Wednesday, November 19, 2008

CA Supreme Court to hear Prop. 8 lawsuits

BREAKING NEWS ALERT - Wow, it sure didn't take long for the No on 8'ers to force their cases to the state Supreme Court, did it?

The Associated Press's Lisa Leff reports:

SAN FRANCISCO – California's highest court agreed Wednesday to hear several legal challenges to the state's new ban on same-sex marriage but refused to allow gay couples to resume marrying before it rules.

The California Supreme Court accepted three lawsuits seeking to nullify Proposition 8, a voter-approved constitutional amendment that overruled the court's decision in May that legalized gay marriage.

All three cases claim the measure abridges the civil rights of a vulnerable minority group. They argue that voters alone did not have the authority to enact such a significant constitutional change.

As is its custom when it takes up cases, the court elaborated little. However, the justices did say they want to address what effect, if any, a ruling upholding the amendment would have on the estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages that were sanctioned in California before election day.

Gay rights groups and local governments petitioning to overturn the ban were joined by the measure's sponsors and Attorney General Jerry Brown in urging the Supreme Court to consider whether Proposition 8 passes legal muster.

The initiative's opponents had also asked the court to grant a stay of the measure, which would have allowed gay marriages to begin again while the justices considered the cases. The court denied that request.

The justices directed Brown and lawyers for the Yes on 8 campaign to submit arguments by Dec. 19 on why the ballot initiative should not be nullified. It said lawyers for the plaintiffs, who include same-sex couples who did not wed before the election, must respond before Jan. 5.

Oral arguments could be scheduled as early as March, according to court spokeswoman Lynn Holton.

Both opponents and supporters of Proposition 8 expressed confidence Wednesday that their arguments would prevail.

But they also agreed that the cases present the court's seven justices — six of whom voted to review the challenges — with complex questions that have few precedents in state case law.

The lawsuits argue that voters improperly abrogated the judiciary's authority by stripping same-sex couples of the right to wed after the high court earlier ruled it was discriminatory to prohibit gay men and lesbians from marrying.

"If given effect, Proposition 8 would work a dramatic, substantive change to our Constitution's 'underlying principles' of individual on a scale and scope never previously condoned by this court," lawyers for the same-sex couples stated in their petition.

The measure represents such a sweeping change that it constitutes a constitutional revision as opposed to an amendment, the documents say. The distinction would have required the ban's backers to obtain approval from two-thirds of both houses of the California Legislature before submitting it to voters.

Over the past century, the California Supreme Court has heard nine cases challenging legislative acts or ballot initiatives as improper revisions. The court eventually invalidated three of the measures, according to the gay rights group Lambda Legal.

For more information go to


Dee said...

Hopefully the courts will respect the voice of the people. I mean, isn't this a democracy (aka, laws made by the voice of the people). If it gets struck down, perhaps this was just a chance for faithful Californians to show God where they stand.

Elder Maxwell gave an interesting devotional at BYU over 30 years ago called "Meeting the Challenges of Today." It's prophetic:

"But make no mistake about it, brothers and sisters; in the months and years ahead, events will require of each member that he or she decide whether or not he or she will follow the First Presidency. Members will find it more difficult to halt longer between two opinions (see 1 Kings 18:21)."


"Your discipleship may see the time come when religious convictions are heavily discounted. Resistance to abortion will soon be seen as primitive. Concern over the institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened."


"Before the ultimate victory of the forces of righteousness, some skirmishes will be lost. Even these, however, must leave a record so that the choices before the people are clear and let others do as they will in the face of prophetic counsel. There will also be times, happily, when a minor defeat seems probable, that others will step forward, having been rallied to righteousness by what we do. We will know the joy, on occasion, of having awakened a slumbering majority of the decent people of all races and creeds--a majority which was, till then, unconscious of itself. "

Christa Jeanne said...

Great point, Dee - I have read and reread that talk so much recently because it's precisely what's happening today. It's so unbelievable - you always figure "other people" will be the ones standing in the midst of those prophecies. :)

Anonymous said...

The current legal argument challenging Prop H8 was originally filed when the initiative was placed on the ballot. The court said that the argument was moot at that time but they would hear that argument if and when the prop passed. So it only seems like it happened in a big hurry.

Christa Jeanne said...

waltz, it took nearly eight years for Prop. 22 to hit the Supreme Court - so this is quite fast, all things relative.

MrsWaltz said...

All things in the judicial process are accumulative, not relative. The initial suit has to go through the entire court system and be pushed upward through the appeals court to reach the SC; this takes time. However, once the issue reaches the SC and they claim jurisdiction over it, ALL subsequent suits will go to the SC immediately. That's what makes it "fast" this time.