Prop. 8 sponsors seek to nullify 18K gay marriages

From: http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=41576437893&h=m-BHZ&u=2OXAu

Prop. 8 sponsors seek to nullify 18K gay marriages
By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 8 mins ago

SAN FRANCISCO – The sponsors of Proposition 8 asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to nullify the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters approved the ballot initiative that outlawed gay unions.

The Yes on 8 campaign filed a brief arguing that because the new law holds that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized or valid in California, the state can no longer recognize the existing same-sex unions. The document reveals for the first time that opponents of same-sex marriage will fight in court to undo those unions that already exist.
"Proposition 8's brevity is matched by its clarity. There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions or exclusions," reads the brief co-written by Kenneth Starr, dean of Pepperdine University's law school and the former independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton.

The campaign submitted the document in response to three lawsuits seeking to invalidate Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment adopted last month that overruled the court's decision in May that had legalized gay marriage in the nation's most populous state.

Both Attorney General Jerry Brown, whose office is scheduled to submit its own brief to the court Friday, and gay rights groups maintain that the gay marriage ban may not be applied retroactively.

The Supreme Court could hear arguments in the litigation as soon as March. The measure's backers announced Friday that Starr, a former federal judge and U.S. solicitor general, had signed on as their lead counsel and would argue the cases.
Proposition 8's supporters assert that the Supreme Court lacks the authority or historical precedent to throw out the amendment.

"For this court to rule otherwise would be to tear asunder a lavish body of jurisprudence," the court papers state. "That body of decisional law commands judges — as servants of the people — to bow to the will of those whom they serve — even if the substantive result of what people have wrought in constitution-amending is deemed unenlightened."
The cases are Strauss v. Horton, S168047; City and County of San Francisco v. Horton, S168078; and Tyler v. State of California, S168066.

Attorney General Says: Prop 8 is Invalid

From: http://www.eqca.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=4061163&content_id=%7B9AFF8669-2ADA-4279-B451-3F9C650A91DA%7D¬oc=1
Read the brief here: http://www.eqca.org/atf/cf/%7B34F258B3-8482-4943-91CB-08C4B0246A88%7D/Strauss%20Brief.pdf

Latest News

December 19, 2008
Attorney General Says: Prop 8 is Invalid

Sacramento -- Today Attorney General Jerry Brown filed his brief with the California Supreme Court arguing that Proposition 8 should be invalidated.

Statement from Equality California Executive Director Geoff Kors on the Attorney General's brief:

"Attorney General Brown's position that Proposition 8 should be invalidated demonstrates that he is a leader of courage and conviction," said Equality California Executive Director Geoff Kors. "We are very pleased that upon review of the law, he has moved from his previous statements that he would defend Prop 8. As the state's highest attorney, Jerry Brown has done his job today to defend the Constitution and protect the rights of minority groups, including the more than 18,000 same-sex couples who married in California."
Strauss Brief >>

ACTION ALERT: DECEMBER 20, 2008, Light Up The Night For Equality

From: http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/page/Light%20Up%20The%20Night%20For%20Equality?t=anon

Light Up The Night For Equality

ACTION ALERT: DECEMBER 20, 2008 Join this site! Help us organize, connect, and communicate!

WHAT IS LIGHT UP THE NIGHT FOR EQUALITY?
On December 20th, we ask that you join us again for a nation-wide demonstration that will make an impact on the private sector. Candlelight vigils will be held at commercial centers in cities across the country in vigil for the rights of 18,000 same-sex couples who married and look forward to the day when those rights are available again - for EVERYONE. <>

HOW DOES IT WORK?

Please take to your local commercial district -- be it a shopping mall, outdoor financial center, you name it. Check your city page for the time and location of your event.

This will be a peaceful demonstration in the spirit of the holidays.
Dress alike. Wear the same t-shirts or signs pinned to your coats. You can make or buy a "2nd Class Citizen" t-shirt, but the message is optional. Learn more about why we suggest "2nd Class Citizen."

This will be the culmination of our National Food Drive for Equality

WHAT WILL WE BE DOING?

Hosting peaceful candlelight vigils

We will stay silent unless asked a question, we will not yell, instigate, or bear signs. Instead, we will let our shirts do the talking and our candles pay our respects. Bring candles (battery powered if you'll be huddling inside).
Singing and/or silence encouraged...chanting is not....

Why We Need Same-Sex Marriage to be Legal at the Federal Level

Marriage equality should be done at a federal level. Married heterosexual people file taxes together for state and federal, so until it is at the federal level then it won't be the same. We can file state together but Federal has to be seperate. Holy Matrimony is religious, that is not what we want, it is the civil side that we want to be equal, because it effects the benefits we get. I think all marriages should be civil marriages, and if you have religious matrimony with it, fabulous, but we just want everything heterosexual couples get by being married. The government issues licenses for married people and gives benefits based on that.

As a lesbian married couple, we have to pay taxes on my medical and other benefits that I get through Nicole, and that is not the case with heterosexuals, they can have flexible spending accounts for their medical costs that are not taxed and we can not. Social Security provides benefits for death of a spouse, but not for homosexuals. Biden does want it to be fair, and I frankly don't care what they call it, but why call an orange an apple if it looks like an orange, tastes like an orange, must be an orange.

Anyway, prop 8 doesn't really matter, whether it passed or not, because as domestic partners we get all of the state level benefits a heterosexual gets, but at the federal level, we are completely unequal, and that is not fair. We pay more in taxes then our heterosexual counterparts, and for me, that is all of the medical benefits which I use and am being taxed on. One thing that was funny though is if McCain won, he would tax all medical benefits in the same way that spouses in a gay marriage would have to pay.


We don't want anyone to redefine the religious interpretation of marriage, but since the government is the one who issues marriage licenses and not the church, it is a civil matter and it is not fair to have to make us pay more taxes. The best thought I heard is that if you are not for gay marriage, then you must be for gay promiscuity. All couples together can contribute a lot to society, and it is not always in the form of offspring or mortal baggage as I like to call it.

It is not our fault the courts used the religious definition of marriage to start with, we want to be a legal family unit in society and contribute. All of the Mormons are huge hypocrites because if they really did care about the children, they would invest in schools, which are in a bad way right now, other then spending millions of dollars to make sure that gays can not get married, and they should outlaw divorce if they care about marriage sanctity.

We were given the right to get married when the Supreme Court of California said in July that they cannot find a legal reason not to have marriage for gays, and that because it is so special, that calling us something other than married denotes that we are second class citizens, and we are being taxed without representation and churches should be made to pay taxes. Especially the mormons, as they are required by a signed contract to tithe a percentage of their earnings or face expulsion from the church. You can't really compete with that amount of money and the prop 8 campaign was weak but still unecessary since we already have domestic partnership which grants us the same rights at the state level as married heterosexuals.

The only right thing to do would be to allow it at the federal level and the states should follow suit so that it will be equal, and so that we are protected from hate groups and religious freaks imposing their beliefs on us, as we too have religious freedom and my God says being gay is not wrong, but a natural occurence that happens across all socio-economic backgrounds, all ages, all races, all species, and all over the world, regardless of culture and any historical time period.

Here is some of the decision that was handed dowm from the Supreme Court saying that there is no civil or legal basis to restrict marriage to a one man and one woman:

http://www.weddingwire.com/nicolesuzette

Excerpts from the California Supreme Court Decision:

"This state’s current policies and conduct regarding homosexuality recognize that gay individuals are entitled to the same legal rights and the same respect and dignity afforded all other individuals and are protected from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation, and, more specifically, recognize that gay individuals are fully capable of entering into the kind of loving and enduring committed relationships that may serve as the foundation of a family and of responsibly caring for and raising children."

"First, because of the long and celebrated history of the term "marriage" and the widespread understanding that this term describes a union unreservedly approved and favored by the community, there clearly is a considerable and undeniable symbolic importance to this designation. Thus, it is apparent that affording access to this designation exclusively to opposite-sex couples, while providing same-sex couples access to only a novel alternative designation, realistically must be viewed as constituting significantly unequal treatment to same-sex couples."

"Although defendants maintain that this court has an obligation to defer to the statutory definition of marriage contained in section 308.5 because that statute represents the expression of the "people’s will," this argument fails to take into account the very basic point that the provisions of the California Constitution itself constitute the ultimate expression of the people’s will. As the United States Supreme Court explained in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette: "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.

"We conclude that the state interest in limiting the designation of marriage exclusively to opposite-sex couples, and in excluding same-sex couples from access to that designation, cannot properly be considered a compelling state interest for equal protection purposes. Extending access to the designation of marriage to same-sex couples will not deprive any opposite-sex couple or their children of any of the rights and benefits conferred by the marriage statutes, but simply will make the benefit of the marriage designation available to same-sex couples and their children.

"We conclude that retention of the traditional definition of marriage does not constitute a state interest sufficiently compelling, to justify withholding that status from same-sex couples. Accordingly, insofar as the provisions of sections 300 and 308.5 draw a distinction between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples and exclude the latter from access to the designation of marriage, we conclude these statutes are unconstitutional. Accordingly, we determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union "between a man and a woman" is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples.