Tag Archives: California Constitution

Articles of Interest

Is Defining Marriage The Court’s Job?

Leave a comment

By Chris Enloe

Hyundai-HND-9-Coupe-concept-front-three-quarters-view

This past week, the Supreme Court was busy hearing two cases concerning the legality of same-sex marriage in the United States. No decision is likely to be made until the court takes their recess sometime in late June.

Many think that the court is going to make a wide, sweeping decision, declaring that same-sex marriage is legal. But is that really the court’s job?

The court’s job is to interpret the Constitution and our laws and to make sure the latter aligns with our founding document. However, the court has been more “judicially active” in the past few decades, meaning they have been legislating from the bench – which isn’t their job.

The fact that one of these cases, the Proposition 8 case from California, is even being heard is complete blasphemy. During the 2008 California State elections, Proposition 8 was a proposition on the ballot to amend the California Constitution by defining marriage in their state as “between a man and a woman.”

In 2008, the people of California spoke, saying that they want marriage in their state to be only between a man and a woman, not a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

Of course, soon after the people spoke, litigation was filed; and in 2010 in a district court, the law was ruled unconstitutional. Again in 2012, the very liberal Ninth-circuit court of appeals upheld the lower court’s decision, ruling that the law is unconstitutional under Due Process and the Equal Protection Clauses in the Constitution.

I do not believe that these two court rulings could be more wrong.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution expressly enumerates the powers that are given to the federal government. The 10th Amendment says that any power not enumerated to the federal government is reserved to the states.

Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to regulate marriage. That is a power that is reserved to each individual state.

If the people of a state decide to not allow same-sex marriage, then that is perfectly okay! The same goes for any state that wants to allow same-sex marriage; it would be perfectly okay for the people of a state to allow same-sex marriage because that is their reserved power.

It is completely wrong and unconstitutional for our federal government to overstep their bounds and arrogantly believe that it is their duty to define what marriage is.

Frankly, that isn’t the government’s job at all. Marriage is purely a religious institution; and the government, on any level, should not be regulating this ageless and sacred practice.

However, I know the inevitable is for the court to throw out a decision either for or against.

Firstly, they should look at marriage under the scope of “Is it a fundamental right, or isn’t it?” If they believe it is, what are the reasonable restrictions that can be placed on it? Would marriage in the cases of incest or polygamy be okay?

These are questions that are going to have to be asked and answered before any decision can …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

News, Politics, Government

Challenges to Same Sex Marriages Now At Supreme Court

Leave a comment

By Kelly Phillips Erb, Contributor

On December 11, 2012, I posted the piece that follows about the Supreme Court‘s grant of cert to hear cases on same sex marriages. I’ve often said that I thought the arguments would come down to financial and tax matters and, at least as it applies to DOMA, that’s the case. Since these cases are at the Supreme Court this week, I’ve been asked a lot of questions about why the cases are at the Supreme Court level, why they matter and what it all might mean. I’m posting that December article again, in its entirety, without edits. I have not annotated the article to reflect the current arguments (though I am reading the Prop 8 transcript today). I plan to do an update but for now, here’s your quick primer: On Friday, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari on two same sex marriage cases. Those cases include Hollingsworth v. Perry, a challenge to California’s controversial Proposition 8 measure, and a case out of New York, U.S. v Windsor, which considers the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). As noted on the blog before, lawyers and judges like to use Latin. So here’s a quick primer: granting certiorari (or “granting cert” for the really cool hipster lawyers) means that the Supreme Court will hear the matter. Some cases have what’s called “original jurisdiction” in the Supreme Court; those cases, which are defined by statute (28 U.S.C. § 1251) go straight to the Supreme Court. The typical case associated with original jurisdiction would be a dispute between the states. Most cases, however, don’t go that route. To be heard at the Supreme Court level without having original jurisdiction requires the losing party at the appellate level to file a petition seeking a review of the case. If the Supreme Court grants the petition and decides to hear the matter, it’s called a writ of certiorari. And that’s what happened here. The two matters, Proposition 8 and defense of DOMA, feel interrelated since on a basic level, they both touch on same sex marriage. But on legal grounds, they’re very different. Proposition 8 was put on the ballot in California in 2008 (wow, was it really that long ago?) and added a new provision to the California Constitution which provided that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” In other words, it was a ban on same-sex marriage. The matter went to court and was initially upheld (though existing same-sex marriages were grandfathered). In 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker overturned Proposition 8 in Perry v. Schwarzenegger finding that the law violates same sex couples’ rights to equal protection and due process under the US Constitution. That decision was affirmed by appellate courts in 2012. I had a sense in 2010 – and I believe it to still be the case today – that even if the Supreme Court hears Proposition 8 (and now we know it will), …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Forbes Latest

News, Politics, Government

Woman fired from San Diego Christian College for premarital sex, lawsuit alleges

Leave a comment

A San Diego college employee is suing the school, alleging she was fired from her job for engaging in premarital sex.

Teri James says her employer, San Diego Christian College, wrongly terminated her after learning of her pregnancy, KGTV reported.

James, a financial aid specialist at the school, alleges “discrimination on account of gender, pregnancy and marital status.”

James’ attorney, Gloria Allred, says the woman’s then-boyfriend – who is now James’ husband – was treated very differently by the school.

Allred told KGTV that James’ husband was offered a job even though the school knew he fathered James’ baby.

School officials declined to comment to 10News, but said there is a covenant contract all job candidates sign before they are hired.

The contract, according to KGTV, in part, says “… sexually immoral behavior, including premarital sex, adultery, pornography and homosexuality …” are not allowed.

Allred said the school’s firing of her client “violates state law and the California Constitution, and discriminates against women.”

Click for more from 10News.

…read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox US News

News, Politics, Government

Christian school's lawsuit may test court ruling

Leave a comment

A lawsuit by a Southern California Christian school against two former teachers who refused to provide proof of their faith could pose one of the first court tests of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on religious freedom.

A legal expert said last year’s ruling that religious workers can’t sue for job discrimination never specified whether that includes teachers at religious schools.

Calvary Chapel of Thousand Oaks purchased Little Oaks School in 2009, and leaders told employees last year that they would need to provide a statement of faith and a reference from a pastor to renew their contracts.

The two teachers lost their jobs after refusing to provide the documents. After they threatened litigation, school leaders filed their own lawsuit in federal court in Ventura.

James A. Sonne, director of the Religious Liberty Clinic and a lecturer in law at Stanford University Law School, noted that the dispute comes just a year after the high court’s ruling in the case of the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School of Redford, Mich., which holds that religious workers can’t sue for job discrimination.

The court refused to specify in that ruling what constituted a religious worker, leaving teachers uncertain of their status under the law.

Sonne said the question remains whether teachers are performing “ministerial duties.”

“Churches have First Amendment rights to choose their ministers,” Sonne said. “The question is how does that apply outside the liturgical setting? The area where that will be played out is in the religious school context.”

The school and its owner say their right to hire teachers who share their beliefs is protected by the California Constitution, the U.S. Constitution’s right of the free exercise of religion, and civil rights laws.

The school is incorporated as a for-profit entity, but church leaders said the school is operated not as a profit-generating entity but as a spiritual arm of the church. About 130 students in preschool through fifth grade are taught there.

The teachers, Lynda Serrano and Mary Ellen Guevara, are citing the state’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, which prohibits religious discrimination with exemptions that do not include for-profit religious groups.

Sonne said a constitutional ruling under federal law would most likely trump a state provision, which may be the reason the church filed in federal court.

“We’re a Christian school,” the Rev. Rob McCoy, pastor of the church and headmaster of the school, told the Ventura County Star. “We were coming to the point where we were establishing a Christian curriculum. We wanted to make sure teachers subscribed to that faith.”

Serrano, once director of the preschool, had been with the school since 2006. Guevara was hired in 2011.

“They did not believe they should be required to obtain a pastoral reference in order to continue their employment,” their attorney, Dawn Coulson, wrote in a letter to church leaders.

The teachers lost their jobs. In the letter from Coulson, they said they were prepared to sue and were asking for $150,000 apiece from the school to settle the case.

Instead of settling, church and school leaders filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court, asking for an injunction that would prevent the teachers from filing their lawsuit in a different venue, the newspaper said. They wanted to make sure litigation took place in federal court.

Their suit names not only the two teachers but the law firm that represents them. It alleges the California Fair Employment and Housing Act is unconstitutional when used to restrict a religious school’s hiring practices, even if the group is for-profit.

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox US News