Calif. Gay Marriage Court Ruling Favors Prop 8 Proponents
- Posted on November 18, 2011 at 7:50am by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
SAN FRANCISCO (The Blaze/AP) — Yesterday, the Blaze reported that the California Supreme Court was going to issue an important decision surrounding the state’s same-sex marriage debate. On Thursday, the court ruled that supporters of a voter-approved same-sex marriage ban have the authority to defend the measure in court since the governor and attorney general refuse to do so. This ruling is precedent-setting, with consequences for the state‘s vigorous citizens’ initiative process.
Responding to a question from a federal appeals court considering the constitutionality of the gay marriage ban known as Proposition 8, 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.
“It would clearly constitute an abuse of discretion for a court to deny the official proponents of an initiative the opportunity … to assert the people‘s and hence the state’s interest in the validity of the measure and to appeal a judgment invalidating the measure,” the ruling states.
In the 61-page advisory opinion, the seven justices said denying ballot proposition backers a seat at the table would effectively grant the governor and attorney general veto power over initiatives with which they disagreed, a situation the justices said would undermine the law-making powers California gave voters in 1911.
“It would exalt form over substance to interpret California law in a manner that would permit these public officials to indirectly achieve such a result by denying the official initiative proponents the authority to step in,” the decision states.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals asked the state court in January to clarify who is eligible to fight for voter-approved initiatives in court when state officials opt not to. The panel said the question was unsettled under federal and California law, but central to its deliberations in the ongoing same-sex marriage skirmish because if the backers of 2008′s Proposition 8 lacked legal standing, it would have to dismiss the case.
The coalition of religious and conservative groups that qualified Proposition 8 for the ballot and successfully campaigned for its passage have asked the 9th Circuit to reverse a federal trial judge‘s ruling in August 2010 striking down the measure as a violation of gay Californians’ civil rights. Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Gov. Jerry Brown, in his previous role as state attorney general, took the unusual step of refusing to appeal the decision.
The appeals court panel now must decide whether to accept the court’s guidance and if so, how to apply it to Proposition 8. The state court’s word, while expected to carry substantial weight since it involves a state Constitutional matter, is non-binding on the federal court.
If the 9th Circuit does accept the Supreme Court’s interpretation, it would clear the way for the appeals court to analyze the substance of the appeal.
The ban’s supporters on Thursday cheered the likelihood of that happening now that the state court has weighed in.
“This victory is an enormous boost for Proposition 8 as well as the integrity of the initiative process itself,” Protect Marriage General Counsel Andy Pugno said.
Lawyers for the two gay couples who successfully sued to overturn the ban in the lower court had argued that if the ban’s backers did not have the right to appeal, the trial judge’s decision would stand and same-sex marriages would be legal in California for the first time since Proposition 8 passed three years ago.
After the Supreme Court ruling was issued, the couples’ lawyers said they still felt confident the ban ultimately would be struck down by the 9th Circuit and possibly reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
“We are very anxious to move forward on the merits,” said former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson, one lawyer for the couples.
The ruling establishes a state precedent that could be used in other ballot initiative cases the attorney general or governor decline to defend. Instances are rare of state officials refusing to appeal rulings that are adverse to voter-approved laws, but they have come up in California every couple decades or so.
KFSN-TV has more:
Civil rights groups criticized the Supreme Court’s expansive view of the initiative process, predicting it would put minorities at a political disadvantage.
“Allowing the Prop 8 proponents to have special rights in court may open the floodgates to wealthy special interests to do the same,” said Courage Campaign chairman Rick Jacobs, whose group champions progressive causes in California. “The judges of the 9th Circuit must determine if people who had enough money to buy a ballot measure that calls for people to vote on each other’s rights should have special rights in federal court.”
John Matsusaka, president of the Initiative and Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California, said the court’s decision was consistent and would benefit initiative sponsors equally, regardless of ideology or fundraising capacity.
“People have to separate what they feel about Proposition 8 from what they feel about the right of the laws people have approved to have their day in court,” Matsusaka said.
Comments (15)
Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 667 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 525 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 371 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 364 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 326 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 247 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 254 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order Read More
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 147 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 247 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
heartitorleaveit
Posted on November 27, 2011 at 6:14pmI’m sure Jesus and our Heavenly Father are very proud that there liberal agenda are at work here!
Report Post »selenesteets
Posted on November 18, 2011 at 5:44pmI can’t say this enough : PRIVATIZE MARRIAGE
Report Post »DesertRose1960
Posted on November 18, 2011 at 3:29pmI thought TeaCons were in love with Constitution, small government, and States’ Rights. Marriage laws were left to the states under the Constitution by the Founding Fathers; to change the Constitution and take those rights away and give them to the Federal government is to decrease the power of the Tenth Amendment, which is where states retain rights not mentioned in the Constitution.
Report Post »The Fourteenth Amendment entitles everyone to equal protection under the law, and it can be argued that denying the marriage laws of a state because the state allows Same Sex Marriage is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the Tenth Amendment. And then there’s the whole small government thing, government is supposed to be small and unobtrusive, but Republicans want to tell me how and when I have to pray, who I may or may not marry and what has to go on in my uterus. I guess my wallet is off limits but my bedroom and body are not! Oh, and in California, there were churches using church property and church funds, all tax free, of course, meddling in the elections and taking a partisan stance. If a group wants to participate in partisan politics, they should pay taxes, if they don’t want to be taxed, they shouldn’t lend their property to partisan causes. Allowing someone to marry in front of a judge or magistrate does not hurt my marriage vows. If you really believe in the sanctity of marriage, reform divorce laws and the divorce is easy attitude in society.
OneTermPresident
Posted on November 18, 2011 at 3:52pmWouaaaaaaaaaaaaaa wouaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa wu wu wouaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Churches are supposed to follow the Bible… and you know what it says about your chosen lifestyle in there. Hmmm… Do you think that might be the reason they preach against it to?
Report Post »DrFrost
Posted on November 18, 2011 at 5:19pm@DESERT
1) If you truly leave marriage up to the states, then the 9th circuit court shouldn’t even listen to this case. It should be decided by the California Supreme Court (IMO).
Report Post »2) I find it hard to argue this is a violation of the 14th amendment. Every person has the right to marry a member of the opposite sex. Everyone has equal rights in this regard. If you argue that people should be allowed to marry whomever they love and that this is covered by the 14th amendment then, by the same logic, you have to also allow polygamy. I don’t buy it.
3) “Republicans want to tell me how and when I have to pray, who I may or may not marry and what has to go on in my uterus.” – Desert. No ma’am. You have broad religious freedoms in this country and, for the most part, can participate in a wide variety of religions and pray to whomever you please. And what you do behind closed doors with other consenting adults is not, IMO and many other conservatives, the government’s business. Marriage on the other hand…. as you pointed out is something the states can regulate according to the 10th amendment.
4) There are many MANY non-profit political organizations. Paying taxes has never been and will never be a prerequisate for getting involved in politics.
5) “If you really believe in the sanctity of marriage, reform divorce laws and the divorce is easy attitude in society.” – Desert. Here you’re arguing for something that could never be supported from the constitution
DesertRose1960
Posted on November 20, 2011 at 6:43pm@Onetermpresident. I was talking about civil marriage, not within a church. There are civil marriages even now, I know a number of people who married in front of a judge, not a clergyman. I never mentioned changing church practices. That was you’re doing. The Catholic Church respects the separation of church and state and does not tell parishioners how to vote.
@Drfrost, Yes, but churches are required to stay out of politics if they want to keep their tax exempt status. The Mormon church in California violated the law by funding the call banks made from their churches. Saying that everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex is saying that Gays are not free to marry their partner. They‘re free to marry someone that they don’t and couldn’t love, that isn’t fair. As to being told how to pray, well, yes, Evangelical Christians do that on a regular basis. In the military, if an Evangelical Chaplain is leading the prayer, they can and will require everyone to pray in Jesus’ name, even at sunset on a Friday night. I’ve been there and heard it with my own ears. It’s one of the reasons I refuse to pray in public anymore.
Report Post »heartitorleaveit
Posted on November 27, 2011 at 6:16pmJesus and his liberal agenda? hmmm I’m prestty sure he doesnt like men on men and stuff….
Report Post »MrGeek
Posted on November 18, 2011 at 2:06pmGee, Obama was elected by a majority of voters, maybe we can find a judge to invalidate the election based on the idea they didn’t know what they were doing either. Americans should have the right to be lead by a competent President, when the masses elect a loser, that infringes on our right to competent leadership, therefore the courts should overturn the election and remove him from office. He shouldn‘t be in office anyway since he wasn’t born in the US, he was born in Hawaii, which he clearly stated is in Asia not the US. :)
Report Post »DrFrost
Posted on November 18, 2011 at 5:22pm“…he was born in Hawaii, which he clearly stated is in Asia not the US. :)”
LOL!
That was funny! I’m going to be repeating that one….
Report Post »otmonger
Posted on November 18, 2011 at 1:22pmKeep electing the super libs!!!!!
Report Post »steveh931
Posted on November 18, 2011 at 12:55pmThe people of individual states can place propositions on ballots and fight the laws within the states for years, or we can have the U.S. Congress bring the issue to the floor to Amend the U.S. Constitution and pass laws governing marriage rights with a two thirds vote in both houses of Congress and then approval by three quarters of the States. Until this is done and the issue is heard by the U.S. Supreme Court with a decision for or against, this will continue to be a issue.
Report Post »fancydancy
Posted on November 18, 2011 at 1:26pmUntil the politicians respect the voice of the masses instead of their re-election, this won’t happen. It seems they are worried more about themselves than the people who sent them there. The latest is wealth being described as $174000 instead of $250000 that Mr. O suggested. Think a moment…that $174000 is their salary. Another law that they pass for us but they don’t have to abide by. Bleh!
Report Post »kindling
Posted on November 18, 2011 at 12:10pmIt is deeply frustrating that we in California go to the poles and vote our feelings and then some court just overturns it and tramples the voice of Californians. Time after time we are cast aside. It is all about political correctness and it taking us down. Where is a great earthquake when you need it?
Report Post »fancydancy
Posted on November 18, 2011 at 11:30amA few judges across our land are now seemingly overruling the wishes of the masses and making laws themselves. Interestingly enough, it is my understanding that the Internal Revenue Service does NOT allow gay couples to file a joint return as married. Wonder when the judges will overturn that ruling?
Report Post »InversionTheory
Posted on November 18, 2011 at 12:07pmThat’s right. It doesn’t. Last I heard, gay activists were encouraging couples to file jointly anyway, risking prison time so someone would have standing to challenge the rules.
Report Post »