Re: Proposition 8

I don't doubt that the activists will try to file to stop its implementation. However, get your language straight; it is NOT discrimination against anyone to say that 'marriage' has a real meaning and purpose, despite activists' insistence otherwise.

Re: Proposition 8

Interesting responses from the prior attorneys. California has previously found that bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional. What Proposition 8 seeks to do (and as of 9:15 am they claim its too close to call) is amend the California Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. That may eliminate the ability in State court to set this aside on the basis of discrimination, as the fundamental right has been eliminated by constitutional amendment. They have not, however, amended the US Constitution, and I would believe that the next step for same-sex proponents is to challenge this amendment in Federal Court under the US Constitution. I'm not a strong supporter of either side - I do take issue with the influx of LDS money that backed this initiative, and I agree with Attorney McCoy's statement that the initiative process makes bad law (though I disagree with his conclusions in this matter). It is an interesting time, and it will be very interesting to see where this goes from here. I can guarantee you that with Proposition 8 opponents having spent more than $35million to try to defeat this, the fight is not over by a long shot.

*Due to the limitations of the LawGuru Forums, The Gibbs Law Firm, APC's (the "Firm") participation in responding to questions posted herein does not constitute legal advice, nor legal representation of the person or entity posting a question. No Attorney/Client relationship is or shall be construed to be created hereby. The information provided is general and requires that the poster obtain specific legal advice from an attorney. The poster shall not rely upon the information provided herein as legal advice nor as the basis for making any decisions of legal consequence.

Re: Proposition 8

As of 9:45 a.m. Wednesday, it is almost certain that 8 has passed, but opponents are holding onto a ray of hope because there are millions of untallied absentee and provisional ballots to count, according to radio news sources. (Why should this be, in the 21st Centuru, one might well ask?)

The radio news media also report that at least two challenges to the lawfulness of Prop. 8 are planned. I suppose these will be on California Constitutional grounds, but it is hard for me to imagine that the Prop. 8 authors failed to make it bulletproof.

Stay tuned; it's not over yet.

Re: Proposition 8

Yes

Re: Proposition 8

I suppose that there would be an opportunity to appeal, by those who have recently had judgments entered against them for alleged unlawful discrimination against a same sex married person or couple. They could argue that the unfair discriminatory ban that prevented them from exercising their conscience has now been lifted, and that the courts are now prohibited by the constitution from discriminating against people like them who have traditional values.

Re: Proposition 8

Now this is in part a personal opinion from a lawyer that voted YES (which for those unfamiliar with the prop does not support the same sex marriage law as written) ... I don't think Prop. 8 is the right way to go about what same sex partners are seeking. It had the potential of pitting constitutional rights of different individuals against one another. That shouldn't happen in this country. Because of the interaction with other marriage laws and beliefs, part of that involved religious implications. Why isn't this like the energy props where we all said, good idea, bad implementation? Why appeal? As a Christian conservative, I don't want to keep same sex committed partners from expressing a heart/legal commitment or keep them from seeing their loved one in the hospital. Lets make a way to fix those problems without creating a slippery slope for new problems. Lets call it an opportunity to discuss and improve. That's my take, which is one I have not seen expressed by sides that decided to draw the line in the sand over an imperfectly designed implementation.