California Court Leaning in Favor of Upholding Prop. 8

The California Supreme Court, which last year declared the right of gays and lesbians to marry, appears to be ready to uphold the voters’ decision to overrule the court and restore the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

“There have been initiatives that have taken away rights from minorities by majority vote” and have been upheld by the courts, said Chief Justice Ronald George. “Isn’t that the system we have to live with?”

George wrote the majority opinion in the court’s 4-3 ruling in May striking down California’s ban on same-sex marriages – which voters, in turn, reversed in November by approving Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being only between a man and a woman.

Another member of last year’s majority, Justice Joyce Kennard, said the challenge to Prop. 8 brought by advocates of same-sex marriage involved “a completely different issue” from the court’s ruling that the marriage laws violated gays’ and lesbians’ rights to be treated equally and wed the partner of their choice.

“Here we are dealing with the power of the people, the inalienable right, to amend the Constitution,” Kennard said. Speaking to a lawyer for same-sex couples, she said those who want to overturn the voters’ decision “have the right to go to the people and present an initiative.”

Backing for couples

There were some indications of divisions among the justices on the validity of Prop. 8 during the hearing, which lasted more than three hours at the court’s San Francisco headquarters. But on a separate issue, all seven appeared to agree that the 18,000 same-sex couples who married before Prop. 8 passed would remain legally wed.

“When the highest court of the state declares that same-sex couples have the right to marry … how can one deny the validity of those marriages?” asked Justice Marvin Baxter, who dissented from the May ruling throwing out the opposite-sex-only marriage law.

Relying on that ruling, thousands of gays and lesbians “upended their lives, changed their property responsibilities with their spouses,” said Justice Ming Chin, another dissenter from that decision. “Is it really fair to throw that out?”

If the justices’ questions were any indication, the court will allow Prop. 8 to ban same-sex marriages as of Nov. 5, the day after it passed with 52 percent of the vote. A ruling is due within 90 days.

The initiative, sponsored by conservative religious groups, amended the state Constitution to declare that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” That was the language of a previous law that the court struck down last year as a violation of the state Constitution.

Proposition 8 Challenge Reaches California Court

A year after the California state Supreme Court heard arguments on extending marriage to gay couples, many of the same lawyers will be back before the same justices this week arguing why California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage should stand or fall.

From the Associated Press:

The passage of Proposition 8 last November changed the state constitution to prohibit gay marriage and trumped the high court’s decision as few months earlier to legalize it. But the ballot measure was appealed and the justices on Thursday are getting the final word on whether marriage is an institution that must accommodate two women or two men.

The debate will be framed by not only the gay and lesbian couples who see their struggle as the modern equivalent of prohibitions on interracial marriage, but the 7 million citizens who rejected that comparison in an $83 million election.

The stakes are high — for the 18,000 couples who married while same-sex weddings were legal, for gay marriage opponents who object on religious grounds and for others who are deeply divided on the issue. And whatever the court decides is likely to have ramifications not only for millions of Californians but also for other states grappling over gay marriage.

Popular will vs. constitutional law
The question is whether a majority of the justices will defer to popular will or, having already declared that preventing gay people from marrying was unconstitutional, will do so again. Legal experts say it is a tough call and that the court’s decision, due within 90 days, will be debated for years to come.

“It’s very unusual for any kind of state court to do what the petitioners are asking the California Supreme Court to do,” said William Eskridge, a Yale University constitutional law professor.

Same-sex marriage supporters are urging the court to overturn Proposition 8 on the grounds that the measure made such a sweeping change to the state constitution that its sponsors lacked the authority to put it on the ballot without approval from the California Legislature. Citizens can petition to put constitutional amendments, but not substantial revisions, directly to voters.

Good Samaritan Can Be Sued

Proving that no good deed goes unpunished, the California Supreme Court has ruled that a “Good Samaritan”, accused of rendering her friend paraplegic by pulling her from a wrecked car “like a rag doll”, can be sued.

I guess that means next time you leave the person to die. Save your own ass right? B.S. if you ask me. Thoughts?

From the Associated Press:

California’s Supreme Court ruled that the state’s Good Samaritan law only protects people from liability if the are administering emergency medical care, and that Lisa Torti’s attempted rescue of her friend didn’t qualify.

Justice Carlos Moreno wrote for a unanimous court that a person is not obligated to come to someone’s aid.

“If, however, a person elects to come to someone’s aid, he or she has a duty to exercise due care,” he wrote.

Torti had argued that she should still be protected from a lawsuit because she was giving “medical care” when she pulled her friend from a car wreck.

Alexandra Van Horn was in the front passenger seat of a car that slammed into a light pole at 45 mph on Nov. 1, 2004, according to her negligence lawsuit.

Torti was a passenger in a car that was following behind the vehicle and stopped after the crash. Torti said when she came across the wreck she feared the car was going to explode and pulled Van Horn out. Van Horn testified that Torti pulled her out of the wreckage “like a rag doll.” Van Horn blamed her friend for her paralysis.

Whether Torti is ultimately liable is still to be determined, but Van Horn’s lawsuit can go forward, the Supreme Court ruled.

Beverly Hills lawyer Robert Hutchinson, who represented Van Horn, said he’s pleased with the ruling.

Al Franken Now Trails By Just 2 Votes

What a difference a month makes. Senator Norm Coleman saw his lead over Al Franken in Minnesota’s U.S. Senate race dwindle to just two votes Thursday as the state’s recount continues.

From the Associated Press:

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that improperly rejected absentee ballots be included in the state’s recount. It ordered the candidates to work with the Secretary of State and election officials to set up a process to identify ballots that were rejected in error. Counties must make a report by Dec. 31.

The ruling came as the state Canvassing Board nearly erased what had been a 360-vote lead for Coleman before the panel began its third day of reviewing disputed ballots Thursday. The Republican incumbent had a 215-vote lead over the Democrat Franken after the initial count of the Nov. 4 election.

There are hundreds of challenges yet to decide, thousands of withdrawn challenges that have yet to be tallied and now the improperly rejected absentee ballots, estimated to number around 1,600. Franken supported and Coleman opposed counting those absentees.

The Supreme Court said the candidates will have a chance to challenge the absentees as they are unsealed and counted, just as they did during the earlier hand recount.

Justice Alan Page dissented. He warned that giving the candidates a say in identifying the ballots was a mistake.

Coleman’s lead eroded all day Thursday as the Canvassing Board considered a pile of challenges brought entirely by the Coleman campaign. The pile included a big chunk of withdrawn challenges, many of which went quickly to Franken’s column.

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan Asks For Blagojevich’s Removal From Office

Illinois’ top legal officer went to the state supreme court earlier today to try to get scandal-plagued Governor Rod Blagojevich temporarily removed from office.

From the International Herald Tribune:

Resisting calls by President-elect Barack Obama and other Democrats to resign, Blagojevich showed no sign of stepping down over the accusations that he attempted to sell Obama’s vacant Senate seat for campaign cash or a lucrative job.

In an unprecedented step, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan asked the Supreme Court to declare Blagojevich unfit to serve, a move that would hand power to the lieutenant governor.

Madigan said she believes it is a faster way to remove Blagojevich from office than through impeachment, which could take several weeks. Lawmakers were gathering Monday in the state capital of Springfield to debate that possibility.

“I recognize that this is an extraordinary request, but these are extraordinary circumstances,” Madigan said at a news conference.

The move was not welcomed by everyone. Democratic Rep. Jack Franks said it would set “a dangerous precedent” for the court to remove a governor as proposed by Madigan, who is a likely candidate for governor in 2010. Franks, a fierce Blagojevich critic, said that kind of decision should be left to state lawmakers.

Nothing in the federal complaint suggests any wrongdoing by Obama or his staff. But the accusations against the fellow Democrat are an unwelcome distraction to the president-elect. It brings fresh attention to some of the unsavory characters from his Chicago political upbringing who have connections, however distant, to Obama and to questions of whether he can follow through on his message of change and clean government when he takes office next month.

Obama has said he would release the results of an internal investigation into what conversations his aides and advisers may have had with Blagojevich in a matter of days, but he drew criticism from some Republicans for refusing to answer questions about the probe.

Call In ‘Gay’ to Work Tomorrow

Some same-sex marriage supporters are urging people to “call in gay” Wednesday to show how much the country relies on gays and lesbians, but others question whether it’s wise to encourage skipping work given the nation’s economic distress.

From the Associated Press:

Organizers of “Day Without a Gay” — scheduled to coincide with International Human Rights Day and modeled after similar work stoppages by Latino immigrants — also are encouraging people to perform volunteer work and refrain from spending money.

Sean Hetherington, a West Hollywood comedian and personal trainer, dreamed up the idea with his boyfriend, Aaron Hartzler, after reading online that a few angry gay-rights activists were calling for a daylong strike to protest California voters’ passage last month of Proposition 8, which reversed this year’s state Supreme Court decision allowing gay marriage.

The couple thought it would be more effective and less divisive if people were asked to perform community service instead of staying home with their wallets shut. Dozens of nonprofit agencies, from the National Women’s Law Center in Washington to a Methodist church in Fresno collecting food for the homeless, have posted opportunities for volunteers on the couple’s Web site.

“We are all for a boycott if that is what brings about a sense of community for people,” said Hetherington, 30, who plans to spend Wednesday volunteering at an inner-city school. “You can take away from the economy and give back in other ways.”

Hetherington said he’s been getting 100 e-mails an hour from people looking for volunteer opportunities, and that his “Day Without a Gay” Web site has gotten 100,000 hits since mid-November.