Today the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments on whether to uphold or strike down Proposition 8. As the hearings wore on it became increasing clear the court seems pre-disposed to letting Prop 8 stand, averse to going against the will of the people, no matter how egregious.

While in general valiantly argued, the case brought forward by AG Jerry Brown’s associate, Christopher Krueger, Senior Assistant AG, didn’t do the LGBT community any favors. Krueger seemed ill-prepared, and his arguments based on cases dating back to the 1800s and the concept of “natural law” didn’t impress the judges. At one point one judge tried to withdraw a question due a muddled answer. It seemed to dilute the arguments to overturn Prop 8 up to that point.

Below are couple of highlights from the hearings…

In this instance Ken Starr is asserting that the will of the voters should hold even when stripping away rights, provided they are well-informed and know what they are voting on. But unfortunately this wasn’t the case. A well-organized misinformation campaign orchestrated by the proponents of Prop 8, duped voters into believing gay marriage would be taught in schools, that it would harm their children and families, and make religious institutions vulnerable to lawsuits. All categorically untrue. In the end we had an electorate, many misinformed and misled, strip away the civil rights of a protected minority.

The court however appears reluctant to invalidate the existing 18,000 same-sex marriages as evidenced below.

It’s interesting that Ken Starr makes a point that Prop 8 doesn’t invalidate the marriages, he simply believes that they are made unrecognized and invalid.

Sorry but, WTF is the difference? Associate Justice Carol Corrigan response at the close of the clip is dead on.

The court will rule in 90 days or less. Regardless of the outcome, we should take to the streets, wether in victory, or take demand our civil rights.

Inspiring words from Cleve Jones, friend of Harvey Milk and advisor to the film Milk, speaks prior to the Eve of Equality march in San Francisco on March 4, 2009.

Hearings start at 9am PST this morning and can be seen online at the websites below:

SFGTV
The California Channel
SFist
Yes on Equality

Video clips will be posted here later today.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown, who has asked that the courts overturn Proposition 8, writes in the Huffington Post on the eve of the hearing.

The case touches the heart of our democracy and poses a profound question: can a bare majority of voters strip away an inalienable right through the initiative process? If so, what possible meaning does the word inalienable have?

…

Fundamental rights in California are recognized and protected by our constitution, which declares in Article I, Section 1 that “all people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights” and “among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.”

These fundamental premises of a free people were declared when the constitution was first adopted. The initiative process came much later in 1911, when the immediate concern was to give the people power over the railroads, which were seen as having a stranglehold over the legislature. In creating this initiative process, there was no discussion or any evidence of intent to permit a simple majority of voters to take away the pre-existing rights deemed inalienable by Article I.

In 2008, the California Supreme Court was faced with the question of how the values enshrined in Article I apply to same sex marriages. It concluded that the concept of “liberty” includes the right to form the enduring relationship called marriage and that no compelling interest justified denying this right to same sex couples. Just like the right to be free from discrimination in housing, citizens have the right to be free from discrimination in state-granted marriage licenses.

With this Supreme Court decision, same sex marriage has the protection of Article 1 and, like other inalienable rights, cannot be taken away by a popular vote — whether it be 52% (as was the case in Proposition 8 ) or 65% (as it was for Proposition 14).

I believe, therefore, the Court must conclude as I have that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional and should be stricken.

Oral arguments begin at 9am PST on Thursday, March 5, and can be viewed online here.

Meanwhile Catholics for the Common Good are urging their flock to pray and fast to uphold Proposition 8.

Vigils supporting marriage equality will be taking place throughout the state tonight. Visit www.eveofjustice.com for more information.

Psychologist Barry Schwartz explores the notion of “freedom of choice,” and makes a convincing case that having more choice ultimately makes us less happy.

Watching the clip might make you long for simpler times. Like Dana Carvey’s Grumpy Old Man character from SNL…

I’m oooooold! And I’m not happy! And I don’t like things now compared to the way they used to be. All this progress — phooey! In my day, we didn’t have these cash machines that would give you money when you needed it. There was only one bank in each state — it was open only one hour a year. And you’d get in line, seventeen miles long, and the line became an angry mob of people — fornicators and thieves, mutant children and circus freaks — and you waited for years and by the time you got to the teller, you were senile and arthritic and you couldn’t remember your own name. You were born, got in line, and ya died! And that’s the way it was and we liked it!

Then again… perhaps not. 🙂