Score one for Prop 8. Opponents of Proposition 8 asked the California Supreme Court to “stay” the enforcement of the measure while the Court considers the petition for a “writ of mandamus or prohibition” which, if granted, will nullify Proposition 8. In an order published yesterday, the Court denied the stay request, but granted the petitioners’ request for a hearing on the petition. Pacific Justice Institute summarizes:
The Court denied requests to stay enforcement of Prop. 8, meaning that the voters’ rejection of gay marriage will stand - at least for a few months. The Court has now requested briefing on three issues: whether Prop. 8 is a “revision” of the state constitution which cannot be achieved through the initiative process; whether Prop. 8 violates the “separation of powers;” and what effect Prop. 8 would have, if it is upheld, on the gay weddings performed before its adoption. The Court has asked for briefing from Attorney General Jerry Brown and the official proponents of Prop. 8 by December 19, with amicus briefs due on January 15. The Court will hear oral arguments sometime in early 2009.
For lay readers, an amicus brief is a wordy legal document advocating a particular view on the case or a point of law written by someone who has a special interest in the case but who is not technically a “party” to it. The word “amicus” is short for “amicus curiae“, which literally means “friend of the court.” As the case develops, we should expect to see the amicus briefs appear on the Court’s Prop 8 web page.
Which side “won” this first court battle? This was a significant, if temporary, victory for Prop 8. The Court could easily have stayed the measure and did not do so. But this was only one battle in what we should expect will be a long war.
It is a war as much for hearts and minds as for votes on the bench. Those who oppose Prop 8 are seeking to effect fundamental, far-reaching changes in the cultural and legal fabric of the United States. They seek to destroy religion and families in the United States just as effectively as did Marx and Lenin, in Russia. I believe that this is their ultimate objective. Militant homosexualism is a convenient tool for the purpose.
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
Doran, here is litigation that was published today that forced a Christian to alter his business to cater to gays, against his religious beliefs. eHarmony
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081119/us_nm/us_gay_marriage_eharmony;_ylt=Asm1Da9SCyIdvqD3j9l5_40EtbAF
Sorry the article does not have the actual court documents. You can look them up. I don’t have the time.
Thank you.
Some quick research will show this:
A civil rights violation compalint against eHarmony was filed in a State of New Jersey
agency; not with the feds and not in Court. The complainant alleged that eharmony was not providing dating services for men looking for men. eHarmony settled the complaint, before a hearing was actually held, by agreeing to provide a site for gay men. One of the reasons for settling was to avoid the uncertainties and expense of litigation.
A suit against eHarmony has been filed in California, by a female, alleging a similar form of discrimination. That suit is pending: the name of the suit is Carlson v. eHarmony.
Carlson v. eHarmon and the California suit in which the doctors were successfully sued for refusing artificial insemination to a lesbian — North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group, Inc. v. San Diego County Superior Court — have a significantly importan common thread, apart from the gay/lesbian similarity. Anyone care to guess what it is?
Here is the kind of question law students have to deal with: In both these cases, if the religious beliefs of the Christians involved affected obese persons — that is, if eHarmony refused to provide a dating service for people who are not HW proportional, and the doctors refused to articifically inseminate women for the same reason — what should the outcome of the suit be? Explain your decision.
Not comparable.
Lots of people will find it offensive to see obese people compared to homosexuals.
The comparison is valid only in that both groups have a choice: the first can lose weight, the other can become straight. It is done all the time. Both may have genetic propensities for their problem, but it is worth noting that the propensity for obesity appears to have more genetic components than homosexuality does — for which none have been found.
In the eHarmony question: Obese people are less likely than the norm to be healthy and as clients they would not be as marketable. They may expect to pay higher fees, although they have the option of losing weight instead of money.
However, unlike those who are same sex deviants, they are not engaged in sexual pursuits that run counter to God, counter to nature, and counter to the interests of society. And they are not major carriers of HIV/AIDS.
Suggest you choose another analogy.
Kleig, you miss the point. If a conservative Christian has the right to refuse service to gays, based on the Christian’s religious beliefs. then it must be the case that the same, or another, conservative Christian has the right to refuse service to the obese, based on the Christian’s religious beliefs.