Video includes historical background on the court – to watch video of the March 5 advance to approximately 18 minutes and 46 seconds.
Strauss et al. v. Horton (Hollingsworth et al., Interveners)
(and two other cases, S168066 Tyler et al. v. State of California et al.
(Hollingsworth et al., Interveners) and S168078 City and County of
San Francisco et al. v. Horton (Hollingsworth et al., Interveners))
The court issued an order to show cause in Strauss, Tyler, and City and County of San Francisco directing 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? (See Cal. Const., art. XVIII, §§ 1-4.) (2) Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution? (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?
For more case materials including the many amicus briefs and actual court filings, visit the California Supreme Court website at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/prop8.htm
For more
Setting aside the contentious emotional issues of gay marriage, much more is at stake with the coming precedent by the California Supreme Court. What? Is this a Republic, as the Founders intended, one in which there are certain inalienable rights that are not subject to majoritarian views, even when they are based on religion? If so it is a democracy and if that is the case we don’t need a Constitution. The protection of the majority can be decided at the ballot box. Every time. And the minority is subject to the whims of the majority. Should the religious pressure result in upholding the peoples’ vote then other religious beliefs will trump the rights of religious minorities. You know where that is taking us. Just look at the Dark Ages of Europe, the persecution and slaughter of millions of religious dissidents. Is that what want? I say nay. That will take us well down the road to the utter repudiation of the generous principles of loving one’s neighbor as one’s self, the foundation of continued prosperity, peace and existence as a nation.
Giving gays the right to marriage is a long leap but it has a pretty good foundation. Even though it is not compatible with my personal views, but who has given me the right to trump those with whom I disagree? God has given us unbridled freedom of choice as long as we do not harm anyone’s person or life or possessions. There are consequences to be certain, and they should be weighed by all regardless of the decision being made, but if we really believe in God’s love and His God-given freedom of choice, and the non use of force in the realm of conscience, then in a secular nation is it not the right of unpopular unbiblical people to have the same freedoms enjoyed by Biblical followers, freedom without the shackles of forced religious standards?
John
Setting aside the contentious emotional issues of gay marriage, much more is at stake with the coming precedent by the California Supreme Court. What? Is this a Republic, as the Founders intended, one in which there are certain inalienable rights that are not subject to majoritarian views, even when they are based on religion? If so it is a democracy and if that is the case we don’t need a Constitution. The protection of the majority can be decided at the ballot box. Every time. And the minority is subject to the whims of the majority. Should the religious pressure result in upholding the peoples’ vote then other religious beliefs will trump the rights of religious minorities. You know where that is taking us. Just look at the Dark Ages of Europe, the persecution and slaughter of millions of religious dissidents. Is that what want? I say nay. That will take us well down the road to the utter repudiation of the generous principles of loving one’s neighbor as one’s self, the foundation of continued prosperity, peace and existence as a nation.
Giving gays the right to marriage is a long leap but it has a pretty good foundation. Even though it is not compatible with my personal views, but who has given me the right to trump those with whom I disagree? God has given us unbridled freedom of choice as long as we do not harm anyone’s person or life or possessions. There are consequences to be certain, and they should be weighed by all regardless of the decision being made, but if we really believe in God’s love and His God-given freedom of choice, and the non use of force in the realm of conscience, then in a secular nation is it not the right of unpopular unbiblical people to have the same freedoms enjoyed by Biblical followers, freedom without the shackles of forced religious standards?
John
John, I agree with you 100%. It is too easy to get caught up in immediate reactions to controversial issues without thinking through the larger, more long-term issues. God does not enforce His law and He does not ask His followers to do so. We need to trust Him that it will all come out in the final judgement. When we attempt to use the law to force our beliefs on others, we open the door to the reverse occurring whenever the majority opinion shifts.
John, I agree with you 100%. It is too easy to get caught up in immediate reactions to controversial issues without thinking through the larger, more long-term issues. God does not enforce His law and He does not ask His followers to do so. We need to trust Him that it will all come out in the final judgement. When we attempt to use the law to force our beliefs on others, we open the door to the reverse occurring whenever the majority opinion shifts.