Skip to comments.Court says backers can defend gay marriage measure (CA)
Posted on 11/17/2011 12:43:46 PM PST by BAW
The sponsors of ballot propositions can step in to defend their initiatives from legal challenges if the governor and attorney general refuse to do so, California's highest court said Thursday in a precedent-setting ruling that could prove pivotal to the future of the state's same-sex marriage ban and its notoriously vigorous citizens' initiative process.
Responding to a question from a federal appeals court that is considering the constitutionality of the state's voter-approved gay marriage ban, the California Supreme Court said the lawmaking power granted to citizens under the state constitution doesn't end once propositions have been approved or rejected by voters.
(Excerpt) Read more at signonsandiego.com ...
A court case is allowed to have a defense.
A travesty of justice!
This is a warning of what the federal government will look like if Obama gets a second term — we are almost there already.
No respect or regard for the law. They do what they want to do....why? Because the people do not fight back.
They bend over and take it. (There is a lot of that in California!)
UNANIMOUS! Excellent. Happy day.
Maybe we can now get a defense of Proposition 187 (1994 SOS initiative restricted illegal aliens) that Gray Davis refused to defend.
The Left is saddened, deeply saddened! But its good news for California voters and the defense of traditional marriage movement. What this means is the trial court has to hear it all over again, not just from state officials who refused to defend Proposition 8 and then issue its ruling. There will be a new hearing in Federal Court on it in the coming year.
Proposition 187, anyone?
Great. Now it’s time to revisit Prop. 187!!
I don’t think it applies to past measures. But state officials who don’t defend future propositions because they don’t like them, the proponents will have that standing in court to defend them.
Does this prevent the governor or attorney general giving a half assed *wink* *wink* defense for initiatives that they would love to see defeated?
What it means is that if the state refuses to defend an initiative, the proponents have the standing to defend it on behalf of the people. If the state doesn’t do its job, like they didn’t do it on Proposition 8, the trial court made its ruling in error. That will now be aside and heard again but the state won’t represent Proposition 8; its original sponsors will and the trial court will have to take their arguments in its defense into consideration as though as the state did defend it.
this has been settled twice so why the more court actions
it also means the trial court homosexual judge who heard the case and is now retired will not be hearing the case.
Ahhh, your thought is at the heart of the issue. More court action is required because the will of the people - as expressed in a state wide ballot - was ruled unconstitutional.
California's governor would not defend the case in court.
Today's ruling permits the orignal proponents standing to defend the issue in court. In effect, the original proponents of the proposition will be able to carry the legal challenge and side step the state.
Our overlords are gracious enough to let us give our opinions.
Very nice of them.
They’re still going to say “no”, but at least we get to make our case.
this has been settled twice so why the more court actions
Because having one court ruling isn’t enough, they want to have another show trial to simply wave in our faces and say that our stances were completely wrong, once again, that’s how intimidation works, you repeatedly reject someone’s ideas to make them feel discouraged. They also feel they can give a better look to it by giving some right to defense. Again, I will admit that this is my negative gauge kicking in, so forgive the harsh tone, I could be wrong, it may be that they actually felt the ruling was unfair, but either way, this is just one issue where we will never be able to be passive on, because the opposition isn’t doing it either.
The Federal employees have already decided what their going to impose, their just fishing for a chance to do it cause the State of Califorina seems apparently uninterested in obliging.
I anticipate a show trial.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
That is the very first thing that came to mind when I heard the news, Prop 187 NOW.
You can’t occupy that....last I checked. I live in crummy California, you are right, we are occupied by loons, libs, and wannabe loons and limbs.
Yeah, we need to look into that (for 187)...is there a ping list for illegal immigration...anyone?
From my reading of the decision, the group put up a terrible defense but in no way should a citizen-place initiative be defended in the courts on the whim of a governor or AG who may oppose a measure the voter's adopted.
Proposition 8, overwhelmingly supported and passed by the California citizenry, will ultimately end up on the same trash heap as Proposition 187, which was supported and passed overwhelmingly by the California citizenry in 1994. Only those propositions that meet with the approval of the politically correct, elite socialist crowd ("the Democrats") ever get enacted. That's just the way it is.
Elected officials not defending voter approved laws before the courts has been a sore spot for a very long time.
It was made worse when Obama and Holder adopted the tactic of selectively-defending at the federal level with DOMA.
No matter what you think of a law, there's a duty for the state to fight for it before the courts. Our system, our body politic, needs the adversarial process or it degrades into despotism.
Prop 187, my thoughts, exactly.
It’s a common sense ruling. If an initiative’s sponsors could not defend it in court, the State government would have an easy way to defeat it regardless of how the People voted. What’s surprising is that common sense came from any part of the California government.
Wonder if this means they can dust off Prop 187
It’s pretty amazing the way these politicians don’t even pretend to represent their constituents anymore.
“Its pretty amazing the way these politicians dont even pretend to represent their constituents anymore.”
Look at the Kenyan Pirate, refusing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which is the law of the land. Apparently as a foreigner he doesn’t represent US law...
I’ll believe it when I see it. Chances are the elite will just keep fudging up the works until the get the desired results.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.