Today on CNN Newsroom

The latest news and information from around the world. Also connect with CNN through social media. We want to hear from you.
May 25th, 2009
05:40 AM ET

Same-Sex Marriage ruling due. California court to announce decision

California is bracing for a major court decision.

The state's supreme court is scheduled to rule Tuesday, on whether a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage is legal.

It's the same court that legalized same-sex marriages in California last year, by a four-to-three vote.

In November, California voters passed Proposition Eight, a constitutional amendment that overturned the ruling.

Gay rights advocates say the results of that vote should be thrown out on procedural grounds. They say "Prop 8" needed legislative approval before it went to voters.

Our "Legal Guy" Avery Friedman weighs in.

Filed under: Fredricka Whitfield
soundoff (10 Responses)
  1. Jack Medley

    Oppression, plain and simple. WAKE UP CALIFORNIA! This is one reason why I can't stand religion, it breeds hatred of others.

    May 25, 2009 at 10:35 am |
  2. Scott Karras

    The U.S. Constatution and Bill of Rights States. All men are equal.
    So if gays Marriage is illegal. All Marriage must be illegal.2) Seperation of church and state. They want to believe in god OK that's
    what your church is for. Don't tread on my rights.

    May 25, 2009 at 11:03 am |
  3. Purple Spider

    Proposition 8 should be settled, one way or another and soon, so everyone can move on. California has other serious issues to be concerned with. like have a Governor that governs!

    May 25, 2009 at 1:17 pm |
  4. Mike

    The right to marry is a fundamental right. No one can deny fundamental rights to other people based on their own prejudice. What country is this that says that they want the world free and fair if they cannot do this in their own boundaries?

    Instead of allowing the majority decide whether minorities have rights or not , why not request the approval of a bill which says that "ONLY THE SUPREME COURT SHALL BE VESTED THE POWER TO DENY OR GUARANTEE RIGHTS TO MINORITIES" . This would be more beautiful to the CA constitution instead of a big denial of rights.

    (Have you ever seen minority groups win? Minorities are killed and massacred throughout the human history, and keep on being attacked everyday! that will only change if lawmakers really analyze and decide to protect them from less educated majority groups).
    There is not even any "best interest" for the society not to allow gays to marry or not. They are not killing anyone! If a crime happens (in both heterosexual and homosexual worlds) they will be punished equally!! There are punishements for any kind of crimes for both minorities and majorities should they commit them. C'mon!

    Another thing that I do not understand is how the CA Supreme Court allowed people to continue the prop 8 go to the ballots. So, if people can overturn Supreme Court decisions about fundamental rights of minority groups at any time they want, (and IF the CA Supreme Court allows it to happen whenever they give their ruling tomorrow or sometime soon), I will understand that not only the state supreme court rules, but federal supreme court rules can be overturned by the vote of the majority...

    So, how would blacks feel if majorities decide that they should enforce them to become slaves again? In case the majority does not want to cause such a dramatic and unfair look, they will probably and say that they are "Equal but Separate" , and then it becomes accurate again. Maybe the church will say that they were born with no souls to give their blessings to a new slavery ruling again. (Please rememeber that the church used this arguments for centuries!! Animals could be blessed when they were dead but not blacks until a 100 some years ago. – this is world history, for those who did not study it. And since blacks are now protected, now they attack gays). Maybe men can also overturn women's rights! why not? everything would be possible if a decision of the supreme court can be reviewed by majorities!

    Family law is ruled by the States, but not the Federal Gov't. However it is clear that First and fourteenth amendment apply here. Religion beliefs cannot be enforced in law. That is ashaming how the church "killed people in the past" and disrespects them nowadays using the name of GOD and Jesus.

    Thank God Romney is not a US president. ANd I hope that he can only become one once he goes back to school, prefereably after pursuing an advanced degree in law, maybe an LLM or a SJD. (This also applies to Sarah Palin, but in her case she needs to get her GED first, and read more NY times...)

    I noticed Romney's great lack of understanding of the laws and their applicabilities. I heard him on CNN in an interview that he says he is against gay marriage, and he said that "it was not a big deal. It was just a change in the marital status." At that time I thought just like the Geico tv add, Hummmnnnn... "so easy a caveman can do it".

    It is much more than just a marital status... It is being allowed to be able to take care of your partner; rightsafter death; visitation rights; equality; even rights for those americans who are committed in a bona fide relationship with foreigners to be able to bring them to this country, instead of both being forced to move to a third country that would accept them. And if it is not such a big deal, just let them have the right. Then the issue is gone!! he and his hatred-spreading groups are the ones who are making it a big deal! "To allow gays to become people" won't change his beliefs, but will definetely create a more just society (which is something he is far from willing ofr the US)

    It is unfortunate that the US still does not know how to defend their own people from themselves. I wish people were forced to study law in schools with eyes that analyzes legal scenarios without imposing their thoughts. Whatever one thinks it is right might not be right for another. No one can create a pattern for what is right or not, but they should at least understand that denial of rights cannot be justified by religious or personal thoughts. It requires neutrality to make good decisions.

    May 25, 2009 at 3:32 pm |
  5. Mike

    by the way, I am not gay.

    May 25, 2009 at 3:40 pm |
  6. robert

    The people of Ca made a decision what's the problem? There are bigger issues in Ca! Why not overturn prop 13?

    May 26, 2009 at 12:54 pm |
  7. Mike

    wow... Let's vote for slavery back in CAlifornia!! Once the majority wins again and makes minorities slaves, maybe the Supreme court will rule that the ones born before the ruling will be free. Why would they willy-winie the decision of the voters? NO one voted for the end of slavery or women rights in the US!! It is time to vote to understand what the people really want for those matters! Let's review everything the Supreme Court decides in votes! Equal Protection? What is it? Before one qualifies for said protection in the US they have to qualify for the that before... they exclude minorities... this is only for those deemed acceptable to apply for. What a beautiful country! lol! Then they call it Democracy... Who has education knows that the people create rules for society, that's right...but there are other things that only lawmakers enact for a more just society. There is no extreme and express democracy in the world, not even the US is like this. Many US rules were not decided by the people, and they wont. Please remember that criminal laws and punishments are dictated by lawmakers, not the well as so many other areas in Law.

    I hope GOD really judges those who say they follow Him the same way that they judge and disrespects others using His name.

    May 26, 2009 at 1:22 pm |
  8. Steve Parelli

    Hanging like a thread to see if we are still married. All our lives, waiting again to learn if we are human or subhuman. No! No more!

    May 26, 2009 at 1:49 pm |
  9. Mike G

    I am a man married to a woman. Our marriage is not defined by the state. It is not in any way threatened by those who have a different definition than ours. For those who feel threatened by same sex marriage I ask why is your union so fragile? If anyone is concerned about his or her children, try teaching by example and teach tolerance.

    If anyone wants to see “Defense of Marriage”, just try messing with mine!

    May 26, 2009 at 1:50 pm |
  10. Mike M.

    The whole "voting against minorities argument" is invalid here. After taking my Government classes it was apparent to me that being in a democractic society and allowing a vote meant that the people that had the most votes wins. That means if more of the population wants something or doesnt want something then "win the vote". We cannot nor ever will let the minority of voters drive anything.

    Let me be clear "minority of voters" means the least amount of people (brown, black, white, purple, gay, not gay) regardless of their preferences.

    Why should America accept the burdens of a select few when the masses didnt want it? Democracy is about allowing people to vote on issues and the most votes win. Please dont turn this into a minority thing.

    By screaming that here you are diminishing your own cause. Remember the little boy that cried wolf. Everything with gay folks doesnt need to be a minority issue.

    I didnt care if you won or not. I am just glad that America still gives you the right to vote on the issues. You lost please move on.

    May 27, 2009 at 10:15 am |

Post a comment


CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.