COVERITLIVE.COM

12:00

William Osborne - Good afternoon and welcome. I am Bill Osborne, senior editor of the editorial and opinion pages here at the U-T. I'd like to take your questions on the recent state Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage, the seals at Children's Pool beach in La Jolla, or whatever else is on your mind. Fire away.

12:05

[Comment From Guest]
Good afternoon Mr. Osborne:

12:05

William Osborne -

Hi there. What's on your mind today?

12:07

[Comment From Guest]
In your opinion, how long will it be until same-sex marriage will be completely legal in California? Basically at a point when it the work to make it illegal stops. Gays have been trying to get equal rights since the 70s. How long is too long?

12:09

William Osborne - I believe there is a better-than-fair possibility that a ballot initiative overturning Proposition 8 and legalizing same-sex marriage would pass in California next year if it gets on the ballot again. But that hardly means the end of the issue. As you know, it is extremely divisive, and will likely continue to be for some time to come.

12:10

[Comment From Guest]
I am concerned with the lack of scientific basis for the theory of man caused global warning and the consequent empasis on wind and solar energy as viable replacement energy sources for an industrialized nation. What research has the U-T done on these questions?

12:12

William Osborne - Well, the U-T is a newspaper and does not conduct scientific research. But members of the editorial board do try to stay as current as possible on the state of the science. Among mainstream scientists, including those in the previous administration of President Bush, there was no doubt that global warming is caused at least in part by man's activities. The question, and the real disagreement, is what to do about it.

12:14

SignOnLiveChatModerator -

In Feb. 2008 the U-T held a special Opinion chat about climate change with UCSD professor Jeff Severinghaus. If you'd like to read it, visit http://tinyurl.com/q75xmg

12:15

SignOnLiveChatModerator - William, going back to the subject of Prop. 8. What was the opinion of the U-T Editorial Board on the Supreme Court's ruling to uphold the vote but keep all same-sex marriages performed before Prop. 8 passed valid?

12:21

William Osborne - We published an editorial the morning after the court's ruling. It said that, while we support same-sex marriage and believe that it will be legal in California some day, we thought the ruling was legally correct. And not, that is not a contradiction. It is critical to remember that the Supreme Court was not ruling on the legal validity of gay marriage. Rather, it was ruling on the narrowly focused question of whether Proposition 8 was a simple amendment to the state constitution, or whether it was a substantial revision to the constitution. If it was simply an amendment, then it could be approved by a majority of voters. If a revision, then it would have first required a 2/3 vote of the Legislature. The court, with many, many cases of precedent, ruled it was an amendment. At the same time, it ruled that gay marriages performed during the months when same-sex marriage was legal, could stand. Awkward, but legally correct, in our view.

12:24

SignOnLiveChatModerator - William, what are the implications of this vote to the state constitution's guarantee of equal protection? Some have charged that the court's ruling guts that protection and puts all minority rights up to the whim of voters.

12:25

William Osborne - I might add that our editorial also stated that we were troubled by two aspects of the ruling: one, that it in essence allowed a majority of voters to take away a right of a minority, and two, the awkwardness of having marriage legal for heterosexuals, illegal for homosexuals, and then the 18,000 legal gay marriages.

12:27

William Osborne - The state constitution does guarantee equal protection, and it's ruling of May 2008, which made gay marriage legal until Prop. 8 was passed, was based on the equal protection clause. Again, remember that that was not the issue before the court this time. The legal conflict remains.

12:31

[Comment From C. K. Soppet]
Having read the cited chat on global warming, it might be usefull to your readers to chat with one of the many qualified climate scientists who do not agree with the Professor.

12:32

SignOnLiveChatModerator -

Thank you for the suggestion. We'll consider it.

12:32

SignOnLiveChatModerator - William, right now the state's marriage laws apply differently to three groups of people. The first group, heterosexuals, can legally marry. The second group, gays who married before Prop. 8 passed, remain legally married. The third group, gay people who are not currently married cannot legally enter wedlock. Also, if I'm not mistaken, the court ruled that homosexuals are a protected class, similar to other protected minority groups. Do these contradictions set Prop. 8 up for a challenge in Federal court on the basis of the U.S. Constitution's equal protection guarantees?

12:35

William Osborne - Yes, it does set things up for a challenge in the federal courts. I think that is inevitable. It's interesting that many, though certainly not all, same-sex marriage advocates, have tried to keep the issue out of the federal courts in fear that the U.S. Supreme Court will rule against gay marriage, setting things back for decades. I think that is a legitimate concern, but it will end up before the U.S. Supreme Court eventually.

12:38

SignOnLiveChatModerator -

William, moving to the seals in La Jolla. How should the city handle the removal of the seals? Or, is the city stalling while hoping the Legislature changes the law regarding the disputed beach the seals are now occupying?

12:41

William Osborne -

In our view, the city should allow the seals to what the seals want to do. The city's proposed plan for dispersing them was absurd, and absurdly expensive. I do think the city was also stalling in hopes the Legislature will pass Sen. Kehoe's bill, and hoping for a federal court reaffirmation of its order that the seals not be dispersed. That federal court action has now come. But the story will go on and on...

12:43

[Comment From C. K. Soppet]
Emotions aside, how can a ruling on the constitutionality of an issue be a setback?

Page 1 Next >