U.S. Supreme Court Agrees To Hear
UPDATE: Multiple reactions now received, including Councilman Patrick O'Donnell; Ron Sylvester, President/Chairman of The Center; Ron Prentice of ProtectMarriage.com; CA Atty Gen'l Kamala Harris; Nat'l Organization for Marriage Chairman John Eastman; Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom
|(Dec. 7, 2:45 p.m.) -- Updated additional reaction to news that the U.S. Supreme Court will hear challenges to voter approved (Nov. 2008) Proposition 8 (defining marriage as between a man and a woman, barring same sex marriages) and Congressionally enacted Defense of Marriage Act (defines marriages as between man and woman for federal benefit purposes).
LBREPORT.com provides details below on how each Long Beach Council district voted on Prop 8.
Because there is no rational moral or legal basis to deny same-sex marriage, I look forward to the United States Supreme Court upholding the rights of two people who love each other to marry. To deny this right is to deny the principles of our Constitution.
CA Attorney Gen'l Kamala Harris
Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to consider marriage equality takes our nation one step closer to realizing the American ideal of equal protection under the law for all people. For justice to prevail, Proposition 8 must be invalidated so that gay and lesbian families are finally treated with equality and dignity.
We believe it is a strong signal that the Court will reverse the lower courts and uphold Proposition 8. That is the right outcome based on the law and based on the principle that voters hold the ultimate power over basic policy judgments and their decisions are entitled to respect...
Today marks the beginning of the end for a California journey that started eight years ago when San Francisco issued same-sex marriage licenses. By agreeing to hear the Proposition 8 case the U.S. Supreme Court could end, once and for all, marriage inequity in California.
(Dec. 7, 2012, FLASH, 12:10 p.m.) -- U.S. SUPREME COURT AGREES TO HEAR CHALLENGE TO CA'S PROP 8 IN WHICH A MAJORITY OF CA VOTERS IN 2008 DEFINED MARRIAGE AS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN, PRECLUDING SAME SEX MARRIAGE IN CA.
THE COURT WILL HEAR ARGUMENTS BY APRIL AND RULE BY JUNE 2013. ITS DECISION WILL LIKELY HAVE NATIONWIDE IMPLICATIONS...THE HIGH COURT COULD RULE (AMONG OTHER THINGS) THAT CA VOTERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFINE MARRIAGE AS THEY DID -- OR THE COURT MAY RULE THAT THERE'S A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO SAME SEX MARRIAGE UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION -- OR THE COURT COULD DECIDE THE CASES WITHOUT ADDRESSING THAT MAJOR CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE. A FEDERAL TRIAL COURT JUDGE AND TWO OF THREE MEMBERS OF A 9TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL PANEL HELD PROP 8 UNCONSTITUTIONAL O NGROUNDS IT DENIED SAME SEX COUPLES THE RIGHT TO MARRY WITHOUT ADEQUATE JUSTIFICATION, STOPPING SHORT OF ASSETING A RIGHT FOR SAME SEX COUPLES TO MARRY IN STATES WHERE SAME SEX MARRIAGES AREN'T RECOGNIZED.
A MAJORITY OF THE CA SUPREME COURT UPHELD PROP 8, WHICH LED OPPONENTS TO CHALLENGE THE MEASURE IN THE FED'L COURTS.
THE HIGH COURT ALSO AGREED TO HEAR CASES CHALLENGING THE FED'L (CONGRESSIONALLY ENACTED) DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT (DEFINING MARRIAGE AS BETWEEN A MAN AND WOMAN FOR FEDERAL BENEFIT PURPOSES), SIGNED INTO LAW BY PRESIDENT CLINTON.
REACTION IS BEING ADDED AS RECEIVED:
Prop 8 enacted a state constitutional amendment reversing a CA Supreme Court ruling
Prop 8 failed in LB citywide by a reversed margin: 47.5% yes, 52.5% no. Five of nine LB Council districts (5, 6, 7, 8 and 9) voted "yes" (in favor of Prop 8) but were outweighed by a more than two to one "no" votes in the 2nd Council district (69% "no" votes) and a large "no" vote in the 3rd Council district.
[Figures cited below are from day-after-election tally; final figures may differ slightly but not much].
Further to follow on LBREPORT.com.
Contact us: mail@LBReport.com
Hardwood Floor Specialists
Call (562) 422-2800 or (714) 836-7050
Contact us: mail@LBReport.com