The California Supreme Court announced today that it will consider cases opposing Proposition 8 on the basis that it improperly revised the state constitution to eliminate marriage equality. The court also decline to stay enforcement of Prop 8.
Court spokeswoman Lynn Holton said the court asked the parties involved to write briefs arguing three issues:
(1) Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution?
(2) Does Proposition 8 violate the separation-of-powers doctrine under the California Constitution?
(3) If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?
The court has set an expedited briefing schedule and could hear oral arguments in March 2009.
Details on the broad coalition of litigants who have filed the various lawsuits, via email from the National Center for Lesbian Rights:
On November 5, 2008, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit challenging the validity of Proposition 8 in the California Supreme Court on behalf of six couples and Equality California. The City of San Francisco, joined by the City of Los Angeles, the County of Los Angeles, and Santa Clara County, filed a similar challenge, as did a private attorney in Los Angeles.
The lawsuits allege that, on its face, Proposition 8 is an improper revision rather than an amendment of the California Constitution because, in its very title, which was "Eliminates the right to marry for same-sex couples," the initiative eliminated an existing right only for a targeted minority. If permitted to stand, Proposition 8 would be the first time an initiative has successfully been used to change the California Constitution to take away an existing right only for a particular group. Such a change would defeat the very purpose of a constitution and fundamentally alter the role of the courts in protecting minority rights. According to the California Constitution, such a serious revision of our state Constitution cannot be enacted through a simple majority vote, but must first be approved by two-thirds of the Legislature.
Since the three lawsuits submitted on November 5, three other lawsuits challenging Proposition 8 have been filed. In a petition filed on November 14, 2008, leading African American, Latino, and Asian American groups argued that Proposition 8 threatens the equal protection rights of all Californians.
On November 17, 2008, the California Council of Churches and other religious leaders and faith organizations representing millions of members statewide, also filed a petition asserting that Proposition 8 poses a severe threat to the guarantee of equal protection for all, and was not enacted through the constitutionally required process for such a dramatic change to the California Constitution. On the same day, prominent California women’s rights organizations filed a petition asking the Court to invalidate Proposition 8 because of its potentially disastrous implications for women and other groups that face discrimination.
You may join the Courage Campaign’s pledge to restore marriage equality right here.





6 Comments
Spotlight




Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Advanced search
Dugg right here, join me if you like.
Thanks, Teddy;
I’ve been waiting to hear when this would happen.
The questions the Court poses are ‘interesting’.
One hesitates to say that anything is being (to use an old term) ‘telegraphed’, yet, the ‘nature’ of the questions suggests that the Court has already invested some careful ‘consideration’ and, clearly expected to be involved, in a very thoughtful manner, in this critically important aspect of Civil Rights.
I do not get the sense that the Court is pleased with what occurred on November 4th OR the ‘run-up’ to that vote.
I expect the Court to uphold the Civil Rights of all, Teddy.
This is not new. The challenge by Lambda Legal and the ACLU was brought prior to the election and the Court decided to wait until after the election because they might not have had to act.
You know, really, I’ve always been baffled about the h8 for Mormon polly h8.
If I loved both a man and a woman why would that be frown upon?
I mean,after all, isn’t it a sort of ‘free market solution?’ I enter into a union that maximizes on productivity, what’s to lose?
If a bond between a man and a woman is productive and happy. That sees gad, right?
If two men and a woman are productive together and find a universal bond, we should praise them right?
Why is marriage regulated?!
lol
/me needs to del a h8 from first graph.
bah,
s/gad/god
edit would be welcome or as a sage once said; ‘preview is my friend.’