a bulwark of fundamental rights for minorities protected from the will of the majority."

In the majority opinion, George noted that California's ability to amend its constitution is "considerably less arduous and restrictive" than changing the U.S. Constitution. It takes the signatures of 8 percent of the number of voters who voted in the most recent gubernatorial election to qualify a proposed amendment for the ballot.

And unlike other states, George wrote, California's constitution doesn't expressly prohibit voters from fiddling with such fundamental rights as free speech, jury trials and a free press.

George wrote that "it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it." To change the initiative process, voters would have to pass an amendment limiting their own powers, he said.

University of California, Los Angeles law professor Brad Sears said the ruling "leaves open the possibility that voters can strip out fundamental rights."

Amar said he was disappointed that George didn't aggressively attack the relative ease in which California voters can change the state's constitution, which has more than 500 amendments compared to 27 in the U.S. Constitution.

Gay marriage supporters may fare better in federal court, where state officials would have to explain legally for the first time why some Californians can use the word "marriage" while others can't, analysts said.

Gay rights activists so far have avoided taking their case there for fear that a conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court would bar gay marriage across the country for good. But Kmiec and others said gay marriage supporters have a strong equal-protection argument that wasn't raised in the state court, which focused almost exclusively on the power of the electorate to amend the state's constitution.

"When you have something that unexplained in the law, it is begging for review," Kmiec said. "This is one of the strongest cases you can bring to federal court."

I agree; since it was voted by a democratic vote of the people - in a state where most have been exposed to gay and lesbian issues, I believe the court made the right decision - this time.

I also believe it's a matter of time when Californians will vote to allow gays and lesbians to marry.

Domestic partnerships are still allowed. It will go on the ballot next year to reverse the "amendment." It's hard to predict where this will go. That the electorate can actually take away other basic rights is just another example of all the states who have antiquated constitutions.

Why so many people fear gay marriage is a mystery without good answers.

Why would anybody intentionally wish to discriminate against somebody they don't even know, and will not harm them personally in any way?

You are absolutely correct, Lightwizard. People forget that the Constitution provides for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Would you believe that our state constitution actually does not allow carnal intercourse between men and their pets? Even though the dogs have been in the home for years and are more loyal than any person could ever be?

When I went to see the groundbreaking play--"Who is Sylvia", I cried my eyes out. The Satanic wife murdered the man's love partner--his goat. She gloated when she dragged the goat's body into the living room for the poor man to see.

That was really sad!