Connect with us

California

Editorial: California voters should protect same-sex marriage from U.S. Supreme Court assault

Published

on

Editorial: California voters should protect same-sex marriage from U.S. Supreme Court assault


No one, regardless of sexual orientation, should be deprived of the ability to marry the person they love.

That might seem like a fundamental and bedrock idea, but for California and the nation, it’s relatively new. And, unfortunately, there is no assurance the U.S. Supreme Court will remain on board.

That’s why voters in California’s Nov. 5 election must pass Proposition 3, which would update the state Constitution to match the mores of the 21st century.

The growth in national public support and legal protections for gay marriage over the past quarter century has been monumental.

Advertisement

Just 24 years ago, 62% of state voters approved Proposition 22, which affirmed in state law that only marriage between a man and a woman would be valid or recognized in California.

That was upended in May 2008, when the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples had a fundamental right under the state Constitution to marry.

But later that year, 52% of California voters supported an initiative, Proposition 8, that added a ban on same-sex marriage to the state Constitution.

That was overturned with U.S. Supreme Court rulings in 2013 and 2015 that cleared the way for gay marriage in California and established a federal constitutional right nationwide.

Regrettably, that might not be the final word. The narrow 5-4 ruling in 2015 could be in danger with the conservative shift of the high court. Of the five justices in the majority nine years ago, only two, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, remain on the court today.

Advertisement

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who today is considered one of the more moderate members of the court, dissented in the 2015 ruling. And, in the court’s 2022 ruling overturning constitutional protections for abortion rights, Justice Clarence Thomas issued a concurring opinion arguing that gay rights should also be subject to state-by-state review.

Thus, there is no guarantee that gay-marriage protections would survive review of the current U.S. Supreme Court any better than abortion rights did. Once again, a key issue of personal liberty could be relegated to each state to decide.

Making matters worse, right now in California, the 2008 wording of Proposition 8, even though struck down by the courts, remains in the state Constitution. Proposition 3 would fix that, repealing Proposition 8 and recognizing the fundamental right to marry, regardless of race or sex.

Proposition 3 would ensure California’s Constitution keeps up with changing public sentiment. In 2000, 38% of likely voters surveyed by the Public Policy Institute of California said they supported gay marriage. By last year that support had doubled, to 75%.

In polling this year for the Los Angeles Times, 71% of adults nationwide and 72% of Californians said that the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in all states should be left intact.

Advertisement

There’s no guarantee that will happen. Californians should inoculate the state against a federal reversal of same-sex marriage rights by passing Proposition 3.

Originally Published:



Source link

California

California bill to bar police from taking second job with ICE advances in state Assembly

Published

on

California bill to bar police from taking second job with ICE advances in state Assembly


Wednesday, March 4, 2026 4:43AM

CA bill to keep police from moonlighting with ICE advances

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (KABC) — A bill that would prevent police officers from moonlighting with federal immigration enforcement agencies, such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is advancing through the California State Assembly.

AB 1537 passed the State Assembly’s committee on public safety on Tuesday.

The bill also requires that officers report any offers for secondary employment related to immigration enforcement to their place of work.

Those failing to comply could face decertification as a peace officer in California.

Advertisement

The bill was introduced by Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, whose district includes Mar Vista, Ladera Heights, Mid-Wilshire and parts of South Los Angeles.

Copyright © 2026 KABC Television, LLC. All rights reserved.



Source link

Continue Reading

California

Can’t win in primary election? Drop out, California Democrats say

Published

on

Can’t win in primary election? Drop out, California Democrats say


play

California Democrats running for governor, your party has a message for you. Think carefully about your candidacy and campaign ahead of the swiftly approaching filing deadline.

California Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hicks urged candidates looking to assume the state’s highest office to “honestly assess the viability of their candidacy and campaign” as March 6, the final day to declare candidacy, nears. Hicks said that concerns about the crowded field of Democrat candidates “persist” in an open letter on Tuesday, March 3.

Advertisement

It comes as five leading candidates, several of which are Democrats — Katie Porter, Eric Swalwell, and Tom Steyer — are in a “virtual tie” per a recent poll, the Desert Sun reported, which is part of the USA TODAY Network.

Two Republican candidates pushing out California democrats in the gubernatorial bid may be “implausible,” but “it is not impossible,” Hicks said of the reasoning behind his latest message. Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, both Republicans, lead in RealClear Polling’s average of various polls.

The party chair spotlighted the need for California Democrats’ leadership, particularly over Proposition 50, the voter-approved measure that will temporarily implement new congressional district maps, paving the way for Democrats to secure more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

“If in the unlikely event a Democrat failed to proceed to the general election for governor, there could be the potential for depressed Democratic turnout in California in November,” Hicks said. “The result would present a real risk to winning the congressional seats required and imperil Democrats’ chances to retake the House, cut Donald Trump’s term in half, and spare our nation from the pain many have endured since January 2025.”

Advertisement

During a press conference on March 2, Gov. Gavin Newsom said that when he is out in communities, people aren’t talking about the governor’s race. It’s an observation he called “interesting,” considering voting in the primary election starts in May.

“It’s been hard, I think, to focus on that race,” Newsom said, pointing to the attention on President Donald Trump, redistricting, and other matters.

What exactly is California Democratic Party asking of candidates?

In his open letter, Hicks gave directions to candidates.

First, assess your candidacy and campaign. If you don’t have a viable path to the general election, don’t file to get your name on the ballot for the primary election in June. Also, be prepared to suspend your campaign and endorse another candidate by April 15 if you decide to file but can’t show “meaningful progress towards winning the primary election.”

Advertisement

When is the next California election? Primary election in 2026

California voters will trim the field of candidates for governor on June 2. Only the two candidates who receive the most votes, regardless of party preference, will move on to the November election.  

Paris Barraza is a reporter covering Los Angeles and Southern California for the USA TODAY Network. Reach her at pbarraza@usatodayco.com.



Source link

Continue Reading

California

Supreme Court blocks California law limiting schools from telling parents about trans students

Published

on

Supreme Court blocks California law limiting schools from telling parents about trans students


The U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily blocked a California law that limited when schools could require staff to disclose a student’s gender identity, clearing the way for schools to tell parents if their children identify as transgender without getting the students’ approval.

Rear view of multiracial students with hands raised in classroom at high school

The decision came after religious parents and educators, represented by the Thomas More Society, challenged California school policies aimed at preventing staff from disclosing a student’s gender identity.

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean and professor of law at the University of California Berkeley School of Law, said the ruling favors parents’ ability to be informed. “The Supreme Court today rules in favor of the claim of parents to be able to know the gender identity and gender pronoun of the children,” Chemerinsky said.

Advertisement
FILE:{ }transgender flag against blue sky background { }(Photo: AdobeStock)

FILE:{ }transgender flag against blue sky background { }(Photo: AdobeStock)

The decision temporarily blocks a state law that bans automatic parental notification requirements if students change their pronouns or gender expression at school. The Thomas More Society called the decision a major victory for parents, saying the court found California’s policy likely violates constitutional rights.

Chemerinsky said the Supreme Court’s action is an emergency ruling. “This law is now put on hold. So what this means is that schools can require that teachers and other staff inform parents of the gender identity or gender pronouns of children,” he said.

scotus.PNG

Kathie Moehlig, founder and executive director of Trans Family Support Services, said she is concerned about how the ruling could affect students who do not have supportive families.

“I am really concerned about our kids that do come from these non affirming homes, that they know that they’re going to get in trouble, that they’re going to possibly have violence brought against them possibly kicked out of their homes,” Moehlig said.

Moehlig said parents should eventually know, but that the conversation should happen when a student feels safe. “Our students are going to be less inclined to confide in any adults that might be able to help to get them access to mental healthcare, to a support system. They may still tell their peers but they’re certainly not going to tell any other adult,” she said.

Advertisement

Equality California, a LGBTQ+ civil rights organization, shared a statement:

Equality California, the nation’s largest statewide LGBTQ+ civil rights organization, released the following statement from Executive Director Tony Hoang in response to today’s U.S. Supreme Court shadow docket ruling in Mirabelli v. Bonta regarding California’s student privacy protections for transgender youth. Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in this case is deeply disturbing. By stepping in on an emergency basis, the Court has effectively upended California’s student privacy protections without hearing full arguments and before the judicial process has run its course. While not surprising, this move reflects a dangerous willingness to short-circuit the established judicial process to dismantle protections for transgender youth. While this case continues to be litigated, the ruling revives Judge Benitez’s prior decision, which broadly targets numerous California laws protecting transgender and gender-nonconforming students — threatening critical safeguards that prevent forced outing and allow educators to respect a student’s affirmed name and pronouns at school. These protections exist for one reason: to keep students safe and ensure schools remain places where young people can learn and thrive without fear. To be clear: today’s decision does not impact California’s SAFETY Act, which prohibits school districts from adopting policies that forcibly out transgender students. The SAFETY Act remains in full effect, and we will continue defending it. Transgender youth deserve dignity, safety, and the freedom to learn without fear. We will never stop fighting for transgender youth and their families. Equality California will continue working with parents, educators, and advocates to ensure schools remain safe, welcoming, and focused on the success and well-being of every student.

The case now returns to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which will decide whether the California law is constitutional.



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending