Will Proposition 8 trial outcome be appeals court?

by Susan Marie Kovalinsky | January 24, 2010 at 07:17 am

718 views | 34 Recommendations | 32 comments

Quote

Because the trial's outcome will likely be appealed quickly, the judge's decision may not have any real immediate effects on gay marriage in the state of California. Franklin, meanwhile, is calling for the resignation of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown because the two have declined to support the state's constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Fresno News

SEE VIDEO HERE
Regardless of what decision Federal Judge Vaughn Walker makes at the end of the Proposition 8 trial in the state of California, opponents and supporters of California's gay marriage ban are both anticipating and preparing for their next strategic moves:

Gay rights activists are primed for another ballot initiative and supporters are ready to once again defend traditional marriage.

Last year in Fresno huge rallies drew both defenders and opposers of the ban. Now the latest round in the fight over same sex marriage is playing out in a San Francisco district courtroom.

A national spotlight is once more on Proposition 8: A recent Newsweek cover story profiles the lifelong republican - and former solicitor general for President Bush - who is now fighting for marriage equality in opposition to Proposition 8, which more than 7 million Californian voters brought into legislation.

Scott Jones, the president of the San Joaquin Valley College of Law Alumni Association, says the case will no doubt end up in appeals and perhaps the U.S. Supreme Court, something that's already shaping the trial underway. "They'll have some of that strategy in mind as they go along, too. Anytime you're dealing with a case, it's always in the back of your mind, what if I appeal, what issues will I be raising on appeal, if I lose?" said Jones.
Supporters of the gay marriage ban are also keeping a close eye on the trial. Pastor Jim Franklin of Cornerstone Church says whatever the outcome, supporters of traditional marriage will not back down. "The people have spoken not once, but twice, in the statewide election. The Supreme Court has upheld it here within the state. To think what we're just going to give up ... No!" said Franklin.

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Sign In or Join to post comments

Hugh Askew

at 07:29 on January 24th, 2010

"The people have spoken not once, but twice, in the statewide election. The Supreme Court has upheld it here within the state."

The "gay" folks trying to shove their agenda down the public throat (no word play intended), may find the backlash is not to their liking.

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 07:42 on January 24th, 2010

Is this too hot a potato for the ACLU? Maybe I missed them, but I don't recall them speaking up on this issue.

Susan Marie Kovalinsky

at 07:46 on January 24th, 2010

Yes, there may be a backlash, HA. And Karl, there was this ACLU Sues to Block California Proposition 8 from taking effect

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 08:07 on January 24th, 2010

Ok Thank you.

Rory Cripps

at 08:21 on January 24th, 2010

OK! Suppose that advocates of gay marriage get everything that they want re court decisions favorable to their cause. Will that be the end of the hue and cry? Or will something else pop up down the pike and cause them to take to the streets? In other words, is their something else on the collective minds of the gay community other than legalized same sex marriage?

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 08:26 on January 24th, 2010

Rory in all likelihood it will be adoptions next. I don't know how readily they can adopt kids in the U.S. now, but I know it became an issue in Canada.

Rory Cripps

at 08:35 on January 24th, 2010

You may be right ACP! I don't know how I feel about that one . . .hmm . . . . interesting point . . . .

What say SMK?

Susan Marie Kovalinsky

at 11:49 on January 24th, 2010

SMK is giving you her all too silent face. And I have much to be silent on, concerning many matters.

Rory Cripps

at 12:12 on January 24th, 2010

OK G! Whatever you say . . .

YankeeJim

at 08:42 on January 24th, 2010

Pursuit of equality and justice is unstoppable as the advocates will never run out of time.

nanute

at 08:48 on January 24th, 2010

Rory,

Only four states, Vermont, New Jersey, Massachusetts and California permit same sex couple adoption. Some states permit single people to adopt, others discourage it. If at the end of the road the US Supreme Court validates same sex marriage, the adoption issue becomes moot. States may in fact still attempt to ban the practice, but in all likelihood equal protection would probably be a determining factor in eliminating the restriction.

Rory Cripps

at 09:02 on January 24th, 2010

nanute: How the hell do you know all this stuff?

I'm a bit confused here. When I was living in Forest Hills, a gay couple--one of which was a school principal--had a little boy. I could swear that they somehow managed to adopt the kid. That was back in the 90s.

BTW: I'll call you later, Sugar . . .lol!

Hugh Askew

at 11:29 on January 24th, 2010

They already have equal protection. What homosexuals want is extra rights and privileges granted to them.

Spydermonkey

at 13:51 on January 24th, 2010

Nope Hugh, we just want the same rights/responcibillites that everyone else has.

I can't put my partner of over 10 years on my health insurance, his life insureance will not allow him to name me as a bienificiary, even if he wants too (I'm not "related"). If he goes into the hospital, I'm not allowed to see him, or even be told about his condition without a ream of paper work filled out before any admintion into a hospital.

I can go on, but that is more why we are fighting for this than any "extra rights and privileges".

Hugh Askew

at 14:20 on January 24th, 2010

Well, you already HAVE the same rights. You are asking for additional rights.

Spydermonkey

at 14:30 on January 24th, 2010

You as a straight person, can "marry" the one that you love.

Me, as a gay person can not get any state or federal recognition of this relationship. How do you figure that I have the same rights? I can not have a legitimet relationship with the one that I love, but you can. That is not the same rights.

Susan Marie Kovalinsky

at 14:35 on January 24th, 2010

Spydermonkey: I understand fully how you feel, within the context of the current debate; and there is nothing I esteem higher than gay males (which I assume you are). But try and understand that marriage was NEVER " a right": On the contrary, it was a limitation imposed upon the free assembly of men and women, for the purpose of procreation. In many senses, marriage is a curse: a millstone around the neck, a ball and chain. My husband and I used to say we loved eachother "as brother and sister", because "husband and wife" reminded us of the crappy marriages of all the idiots in our respective families.

Spydermonkey

at 14:59 on January 24th, 2010

But within the current framework of our society, marriage gives a pair of people a formal relationship with privallages that other couples are forbiden, all based on something none get a choice in. This contradicts the ideal of "all men(people) are created equal" when, because of the "special privallages" confered on married people are denied to people based on religious beliefs more often than not.

Me personally think that the government has no place in a religious institution, and thus should remove "marriage" from all legial documents and replace it with "civil union", problem solved.

Susan Marie Kovalinsky

at 15:03 on January 24th, 2010

This is what Yankee Jim says. Hits the nail bang on the head.

Hugh Askew

at 15:20 on January 24th, 2010

Here, once again, the DEFINITION of marriage:

A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought to exist between husband and wife.

The requirement that marriage involve one man and one woman was held to be essential to Western civilization and the United States in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 25 L. Ed. 244. in 1878.

Now, if you want to make believe that marriage means something different, by all means, continue to dwell in lala land.

Words have meanings. You are free - and have the right - within the meaning of the word, and the law, to marry. NO one has deprived you of that right.

To state that you are being treated as less than equal is disingenuous &/or shows ignorance of both language and the law.

My personal hope is that this case will go to the US Supreme Court. It will prove exceedingly difficult to overturn thousands of years of common understanding of the meaning of the word, and a precedent that is VERY clearly written and understood.

Hugh Askew

at 14:47 on January 24th, 2010

Spydermonkey - there is NO state, local, or national law, that says a word about anyone marrying the person they love. That "right" just ain't there.

Got anything better?

Susan Marie Kovalinsky

at 14:50 on January 24th, 2010

Well, my own argument to spydermonkey is that "the grass is always greener on the other side"----marriage is not the highest test of love or commitment. the famous analyst Horney said that unmarried lovers give freely, but married ones do as they have no choice.

Rory Cripps

at 16:02 on January 24th, 2010

SMK: Yeah! And Horney also wrote book titled . . .I forgot what I was going to say . . . ..

Hugh Askew

at 17:06 on January 24th, 2010

I forgot what you were going to say also. I hate that.

Russ (not verified)

at 17:38 on February 6th, 2010

An interesting argument Hugh, could elaborate on the purpose of marriage as you define it then?

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 09:03 on January 24th, 2010

nanute I agree that legalizing same sex marriage should make the adoption issue moot, but it won't There are those that advocate that the best conditions for a child to grow up under is to have a mother and a father as role models. Believe me those arguments get even more heated than same sex marriage.