California Supreme Court to Issue Decision ( Prop 8)

San Francisco Sentinel Friday 22nd of May 2009


CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT ISSUES SAME SEX MARRIAGE DECISION TUESDAY
22 May 2009


The California Supreme Court announced today that it will rule Tuesday on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the November ballot measure that resurrected a ban on same-sex marriage.

The ruling, which will be posted at 10 a.m., will also determine whether an estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages will continue to be recognized by the state.

Gay rights lawyers have argued that the ballot measure was an illegal constitutional revision rather than a more limited amendment. Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown urged the court to reject the measure on different grounds. He contended the proposition was unconstitutional because it took away an inalienable right without compelling justification.

Prop 8 Challenge Legal Team to Hold Press Conference Following Supreme Court Ruling

(Los Angeles, May 22, 2008) — The California Supreme Court has announced that it will rule Tuesday, May 26, 2009, on whether Proposition 8, passed by a slim majority of voters on November 4 and eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry, was a valid amendment to the California Constitution.

At 10:30 a.m. – approximately a half-hour after the expected posting of the ruling – attorneys for plaintiff couples and community leaders will hold a news conference to discuss the ruling and what it means for California’s same-sex couples and their families, communities of color, and the future of LGBT rights in California. Clergy members will deliver an invocation at 9:45 a.m., shortly before the ruling is announced.

WHEN:
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
9:45 a.m. Clergy Invocation
10:30 a.m. News Conference

WHERE:
Lucy Florence Cultural Center
3351 W. 43rd Street, L.A., CA 90008

WHO:

Ron Buckmire, Jordan Rustin Coalition

Jenny Pizer, Lambda Legal Marriage Project Director and Co-counsel, Strauss v. Horton

Mark Rosenbaum, Legal Director, ACLU of Southern California

Rocky Delgadillo, City Attorney of Los Angeles

Nancy Ramirez, Western Regional Attorney, MALDEF

Rev. Eric Lee, President/CEO, Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Southern California
Marc Solomon, Equality California (organizational plaintiff in Strauss v. Horton)

Jorge Amaro, Latino Equality Alliance

Doreena Wong, API Equality

Lorri L. Jean, CEO, L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center

Chief Justice Ronald M. George and Justice Joyce L. Kennard will cast key votes in the case. They were part of the four-judge majority that gave gays the right to marry last May, but both indicated at oral argument that they were not persuaded the measure was unconstitutional.

The court’s majority decision should be revealed in the first or second page of the ruling and reiterated in its last paragraph. Separate concurring and dissenting opinions follow.

Counting votes may be tricky because the court is dealing with three different legal issues: the revision challenge, the attorney general’s challenge and the fate of existing same-sex marriages.

The court’s vote on whether Proposition 8 is an impermissible revision, for example, will probably differ from its vote on whether existing marriages should continue to be recognized by the state.

Justices who disagree with the majority file dissents. If they agree with only part of the majority decision, they file an opinion called a partial concurrence and dissent.

During oral argument in March, every justice expressed support for upholding existing marriages. Justice Carlos M. Moreno indicated he believed Proposition 8 was an illegal revision, indicating he would dissent on that question

Moreno might be joined by Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, a former civil rights lawyer who stressed the court was dealing with a novel legal question. Werdegar, however, did not join Moreno in voting to put the measure on hold pending the court’s ruling.

See Related: MARRIAGE EQUALITY

HIRE A PROFESSIONAL VIDEO CREW FOR THE PRICE OF A WEBCAM - ONLY $99 (for a limited time) - Next Filming Date Saturday May 30 2009 San Francisco Marriott Hotel

VZUME JOB SEEKER SEAN McMAHAN INTEREST: A position as a paralegal in the SF Bay Area.Sean is a recent graduate from the University of Oregon and is looking for a position as a paralegal. He has worked for Charles Schwab and The SF District Attorney’s Office.