US Supreme Court to Review Prop. 8

The highest court will examine the constitutionality of the California law banning same-sex marriage.

The U.S. Supreme Court will examine California's gay marriage law to see if the 14th Amendment bars the state from defining marriage in a traditional way.

What's your reaction to the news? Tell us in the comments.

The SCOTUS Blog posted this update Friday afternoon via CoveritLive:

"Prop. 8 is granted on the petition question -- whether 14th Am. bars Calif. from defining marriage in traditional way. Plus an added question: Whether the backers of Prop.. 8 have standing in the case under Art. III."

In 2008, 52 percent of California voters approved Proposition 8. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the law in February, ruling Prop. 8 unconstitutional. Prop. 8 supporters then appealed to the country's highest court.

This chronology of the history of gay marriage from the Los Angeles Times explains the complex road that has led to today.

The SCOTUS Blog also clarified the immediate impact of the court's decision Friday—there is none.

"Although the Court is ruling on Prop. 8, there is nothing in the order that would lift the 9th CA's stay. So marriage licenses in Calif. will have to wait until this case is decided."

Friday, the Supreme Court also granted a review of Windsor, a challenge to federal Defense of Marriage Act, according to Bloomberg.

DOMA bars the federal government from recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples.

State Attorney General Kamala D. Harris spoke in support of the court's decision to review Prop. 8.

“Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to consider marriage equality takes our nation one step closer to realizing the American ideal of equal protection under the law for all people,” Harris said in a prepared statement. “For justice to prevail, Proposition 8 must be invalidated so that gay and lesbian families are finally treated with equality and dignity.”

Others echoed her sentiments.

“We are pleased that the court has agreed to decide once and for all whether these blatantly discriminatory marriage bans are permitted under our Constitution,” Ilona Turner, Legal Director of Transgender Law Center in San Francisco said in a prepared statement. “These laws that unconstitutionally restrict access to marriage based solely on gender must be struck down."

Eight other cases involving same-sex marriage were not added to the Supreme Court's "orders list," essentially its docket for the next term. Most involved the Defense of Marriage Act.

It's expected the court will hear the marriage cases in the March sitting, March 18-27.

Stay Patched in! Follow Napa Valley Patch on Twitter | Like Napa Valley Patch on Facebook | Sign up for the daily email with links to the latest news | Got something to say? Start a blog and share your views.

MICHAEL WILSON "Republican Kid" December 08, 2012 at 05:29 AM
This may backfire on the Gays
Dan Johnson December 24, 2012 at 09:45 PM
The 14th amendment says no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The U.S. Supreme Court said: "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." Attorneys Theodore B. Olson and David Boies wrote in their prop.8 filing: "Fourteen times the Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. This case tests the proposition whether the gay and lesbian Americans among us should be counted as ‘persons’ under the 14th Amendment, or whether they constitute a permanent underclass ineligible for protection under that cornerstone of our Constitution.” Will a tradition of prejudice and discrimination be enough to justify more prejudice and discrimination? Scalia thinks so. Hopefully, enough others will disagree and uphold equal treatment under the law.
MICHAEL P WILSON "Independent Kid" December 24, 2012 at 09:54 PM
Well this is now the Supreme Courts problem.
Dan Johnson December 24, 2012 at 10:20 PM
Martin Luther King, Jr. acknowledged that real change takes time; yet he also warned against the "tranquilizing drug of gradualism" and instructed the oppressed to "demand equality now - not on the convenient time schedule of those doing the oppressing. " "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Justice delayed is justice denied. Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed." (MLK)
Dan Johnson December 24, 2012 at 10:44 PM
The fact that equal rights are even being debated demonstrates the need for continuing the education process while waiting for the court. Anti-gay laws, social policies, and social support systems that deny equality, perpetuate prejudice and discrimination that causes harm in a wide variety of ways. It inevitably results in dehumanization, stigmatization, and demonization that is used to justify their behavior by those who write laws that discriminate, as well as by those who bully, beat, torture, and kill, here and around the world. It also results in self destruction, both fast and slow. History and science confirm what common sense should tell us all: Prejudice and legal discrimination cause needless suffering and death.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »