‘Frivolous and regrettable’ lawsuits filed against victorious Proposition 8
Imprimir Incrementar tamaño de fuente Disminuir tamaño de fuente

.- Opponents of California’s Proposition 8, which on Tuesday successfully restored the definition of marriage to be between one man and one woman, have filed suit asking the California Supreme Court to overturn the measure. Counsel for the Yes on 8 campaign responded, calling the lawsuits “frivolous and regrettable.”

The lawsuits were filed by lawyers for same-sex couples that received state marriage licenses during the recent period in which the Supreme Court mandated that homosexual marriages be recognized.

The plaintiffs argue that Proposition 8 rises to the level of a constitutional revision because it fundamentally altered the guarantee of equal protection. Further, they claim that Prop. 8 is illegal because a constitutional revision must be approved by the legislature before being proposed to voters.

Joseph Grodin, a former California Supreme Court justice and an opponent of Proposition 8 who assisted in earlier legal challenges to the measure, said he believes the argument has legal merit.

The state’s high court has struck down ballot measures as illegal constitutional revisions twice before, but Grodin said the proposals involved “a broader scope of changes.”

The lawsuit, which was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Equality California was soon joined by another from the lesbian couple that was the first to be married after the Supreme Court overruled California voters previous ban on gay marriage. The San Francisco City Attorney’s office has also told the San Diego Union Tribune that “he plans to challenge the validity of a ballot measure that would change the state constitution to ban gay marriage.”

Frank Schubert, co-chairman of the pro-Proposition 8 campaign, criticized the legal actions.

“If they want to legalize gay marriage, what they should do is bring an initiative themselves and ask the people to approve it," Schubert said to the Los Angeles Times. “But they don't. They go behind the people's back to the courts and try and force an agenda on the rest of society."

The General Counsel of ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8, Andrew Pugno, called the lawsuit by the ACLU “frivolous and regrettable,” characterizing it as an attempt to “invalidate the decision of California voters to enshrine traditional marriage in California's constitution.”

“These same groups filed an identical case with the California Supreme Court months ago, which was summarily dismissed,” Pugno said in a Wednesday statement. “We will vigorously defend the People's decision to enact Proposition 8.”

According to Pugno, the ACLU made the same “constitutional revision” claim in a “nearly identical matter” in Oregon concerning that state’s marriage amendment. Their claim, decided in the Oregon case Martinez v. Kulongoski, was unanimously rejected.

"This is the second time that California voters have acted to define marriage as between a man and a woman,” Pugno continued. “It is time that the opponents of traditional marriage respect the voters' decision.”

He also attacked the lawsuit as “completely lacking in merit.”

“It is as if their campaign just spent $40 million on a losing campaign opposing something they now say is a legal nullity. Their position is absurd, an insult to California voters and an attack on the initiative process itself.”

Pugno argued that the right to amend California’s constitution is not “granted to the People,” but rather “reserved by the People.” He cited as precedent a California Supreme Court ruling which held that the death penalty was a “violation of fundamental state constitutional rights,” a decision overturned through the state’s initiative amendment process.

“Even a liberal jurist who vehemently disagreed with the People's decision on the death penalty, Justice Stanley Mosk, nevertheless acknowledged the People's authority to decide the issue through the initiative-amendment process,” he noted.

"The coalition that has worked so hard for the past year to enact Proposition 8 will vigorously defend the People's decision against this unfortunate challenge by groups who, having lost in the court of public opinion, now turn to courts of law to pursue their agenda," Pugno concluded.

Imprimir Incrementar tamaño de fuente Disminuir tamaño de fuente
Subscriber comments:
Published by: Marty
Desert Hot Springs 11/08/2008 03:23 PM EST
You're on shaky ground with this argument and here's why:

1. Oregan didn't rule that gays were afforded "equal protection" as the California SC did. So in Oregan, gays didn't have the same standing to make the case. No standing, no case.

2. The death penalty case didn't violate the equal protection clause, since it applies equally to everybody.

The case against 8 is critically differnt. If Prop 8 gets added to the constitution, it could only be enforced by invalidating California constitution's equal protection clause, as (unlike Oregan) the court has already said gays are subject to that clause. Letting Prop 8 stand would essentially mean then that anyone in California can launch a referendum for a simple majority to add discrimination against anyone: blacks, women, religions - into the constitution.

So there's a very good case to be made that if the Court let's it stand now, it's opening a HUGE legal pandoras box where anyone can take away anyone's rights with a 50% vote. I actually would have expected Catholics to be against Prop 8 for that reason: if the courts hold Prop 8 legal, the precedent will be established and the Catholic church will be next, there's nothing then that would stop an amendment banning Catholic free speech in California.
Published by: ken artley
San Diego, ca 11/07/2008 02:16 AM EST
Since you broke the law in trying to get this prop 8 passed and because it is denying equal protection which is guaranteed under the law, it should not be decided by a majority. Besides, if you believe that marriage is a religious ceremony, why would you want atheists and other non-religious people voting on what type of religious ceremonies your church can perform???
ADD A COMMENT (Your e-mail will NOT be published):
NAME:
CITY/STATE/COUNTRY:
EMAIL:
COMMENT:
 
PLEASE ENTER THE SECURITY CODE DISPLAYED ABOVE:
Chars:
* Thanks for your comments. The number of messages that can be online is limited. Length should not exceed 1500 characters. CNA reserves the right to edit messages for content and tone. Comments and opinions expressed by users do not necessarily reflect the opinions or beliefs of CNA. CNA will not publish comments with abusive language, insults or links to other pages.
ADVERTISING
Place your ad here
Resources:
Columns:
News:
Documents:
Tools:
ACI Group:
ACI Prensa