Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Prop 8 supporters get big win in Calif. court
Baptist Press ^ | Nov 17, 2011 | Michael Foust

Posted on 11/18/2011 1:00:52 PM PST by Graybeard58

SAN FRANCISCO (BP) -- Supporters of California Proposition 8 won a major victory at the California Supreme Court Thursday in a case that could have a significant impact on the future of gay "marriage" in America.

The justices unanimously ruled that the official proponents of Prop 8 have the right to defend the state constitutional amendment in federal court -- an important decision because the governor and attorney general have refused to defend it. In finding that Prop 8 proponents have what's called legal standing, the justices tossed the issue back to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which now will decide an even more significant issue: whether California -- and by extension all states -- can prevent, under the U.S. Constitution, the traditional definition of marriage from being redefined. The Ninth Circuit had asked the California court to rule on the standing issue.

If the California court had ruled against Prop 8 supporters, then gay "marriage" might have been legal again within days or weeks, some attorneys said. That's because a lower court ruling in 2010 had struck down Prop 8, and it would have been the most recent decision on the matter. That ruling is the one that was appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Eventually, the case could end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Ted Olson and David Boies -- the attorneys who sued to have Prop 8 overturned -- had argued that Prop 8 supporters did not have legal standing.

The question of legal standing became significant soon after California voters passed Prop 8 in 2008, when then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and then-Attorney General Jerry Brown refused to defend it in court. The question soon arose: If the state officials charged with defending a law refuse to do so, can anyone else legally step into that role? The California Supreme Court said "yes." Otherwise, the justices said, state officials would have veto power over the citizens.

"Neither the Governor, the Attorney General, nor any other executive or legislative official has the authority to veto or invalidate an initiative measure that has been approved by the voters," Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye wrote for the court.

By allowing official proponents to step in and defend an initiative, Cantil-Sakauye wrote, voters can be assured that an initiative is given a "full and robust defense," even when public officials are hostile or indifferent to a measure. It also, she said, ensures that a court hears the "full range of legal arguments" in defense of an initiative. Prop 8 supporters had feared that even if Brown had defended the amendment in court, it would have been a tepid and weak defense.

ProtectMarriage.com, the official proponents of Prop 8, called the ruling an "enormous boost" for the amendment.

"This ruling is a huge disaster for the homosexual marriage extremists," a ProtectMarriage.com statement said. "The Court totally rejected their demands that their lawsuit to invalidate Proposition 8 should win by default with no defense. Their entire strategy relied on finding a biased judge and keeping the voters completely unrepresented. Today that all crumbled before their eyes."

Vaughn Walker, the lower court judge who overturned Prop 8, is gay. He has since retired.

"Today's decision is a critical step in our three-year battle to uphold marriage between a man and a woman," the ProtectMarriage.com statement added. "Now we can return our focus to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and our appeal to reverse the lower court's decision declaring Proposition 8 and traditional marriage itself 'unconstitutional.'"

The American Foundation for Equal Rights -- which Olson and Boies represented -- released a statement saying it remains confident that the Ninth Circuit will affirm the lower court and overturn Prop 8.

Traditionalists say gay "marriage" legalization would have a host of negative effects on religious liberty, impacting what is taught in schools and forcing private businesses and some religiously affiliated public organizations to endorse that to which they are morally opposed.

The case is Perry v. Brown.


TOPICS: Extended News; Government
KEYWORDS: california; gaymarriage; homonaziagenda; homopsychoagenda; homosexualagenda; homosexualism; pederastagenda; pederastmarriage; religiousliberty; religiouspersecution
Key word and title search turned up nothing for me.

Happy 91st. B/Day mom!

1 posted on 11/18/2011 1:00:53 PM PST by Graybeard58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
Unanimous even. Wow, the people have a right to uphold the law, esp. when the gov doesn't!? Who knew, but a few real USAians.
2 posted on 11/18/2011 1:07:54 PM PST by veracious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

Wonder how this relates to Federal laws that the Fed refuses to enforce.
I.e. borders and immigration laws?


3 posted on 11/18/2011 1:10:55 PM PST by Darksheare (You will never defeat Bok Choy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
Otherwise, the justices said, state officials would have veto power over the citizens.

They nailed it.

4 posted on 11/18/2011 1:12:19 PM PST by Retired Greyhound (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

Your right! I didn’t see anything about your mom’s birthday posted either.

Happy 91st. Birthday Graybeard’s mom.


5 posted on 11/18/2011 1:14:44 PM PST by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will, they ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
Why do the idiots in the MSM have to harp on the adversarial nature of pro vs con Prop 8? Why do they have to claim this is a victory for one side over the other?

Don't they realize that this is a major decision that could impact dozens of potential cases in the future?

Don't they realize that this has nothing to do with Prop 8, and everything to do with the California proposition system in general?

Oh wait. I answered my question in the first sentence: they are idiots and they work for the MSM.

Never mind.

6 posted on 11/18/2011 1:16:58 PM PST by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Retired Greyhound

Otherwise, the justices said, state officials would have veto power over the citizens.

They nailed it.

The problem is exactly that, even vetoes need to be either reversible or challengeable. Nothing is more dangerous than someone who knows they can go unquestioned, or knows that they can rest with the final word. That’s partially why even vetoes can be repeal, and even courts deserve to be checked by someone, just so that they get the point that you aren’t “always right” (i.e. can be questioned in your correctness).


7 posted on 11/18/2011 1:18:36 PM PST by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

All contributions are for the Current Quarter Expenses.
Please donate today!
FReepathon Day 49! Time to Git-R--Done!



8 posted on 11/18/2011 1:27:29 PM PST by onyx (PLEASE SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC BY DONATING NOW! Sarah's New Ping List - tell me if you want on it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare
Wonder how this relates to Federal laws that the Fed refuses to enforce. I.e. borders and immigration laws?

Excellent question and pondering.

9 posted on 11/18/2011 1:31:08 PM PST by GOP Poet (Obama is an OLYMPIC failure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear
"Why do they have to claim this is a victory for one side over the other"

The WHOLE basis for the "Progressive" ideals is Class Warfare. Equalization of misery to be applied to ALL. In this case, it's a loss for the Sex Deviates, as that which is rightfully indtended to be in place for NORMAL People, is attacked and should be torn apart for THEIR benefit....not un-like ALL of the Progressive ideas based in Jealousy, and Lack of Work Ethic, where OTHERS should be penalized for their success, and the product of THEIR work should be GIVEN to them, simply for showing up with their hands out....

10 posted on 11/18/2011 1:32:11 PM PST by traditional1 ("Don't gotsta worry 'bout no mo'gage, don't gotsta worry 'bout no gas; Obama gonna take care o' me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

It’s a little sad when having a court recognize the people have a right to defend their initiative is considered a “big win”.


11 posted on 11/18/2011 1:32:24 PM PST by ArmstedFragg (hoaxy dopey changey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOP Poet

The proper answer is likely the one that WON’T be stated though considering this administration’s propensity for suing the states for trying to enforce their borders.


12 posted on 11/18/2011 1:40:57 PM PST by Darksheare (You will never defeat Bok Choy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: veracious
The question soon arose: If the state officials charged with defending a law refuse to do so, can anyone else legally step into that role? The California Supreme Court said "yes." Otherwise, the justices said, state officials would have veto power over the citizens.

It is no secret how the 9th Circus Court of Schlemiels views this issue: The political class are the rulers and the citizens are their subjects.

This will end up with SCOTUS. If SCOTUS doesn't overturn the 9th Circus, then we will have installed a judicial dictatorship.

13 posted on 11/18/2011 1:52:47 PM PST by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
The "will of the people" is absolutely meaningless in California, and it's a Democrat dream-come-true.

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 those paragons of political correctness, "the Democrats", have a chance of getting enacted. That's just the way it is in California.

Buh-bye, California.


14 posted on 11/18/2011 2:00:44 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

I know Davie Boies is a Liberal jerk, but what the hell is wrong with Ten Olson? Did we simply misread who he really was?


15 posted on 11/18/2011 2:01:37 PM PST by vette6387 (Enough Already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

We don’t live by will of the sheeple in a representative Republic. If Cali voted to ban all firearms, or shut down all religious institutions, should the mobocratic will of the people stand?


16 posted on 11/18/2011 2:02:57 PM PST by Clemenza ("History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil governm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

“official proponents of Prop 8 have the right to defend”

average citizens don’t have standing. Unless they have standing. AZ propositions regarding illegal immigration, do not believe that standing was an issue.


17 posted on 11/18/2011 2:07:00 PM PST by campaignPete R-CT (I will go back to New Hampshire to campaign.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
If Cali voted to ban all firearms, or shut down all religious institutions, should the mobocratic will of the people stand?

If a single Cali judge ruled to ban all firearms, or shut down all religious institutions, should the fiat will of that judge stand?

18 posted on 11/18/2011 2:09:58 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard; Clemenza

“If Cali voted to ban all firearms, or shut down all religious institutions, should the mobocratic will of the people stand?

If a single Cali judge ruled to ban all firearms, or shut down all religious institutions, should the fiat will of that judge stand? “

If the majority in CA voted to ban all firearms, or shut all churches, gun owners and churches would sue to overturn said initiative, due to its violating their 1st and 2nd amendment rights.

The courts could and would rule that those rights are being violated.

The issue here was, can a duly passed constitutional amendment (state constitution to be precise) be overturned by fiat, with no recourse by the majority who voted for it?

No.


19 posted on 11/18/2011 2:33:45 PM PST by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

Thank you. You are precisely correct.
Yes, there is a big difference between “democracy” (two wolves and one sheep on a desert island voting about what’s for dinner) versus a “democratic republic”. But there is also a big difference between a legitimate vote on a proposition that is constitutionally allowable versus a vote on a proposition that violates the US Constitution.


20 posted on 11/18/2011 2:39:37 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

Are you saying that Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution, and, if so, how does it do that? What provision of the Constitution does it violate?


21 posted on 11/18/2011 2:45:36 PM PST by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

That’s the part that irritates me, the fact that courts can rule and essentially make laws where we could have an organized system of coming into this country, registering with the authorities that you wish to be a contributing citizen, and so on. It’s almost like a university, if all I had to do was walk into a university classroom, pass off as a student, and get a free grade, the university would pretty much hit the trash heap fast. What makes us think that being part of a larger group doesn’t help with the United States as well.


22 posted on 11/18/2011 3:48:05 PM PST by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: traditional1
This particular decision has nothing to do with the proposition under scrutiny. It has everything to do with the proposition process itself.

This could have been Prop 182 or any of the propositions regarding limiting benefits to illegal, or it could have been one of the propositions liberalizing marijuana laws.

This decision was not about the particulars of the proposition, but whether or not people who successfully voted in a proposition could defend it through the courts if our state representatives choose not to.

This decision is a good one. In the future it may very well be used by liberals to defend a liberal proposition before the courts if a miracle occurs and a conservative governor fails to support that liberal proposition in court.

Do we always have to treat everything as a contest where whatever happens has to be treated as favoring or disfavoring one side or the other? This is not a football game where a bad call by the refs can tilt the game one way or the other.

This is real life where the calls by the ref are sometimes more important than the game being played.

23 posted on 11/18/2011 5:37:39 PM PST by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

“Proposition 8, overwhelmingly supported and passed by the California citizenry...”

Prop. 8 passed by 52% in 2008. The homosexualists will quit screaming about their “civil rights” being infringed by the majority the second they think they have the numbers to repeal prop. 8 through another popular vote. Of course that is if our black robed masters just don’t cut out the middle man.

Freegards


24 posted on 11/18/2011 5:59:33 PM PST by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: AmericanVictory
Are you saying that Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution, and, if so, how does it do that? What provision of the Constitution does it violate?

That's not at all what I am saying. I was responding to another poster who used as an example a vote by a majority to ban firearms and religion. That example was not valid for purposes of comparison.

25 posted on 11/18/2011 9:33:07 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson