Advertisement
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollectionsProposition
IN THE NEWS

Proposition

CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
June 28, 2013 | By Maura Dolan, Anthony York and Maria L. La Ganga
SAN FRANCISCO - Same-sex marriages in California resumed Friday when a federal appeals court lifted a hold on a 2010 injunction, sparking jubilation among gays and accusations of lawlessness from the supporters of Proposition 8. In a surprise action, a federal appeals court cleared the way, bypassing a normal waiting period and lifting a hold on a trial judge's order that declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional. The news came in a single, legalistic sentence Friday afternoon from the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Advertisement
NEWS
June 28, 2013 | By Karin Klein
The engagement of Kris Perry and Sandy Stier was both too dragged out and too uncertain, forced as they were to wait for same-sex marriage to be recognized again in the state of California. Good for the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for lifting its stay on such weddings, and congratulations to the newlyweds. Yes, ordinarily the court waits the 25 days for judgments from the U.S. Supreme Court to be finalized, but it doesn't have to. Nor should it have done so. The chances of the high court decision being reversed are well below minuscule.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
June 26, 2013 | By Anthony York
SACRAMENTO -- With a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the future of same-sex marriage expected as early as Wednesday morning, county clerks say they're prepared if same-sex unions in California are legalized. “We're pretty much ready to go,” said Cathy Darling Allen, the clerk for Shasta County and the head of the California Assn. of Clerks and Election officials. “In 2008, we had some assistance from the state Department of Public Health in making marriage license forms gender neutral.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
June 26, 2013 | By Maura Dolan
SAN FRANCISCO - The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on Proposition 8 will lead to same-sex weddings resuming in California in less than a month, officials said Wednesday, as disappointed backers of the marriage ban questioned whether to pursue a long-shot legal battle to limit the court's action. "After years of struggle, the U.S. Supreme Court today has made same-sex marriage a reality in California," Gov. Jerry Brown said. Before the weddings can take place, a federal appeals court must lift a hold on the original decision that struck down the voter-approved constitutional amendment.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
June 26, 2013 | George Skelton, Capitol Journal
SACRAMENTO - The way I read it, the Supreme Court concluded what increasing numbers of Californians have been saying: that opponents of same-sex marriage can't show any personal harm from two gay people exchanging vows. The justices wrote in legalese about court "standing," asserting that defendants of Proposition 8 could not prove "a personal and tangible harm" - a "personal, particularized injury" - if people of the same sex were allowed to officially marry. My late friend Bill from rural Taft used to say pretty much the same thing, if less eloquently.
NEWS
June 26, 2013 | By Karin Klein
Is this a victory? In a practical sense, it's tremendous news that the U.S. Supreme Court has paved the way for same-sex marriages to eventually resume in California. But as a statement of gay rights, the decision to return the case to the lower court means little. After state leaders refused to defend the law in court, a group of the measure's supporters took their place, but it was always doubtful whether they had legal standing to do so. As Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said, "We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to.” California is expected, after some more legal wrangling, to (finally)
NATIONAL
June 23, 2013 | By Timothy M. Phelps, Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON - Four years ago, during what one participant called a "cesspool" of controversy within the gay rights movement over how to respond to the passage of California's gay marriage ban, a lawsuit was filed in federal District Court in Oakland in near secrecy. When it was announced four days later after a long holiday weekend, the gay legal establishment responded with open dismay, fearing the risk from a case that could lead to an unfavorable ruling in the U.S. Supreme Court.
NEWS
June 21, 2013 | By Karin Klein
As the tension builds up to Monday's expected Supreme Court decision on Proposition 8, maybe the biggest anxiety producer of all is this possibility: What if we have to do it all over again? Many observers thought - though dependence on the line of questioning can be tricky - that the justices were neither inclined to rule that Proposition 8 was perfectly legal, nor that it violated such a large constitutional precept of equal protection that same-sex marriage must be allowed in all states.
NEWS
June 19, 2013 | By Robert Greene
The Times editorializes Wednesday against a portion of the state budget bill that would let cities, counties, school districts and other local government agencies decide for themselves whether to comply with the California Public Records Act. The Times' Anthony York details the ways in which the act has been useful to newspapers and, by extension, the public. See his story here . The state went through something quite similar last year with the Ralph M. Brown Act, which requires local governments to give public notice of their meetings, post agendas publicly and do their public business in actual, well, you know, public . The requirements to do all that notifying and posting and meeting was considered a state mandate on local governments, which means the state had to reimburse the locals for the costs.
NATIONAL
June 18, 2013 | By Maura Dolan, Los Angeles Times
SAN FRANCISCO - An Arizona law that denies immigrants who are in the country without legal permission the right to post bail for a wide array of felonies won approval Tuesday from a divided federal appeals court. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decided 2 to 1 to uphold Arizona's Proposition 100, a 2006 ballot measure that voters approved 78% to 22% as a state constitutional amendment to create bail exceptions for immigrants who lack authorization. Two immigrants who were denied bail under the law challenged it in a class-action lawsuit.
Los Angeles Times Articles
|