Jump To Navigation

THE CALIFORNIA FAMILY LAW BLOG

Calabasas, California Beverly Hills, California Directions Directions

23501 Park Sorrento
Suite 103
Calabasas, CA 91302
Phone: 1-800-655-4766

433 North Camden Drive
Suite 600
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Phone: 1-800-655-4766

Blog Topic

Same Sex Marriage and Same Sex Divorce

Analysis on California Supreme Court Hearing on Proposition 8
Posted by: Mary Ellen Waller
March 26, 2009

 

The California Supreme Court heard oral argument earlier this month on the validity of Proposition 8, a measure banning same-sex marriage that California voters approved in November 2008. The televised closely watched session had people nationwide mass text-messaging on Twitter as if calling a sporting event giving moment by moment real-time updates and often colorful impressions on the Supreme Court hearing. The Supreme Court decision will be historic and have implications for decades to come determining the fate of same-sex marriage in the State as well as the validity of an estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages already performed in California. 

In May  2008, California State Supreme Court ruled that California's prior ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional because it deprived gay couples of the right to wed. Proposition 8, a statewide ballot initiative, passed in November with about 52 percent of the vote. This made California one of several states to ban same-sex marriage, thus erasing last May's Supreme Court ruling. California had been issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples since the state Supreme Court ruled on May 15 that the unions were legal and continued to do so until the votes on the initiative were certified. Civil rights groups, same-sex couples, and a number of local governments, including Santa Clara County and the City and County of San Francisco sued to block enforcement of Proposition 8.

The California Supreme Court issued an order to show cause in three cases challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8. The cases were Strauss et al. v. Horton, Tyler et al .v. State of California et al. and City and County of San Francisco et al. v. Horton. The Court directed the parties to brief and argue the following issues: (1) Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution? (2) Does Proposition 8 violate the Separation of Powers doctrine under the California Constitution? and (3) If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8? The Supreme Court has received an avalanche of amicus curiae briefs known as "friend of the court" briefs giving arguments on both sides of these issues from various groups who believe that the Court's decision may affect their interests.

After oral argument the court took the issues under submission and has up until June 5, 2009 to decide whether it will uphold Proposition 8, though there is speculation in the legal community that this decision is bound to come sooner rather than later since the lives of an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who have already married under California law hang in legal limbo. The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times, and other news media have reported that the California Supreme Court indicated that it will uphold Proposition 8 but will also let the marriages that have already taken place stand. If that projection is correct, it will essentially make for three classes of people in California; those who can marry, those who can't marry, and the limited class of approximately 18,000 same-sex couples who married during a window of time when the California Supreme Court allowed same-sex marriages to take place. Continued ....

 

Continue Reading

Further Developments Regarding California Proposition 8
Posted by: Mary Ellen Waller
March 03, 2009

The gay marriage controversy in California continues this week. The California state Senate approved a resolution Monday calling Proposition 8, the ban on same-sex marriage an improper revision of the Constitution because it failed to carry the approval of the state Legislature. The Senate essentially declared that the initiative was a fundamental revision to the California Constitution as opposed to merely an amendment. A revision of the state Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of both houses to put it on the ballot.

This weighing-in by the legislature was predicted last month at a meeting of the Family Law Section San Fernando Valley Bar Association during a seminar entitled "After Proposition 8, Now What?" The seminar was presented by Los Angeles Superior Court Family Law Judge Harvey Silberman and attorneys Diane Goodman and Roberta Bennett. The timing of the Legislature in approving the resolution and declaring Proposition 8 an improper revision appears to be calculated to send a clear message to the California Supreme Court. The California Court is preparing to hear oral arguments Thursday on whether the Proposition 8 amendment passed narrowly by voters last November banning same-sex marriage should stand. The California Supreme Court will have ninety days from Thursday to render its decision. For a related article on the history of same sex marriage in California see "Same Sex Marriage in California" by Feinberg & Waller attorney Veronika Melamed by clicking HERE.

Permalink


Contact Us For a Free Consultation | 1.800.655.4766

Subscribe

  • RSS 2.0 Feed
  • My Yahoo!
  • Sub Bloglines
  • MyFeedster
  • newsgator
  • My MSN

What is RSS?
Search the blog

Disclaimer
The information in this document is not intended to serve as legal advice. You should consult qualified legal counsel before acting on any information contained herein. The information contained herein, including case examples, does not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter.