The California Supreme Court is now hearing oral arguments on overturning Proposition 8. The hearing began this hour at 9am local time, noon on the East Coast.
The live telecast is available on the California Channel, but there are warning posted about heavy traffic. Live webstreams are available on CNN and San Francisco's CBS station, among others.
Arguing against the ban will be Shannon Minter, the National Center for Lesbian Rights attorney who successfully argued the gay marriage case before the high court. The NCLR is joined by the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal, who filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the voter-approved amendment. The cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles also joined the case and a legal opinion by California Attorney General Jerry Brown.
Pepperdine University Law School Dean Kenneth Starr will argue in
defense of Proposition 8 and on behalf of the measure's sponsors.
Starr is a former U.S. solicitor general and the former independent counsel
who investigated President Bill Clinton.
MSNBC also is streaming and there seems to be no long wait to view. Just and FYI
Posted by: keith | 05 March 2009 at 12:53
I meant to say there is not a long wait to view the stream on MSNBC.
Posted by: keith | 05 March 2009 at 12:54
I'm watching it now, thanks!
Do you think we will get a ruling today? Or some indication how they will rule? I hope so!
Posted by: Marcus | 05 March 2009 at 13:01
sorry marcus. we may not have a ruling until june. let's hope it's the outcome we want.
Posted by: FREELEO | 05 March 2009 at 13:08
Ken Starr is arguing now. What a smarmy self righteous ... well lemme not say anymore.
Posted by: Willie | 05 March 2009 at 13:10
Starr is very smooth and good with his $100 words. That is why the right wing loves using him, he doesn't come across as the face of a bigot. But all the smooth talking in the world can't gloss over a weak argument.
Posted by: Marshall | 05 March 2009 at 13:19
A ruling will happen within 90 days.
But don't hold your breath--our case is very weak, which was fairly obvious when the assistant Attorney General of California stuttered through his arguments today.
With all due respect, Willie and Marshall, Ken Starr might have a horrible past and a reputation for dogging Clinton, and he might be smooth, but frankly he's got an easier case to make. It is unfortunate that California's constitution is so easy to ammend (ballot measure, simple majority). It has been ammended over 500 times in the history of the state. Fair or not, that's the law.
The upside is we are just as able to ammend it our way, if we get our sh*t together, make a better case than the Anti-Prop folks did the first time around (how about better outreach to churches and "minority" communities this time?) and win fair-and-square.
Should rights be put up for a vote? Of course not. Is it an expensive pain? Yes. But it would be a more legitimate way to right a wrong than asking the California Supreme Court to make an exception to the rule of law.
I'm hoping I'm wrong, but based on what we saw today, I'm bracing for a ruling against us--or worse, a bizarre "compromise" where the existing marriages will stand, but no new marriages will be allowed. That will be a legal Twilight Zone.
Posted by: Andy Niable | 05 March 2009 at 16:25