Please donate today!
FReepathon Day 49! Time to Git-R--Done!
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.
Happy 91st. B/Day mom!
Wonder how this relates to Federal laws that the Fed refuses to enforce.
I.e. borders and immigration laws?
They nailed it.
Your right! I didn’t see anything about your mom’s birthday posted either.
Happy 91st. Birthday Graybeard’s mom.
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.
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).
Excellent question and pondering.
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....
It’s a little sad when having a court recognize the people have a right to defend their initiative is considered a “big win”.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
“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.
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 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.
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.
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.