“Proposition 8 is limited in nature and effect. It does nothing more than restore the definition of marriage to what it was and always had been under California law before June 16, 2008 – and to what the people had repeatedly willed that it be throughout California’s history,” he added.
California Attorney General Jerry Brown argued in opposition to the measure. According to the Mercury News, he has said that same-sex “marriage” is a fundamental, inalienable right that should not be revocable by popular vote under any circumstances.
Starr said embracing Brown’s view would be a “revolution… utterly without formalization in the court’s jurisprudence.”
Dozens of amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs have also been filed by the proposition’s supporters and opponents.
Frank Schubert, Campaign Manager of the Yes on 8 campaign, spoke with CNA in a Thursday phone interview about the day’s oral arguments, reporting they went “very well” for Proposition 8 supporters.
“Starr did an extraordinary job presenting our arguments,” he said, saying they saw “great skepticism” from the judges concerning the arguments against Proposition 8.
In Schubert’s view, judging by their comments and questions, “it seems clear that a strong majority [of justices] are very much not inclined to overturn.”
Justices did not appear to focus on the argument about separation of powers, he reported.
However, the fate of the some 18,000 same-sex couples in state-recognized marriages will be “a much tougher decision for them to make.”
“It’s clear that they are struggling what to do with those couples,” he told CNA, adding that there is no question that there is sympathy for them.
Schubert described Attorney General Brown’s argument that Proposition 8 violates same-sex couples’ “liberty rights” as being met with “widespread skepticism” and as a “novel legal argument which has never been raised before.”
(Story continues below)
Subscribe to our daily newsletter
Schubert said he thought the justices “resoundingly rejected” that argument.
Asked why the court was revisiting the argument concerning whether the ballot measure was a constitutional revision or a constitutional amendment, Schubert said that that pre-election challenge to Proposition 8 had been dismissed and was not decided on its merits.
“They had the opportunity to throw out Prop. 8, and they declined,” he told CNA.
The argument was being revisited, Schubert thought, because it was opponents’ “last hope” to overturn the measure.
“It’s very much a long shot for them, and it’s clear they’re not going to succeed.”
“They failed at the ballot box and they’re trying to overturn the people’s judgment the only way that they can.”