California Supreme Court to hear Proposition 8 case Sept. 6

Source: Los Angeles Times

The legal battle over Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that reinstated a ban on same-sex marriage, will go before the California Supreme Court on Sept. 6, when the justices will hear arguments on whether initiative proponents are entitled to defend measures they sponsored.

The state high court scheduled the hearing for 10 a.m. at its San Francisco courtroom. The justices will then have 90 days to decide whether state law gives proponents of ballot measures like Proposition 8 legal standing to defend them in court when state officials refuse to do so.

Read more: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/07/proposition-8-legal-battle-standing-california-supreme-court.html

Let's hope the CA SC rules they proponents do not have standing.

I abhor this law.

The religious right give all of us other religious folk(like me) a bad name.

I support gay marriage. It's sad these narrow-minded people do not.

It is easy to support something we want, it is hard to support something we oppose, BUT is the product of our Democracy. Does Majority rule mean anything? Or do we support the right of a Minority to make the laws that Governs this Country?

This is similar to the KKK leader who no one would represent at his trial for Murder, till an African American Lawyer decided that the right to a lawyer was so fundamental, that it MUST extend to people we hate for it to mean anything.

My point is the MAJORITY of Californians voted for proposition 8, most politicians of California opposed it, but it passed anyway. No one is claiming that proposition 8 violates any Civil Rights Laws EXCEPT the FEDERAL right to equal protection of the laws. The US Supreme Court has LONG ruled that discrimination against Homosexuals does NOT violate the Federal Right to equal protection of the laws, but a Federal Judge ruled such a ban did violate the Federal Equal Protection Clause and the Governor and Attorney General are NOT appealing that ruling. Thus this is a FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS Case, not a product of STATE LAW (the States that have ruled a ban on Gay Marriages is a Violation of Equal Protection of the Laws, have relied on STATE Equal Protections Constitutional provisions NOT the Federal Constitutional provision as to Equal Protection of the laws).

Thus does the FEDERAL EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE prohibits California from adopting a law prohibiting Homosexual marriages? I believe the present US Supreme Court will rule is does NOT, I suspect so does the Governor and Attorney General of California, and since they OPPOSED Proposition 8, the only way to maintain the ruling that Proposition 8 violates FEDERAL Equal Protection laws is NOT to appeal the trial court ruling.

Thus the refusal of the Governor and the Attorney General of California means upholding a ruling that may very well be overturned on appeal, but since they refused to appeal that ruling UNLESS the Court finds others have standing to protect the result of a Referendum, that ruling will STAND.

Whether you support Gay Marriage or oppose it is of minor concern as to the larger issue, can the elected officials of a State, refuse to protect a law the Majority of people voted for, just because such elected officials oppose the same law. When the Courts of California have ruled Proposition 8 does NOT violate any California law.

Think about it, if this was a vote to abolish corporations, would the fact that the Governor and the Attorney General WANTS Corporations to exist, give them the right to refuse to protect such a ban, a ban supported by the Majority of the People in an open and fair election? If the people who worked to get such a ban on Corporations on the Ballot be forbidden to litigate that such a law is Constructional? Even when the Governor and Attorney General refuse to file any appeal from a ruling it did violate the US Constitution (and there is good constitutional law that would support that such a ban on Corporations would be constitutional)?

This is an interesting case in regards to who can defend a statute from FEDERAL Constitutional attack, given that it is NOT a product of the State Legislature but the people themselves. When California adopted the ability to put things on the ballot it was to get things supported by the Majority of people passed, when the Politician in the State Legislature do all they can to make sure no such law passes. Given that History, does California law permit the people who gathered the signatures for such a ballot vote to defend that law once it is passed but challenged in court. This is the question the Federal Ninth Circuit referred to the California Supreme Court, NOT if such a ban violates Federal Constitutional Rights.

I know that the initiative has been abused in California, but so has any other way to get laws passed. Does California law permit the people such initiatives were intended to bypass (The legislature and the Governor) be permitted to exercise a veto over a law by refusing to defend it, where the process itself contains no such veto.

It is easy to get caught up in getting what you want adopted to ignore that HOW it is adopted is sometimes more important. In this case HOW Proposition 8 is handled in the Courts is much more important then the results of Proposition 8 for it will decide how other such voters initiatives will be handled in the Future. That is the important Constitutional issue at present NOT does Federal Equal Protection prohibits a ban on gay marriage.

Let's hope that they do the correct thing for ALL Americans (and throw out Prop. 8).