Iowa Supreme Court Ruling Expected this Morning

A long awaited Iowa Supreme Court case ruling on same-sex marriage will be released this morning, likely at 8:30 a.m.

The case, Varnum vs. Brien, involves six same-sex Iowa couples who sued Polk County Recorder Timothy Brien in 2005, after his office denied them marriage licenses. Polk County District Judge Robert Hanson sided with the couples in a ruling last year, but he suspended his decision until the high court speaks.

We will update everyone here as soon as the ruling is released.

California Supreme Court to Hear Prop 8 Oral Arguments Today

From the LA Times
The California Supreme Court will hear arguments today on whether Proposition 8, the anti-gay- marriage initiative, should be upheld and if so, whether the marriages of an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples should remain valid.

During a three-hour televised hearing this morning, the San Francisco-based high court will examine whether the November ballot measure was an impermissible constitutional revision or a more limited constitutional amendment.

The court will need to decide the fate of existing same-sex marriages only if it is prepared to uphold Proposition 8, which many legal analysts believe is likely.

Rest of the Story

OTHER HEADLINES
March in the Castro on eve of Prop. 8 hearing (San Francisco Chronicle)
California court to decide legality of same-sex marriage ban (CNN)
California Court to Weigh Gay Marriage Ban (NY Times)
Proposition 8’s Same-Sex Marriage Ban Goes to California’s Supreme Court (NCLR Blog)

California Sup. Court to Hear Prop 8 Oral Arguments March 5th

California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments about the status of same-sex marriages performed prior to Prop 8’s passage and about the constitutionality of Prop 8 itself. Additionally, according to California law the Supreme Count must issue its decisions within 90 days of when oral arguments take place. Hopefully the spring will bring good news for Californian couples and the country. From the National Center for Lesbian Rights and Lambda Legal:

The California Supreme Court announced today that it will hear oral arguments on Thursday, March 5, 2009 in the Proposition 8 legal challenge. The National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU-with support from civil rights groups, religious organizations, labor unions, and legal scholars-argue that Proposition 8 is invalid because the people of California have established strict safeguards that prohibit the underlying principles of the California Constitution from being changed by a simple majority vote. By taking away a right only from one group, Proposition 8 violates the most basic principle of our government: that all people are entitled to equal treatment under the law.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown is also asking the Court to invalidate Proposition 8 on the ground that certain fundamental rights, including the right to marry, are inalienable and can not be put up for a popular vote. On November 10, 2008, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger stated that he hoped the Court would overturn Proposition 8. On CNN, he said of Proposition 8’s passage, “It’s unfortunate, obviously, but it’s not the end, I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area.”

To see details about the case, Strauss et al. v. Horton et al. (#S168047), and the list of Amicus Curiae Briefs check out the California Courts page on Prop 8.

California Courts Press Release

Civil Rights Groups, including the NAACP, petition for overturn of Prop 8

Earlier this week the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund, the Asian Pacific American Legal Center and two other groups petitioned the California State Supreme Court to prevent Proposition 8 from taking effect. They join a number of other groups, posted below, who have filed.

These minority groups are offering a much needed new perspective on this law. They are concerned that prop 8 sets a precedent that could be used to undermine the rights of racial minorities as it has opened the door to voting on issues effect a minority, especially those issue that not always favored by the majority.

Eva Paterson, president of the San Francisco-based Equal Justice Society, said the election raises the specter of voters deciding to bar illegal immigrants from public schools, disenfranchising black voters or otherwise using the ballot box to promote segregation.

“The court ruled that to discriminate in the area of same-sex marriage was unconstitutional and violated our guaranteed equality,” Paterson said. “Why should a slim majority of Californians be able to put discrimination back into the California Constitution?”

Republic of T sums it up well:

Remember that we used to live in a country where civil rights weren’t decided by majority vote. Remember that we used to live in a country whose founding documents cite “inallienable rights.” Remember that we’re may not be living in that country anymore, and even if your rights were not up for a vote this time around, they are almost certain on someone’s hit list.

Other Cases to Date (PDF’s of Filings linked)
• Karen Strauss, et al. – This case is brought by Equality California and a group of gay couples who want to marry but now can’t.
• Tyler, et al. - This case is brought by a lesbian couple who were both parties to the original In Re Marriage case and who are already married, plus the public in general.
• San Francisco, Santa Clara and Los Angeles
• Equal Rights Advocates and California Women’s Law Center
• California Council of Churches

list via examiner.com