www.ambiente.us DECEMBER | DICIEMBRE 2008
California revisará la prohibición del matrimonio gay
La Corte Suprema de California accedió a revisar la controvertida "Proposición 8" que apunta a una
prohibición del matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo.
El cuerpo judicial fijó una nueva audiencia para marzo del año próximo, de modo tal que defensores y
detractores puedan presentar más argumentos sobre sus respectivas posiciones, según reportó la agencia
DPA.
La "Proposición 8", que determina que el matrimonio en California sólo puede celebrarse entre un hombre y
una mujer, fue aprobada por 52 por ciento de los votos el 4 de noviembre último , durante las elecciones
presidenciales en las que además de nominar a Barack Obama como nuevo presidente se ponían en
discusión diversos referendos, entre ellos el matrimonio gay.
Los que se oponen a esta iniciativa recurrieron a la Corte argumentando que la prohibición es
anticonstitucional porque es discriminatoria con base en preferencias sexuales.Las organizaciones de
defensa de los derechos de homosexuales indican que el contenido de la "Proposición 8" sólo puede ser
aplicado tras aprobación de dos tercios de la Legislatura local o mediante una convención estadual
constitucional.
Hasta que se resuelva el caso, los matrimonios entre personas del mismo sexo quedan prohibidos en
California.
California Supreme Court will hear Prop 8 arguments
by Chris Johnson
The California Supreme Court today denied requests to stay the enforcement or implementation of
Proposition 8, and at the same time agreed to decide several issues arising out of the passage of
Proposition 8.
The court’s order, issued in the first three cases that had been filed directly in the state’s highest court
challenging the validity of Proposition 8, directed the parties to brief and argue three issues:
(1) Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California
Constitution?
(2) Does Proposition 8 violate the separation-of-powers doctrine under the California Constitution?
(3) If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples
performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?
The court issued its order in three cases filed on behalf of a variety of parties, including same-sex couples
who seek to enter into marriage despite the passage of Proposition 8, a same-sex couple who married in
California prior to the adoption of Proposition 8, and a number of cities and counties whose officials seek to
issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Petitioners in each of these cases seek an order directing the
relevant state officials to refrain from implementing, enforcing, or applying Proposition 8.
In response to the petitions, the Attorney General filed a preliminary opposition, in which he urged the court to
assume jurisdiction over these cases to decide the important legal issues presented, but also argued that
the court should not stay the operation of Proposition 8 pending the court’s resolution of the issues. The
proponents of Proposition 8 also responded to the petitions, seeking to intervene as formal parties in the
action and also urging the court to accept the cases for decision. The court’s order granted the motion to
intervene filed by the proponents of Proposition 8.
In its order, the court established an expedited briefing schedule, under which briefing will be completed in
January 2009 and oral argument potentially could be held as early as March 2009.
Six justices — Chief Justice Ronald M. George, Justice Marvin R. Baxter, Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar,
Justice Ming W. Chin, Justice Carlos R. Moreno, and Justice Carol A. Corrigan — signed the court’s order,
although Justice Moreno indicated that he would grant the requests to stay the operation of Proposition 8
pending the court’s resolution of these matters.
Justice Joyce L. Kennard would deny these petitions without prejudice to the filing in the Supreme Court of an
appropriate action to determine Proposition 8’s effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples
performed before Proposition 8’s adoption.
Copyright © AMBIENTE MAGAZINE. Do not reproduce without citing this source.
California revisará la prohibición del matrimonio gay
La Corte Suprema de California accedió a revisar la controvertida "Proposición 8" que apunta a una
prohibición del matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo.
El cuerpo judicial fijó una nueva audiencia para marzo del año próximo, de modo tal que defensores y
detractores puedan presentar más argumentos sobre sus respectivas posiciones, según reportó la agencia
DPA.
La "Proposición 8", que determina que el matrimonio en California sólo puede celebrarse entre un hombre y
una mujer, fue aprobada por 52 por ciento de los votos el 4 de noviembre último , durante las elecciones
presidenciales en las que además de nominar a Barack Obama como nuevo presidente se ponían en
discusión diversos referendos, entre ellos el matrimonio gay.
Los que se oponen a esta iniciativa recurrieron a la Corte argumentando que la prohibición es
anticonstitucional porque es discriminatoria con base en preferencias sexuales.Las organizaciones de
defensa de los derechos de homosexuales indican que el contenido de la "Proposición 8" sólo puede ser
aplicado tras aprobación de dos tercios de la Legislatura local o mediante una convención estadual
constitucional.
Hasta que se resuelva el caso, los matrimonios entre personas del mismo sexo quedan prohibidos en
California.
California Supreme Court will hear Prop 8 arguments
by Chris Johnson
The California Supreme Court today denied requests to stay the enforcement or implementation of
Proposition 8, and at the same time agreed to decide several issues arising out of the passage of
Proposition 8.
The court’s order, issued in the first three cases that had been filed directly in the state’s highest court
challenging the validity of Proposition 8, directed the parties to brief and argue three issues:
(1) Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California
Constitution?
(2) Does Proposition 8 violate the separation-of-powers doctrine under the California Constitution?
(3) If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples
performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?
The court issued its order in three cases filed on behalf of a variety of parties, including same-sex couples
who seek to enter into marriage despite the passage of Proposition 8, a same-sex couple who married in
California prior to the adoption of Proposition 8, and a number of cities and counties whose officials seek to
issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Petitioners in each of these cases seek an order directing the
relevant state officials to refrain from implementing, enforcing, or applying Proposition 8.
In response to the petitions, the Attorney General filed a preliminary opposition, in which he urged the court to
assume jurisdiction over these cases to decide the important legal issues presented, but also argued that
the court should not stay the operation of Proposition 8 pending the court’s resolution of the issues. The
proponents of Proposition 8 also responded to the petitions, seeking to intervene as formal parties in the
action and also urging the court to accept the cases for decision. The court’s order granted the motion to
intervene filed by the proponents of Proposition 8.
In its order, the court established an expedited briefing schedule, under which briefing will be completed in
January 2009 and oral argument potentially could be held as early as March 2009.
Six justices — Chief Justice Ronald M. George, Justice Marvin R. Baxter, Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar,
Justice Ming W. Chin, Justice Carlos R. Moreno, and Justice Carol A. Corrigan — signed the court’s order,
although Justice Moreno indicated that he would grant the requests to stay the operation of Proposition 8
pending the court’s resolution of these matters.
Justice Joyce L. Kennard would deny these petitions without prejudice to the filing in the Supreme Court of an
appropriate action to determine Proposition 8’s effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples
performed before Proposition 8’s adoption.
Copyright © AMBIENTE MAGAZINE. Do not reproduce without citing this source.
| RESIDENTIAL COMMERICAL Licensed Across Florida CGC060449 dructorbuilds.com 305-401-8914 |
| GAY & LESBIAN ALLIANCE AGAINST DEFAMATION WWW.GLAAD.ORG |
| Gay American Heroes Foundation Honoring LGBT persons who died because of their sexual orientation and gender identity www.gayamericanheroes.com |
| Web resource for LGBTQ youth www.matthewsplace.com |
| www.familiasporladiversidad.org |
| .Fresh-Squeezed Paradise MIAMI RIVER INN miamiriverinn.com |
| . 70's Inspired Purses & accessories GLOSSgear.com |
| People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals www.peta.org |