|
|
|
Uploaded: Tuesday, July 31, 2012, 4:20 PM
Updated: Thursday, August 2, 2012, 7:42 AM
Prop. 8 sponsors appeal to U.S. Supreme Court to uphold state's same-sex marriage ban
Plea argues that that individual states should be allowed to define marriage
|
As promised, supporters of California's Proposition 8 appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday to uphold the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage.
The petition to the high court states that whether marriage should be redefined to include same-sex couples is "a profoundly important question" and "a matter of great debate in our nation."
The appeal argues that individual states should be allowed to define marriage because the U.S. Constitution neither requires nor condemns gay marriage.
"Rather, it leaves the definition of marriage in the hands of the people, to be resolved through the democratic process in each state," the petition asserts.
Proposition 8, enacted by state voters in 2008, provides that "only marriage between a man and woman is valid or recognized in California."
It has been declared unconstitutional by a federal trial judge and a federal appeals court in San Francisco, but the measure has been left in place and same-sex marriages have been blocked during the appeals process.
The petition for a hearing before the high court was filed by the initiative's sponsors and their committee, Protect Marriage.
The Supreme Court is expected to decide this fall whether to take up the case. If it decides to hear the appeal, its decision would be expected by the end of June 2013.
If the panel does not take up the appeal, then a ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this year striking down Proposition 8
would become the final decision in the case, and same-sex weddings could resume.
Gay and lesbian marriages were briefly legal in California for several months in 2008 until voters approved Proposition 8 in November of that year. During that time, 18,000 same-sex couples married, and the California Supreme Court has ruled that those marriages remain valid.
The federal court rulings have been made in a federal civil rights lawsuit filed in 2009 by two same-sex couples.Julia Cheever, Bay City News — Bay City News Service Are you receiving Express, our free daily e-mail edition? See a sample and sign-up for Express.
|
|
| Comments
|
Posted by liberalism is a disease, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Aug 1, 2012 at 8:42 am
liberalism is a disease is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com It's way past the time when same sex partners create their own institution and call it whatever they want instead of trying to act like they will ever be the same as heterosexual, married couples. Separate, but equal?
|
|
Posted by Steve, a resident of the Parkside neighborhood, on Aug 1, 2012 at 8:57 am Your so right, Diseased. This country would be so much better if blacks would go back to wear they belong, women would recognize that their proper place is to serve there husbands, and gays would accept how their disease makes them less than equal.
|
|
Posted by liberalism is a disease, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Aug 1, 2012 at 10:08 am
liberalism is a disease is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com 'steve', you're certainly right on 2 of your three assertions. I'll let you guess which two. Hint: they both involve the word 'exit'.
|
|
Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore, on Aug 3, 2012 at 12:00 pm I say live 'n let live...HOORAY!
|
|
Posted by Ur a Bigot, a resident of the Canyon Meadows neighborhood, on Aug 4, 2012 at 10:48 pm liberalism is a disease is a member, ah geez, do you really think that "...same sex partners create their own institution" How about that hetros, like you and me, never created our "own institution"? Marriage was and is, an institutional concept.
|
|
|
| |
|
Send this story
Print this story
