SF City Attorney to file legal challenge to Prop 8

[kpete]

Source: Mercury News

SF City Attorney to file legal challenge to Prop 8
The Associated Press
Article Launched: 11/05/2008 08:21:25 AM PST

SAN FRANCISCO—The San Francisco City Attorney's office says he plans to challenge the validity of a ballot measure that would change the state constitution to ban gay marriage.

Spokesman Matt Dorsey says City Attorney Dennis Herrera will file the legal challenge in the California Supreme Court if the measure passes.

With 95 percent of precincts reporting, Proposition 8 is leading with 52 percent of the vote. But there are still as many as 3 million ballots left to be counted.

The first lesbian couple to be married in Los Angeles County after the Supreme Court threw out the gay marriage ban also plans to announce a lawsuit against Proposition 8. Attorney Gloria Allred says that lawsuit will argue that the measure is unconstitutional.

Read more: http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_10905867

[wryter2000]

1. It ain't over. n/t

n/t

[deepthought42]

2. No matter what, CA

don't give up! :applause:

[Lucian]

3. Good for him.

:)

[peacock]

4. Thank you kpete

And thank you SF!

This is unconstitutional and cannot be accepted.

[kpete]

7. new rule...

After yesterday

ANYONE & EVERYONE can believe in themselves -

yes, we can - ALL - of us

peace, kp

[melm00se]

15. something listed as allowable under the Constitution

is, by definition, Constitutional, unless there is some other constitutional provision that allows a court overturn a constitutional amendment.

[NorCalDem]

17. Prop 8 begins with the text "eliminates the right..."

It will not stand up to court scrutiny and is CLEARLY unconstitutional. There is a zero percent chance of it passing through the courts and making it into the constitution of the state of CA. Period.

Prop 8 was dead from the get-go, i hope the Mormon church is happy with wasting $28 million of their followers dough...

[Maat]

23. Lambda Legal explains the basis of the challenge well ...

http://www.lambdalegal.org/publications/articles/proposition-8-challenged.html .

The reason a prior case was dismissed was due to lack of legal standing, a problem we will not have now ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law) .

[Kalifornia.Kid]

5. Yes! Do the right thing.

[nichomachus]

6. We still need to start our own proposition

that will remove tax exempt status from churches. Let them spend all their money fighting that. And then, another. And another. And another.

We need to fight back.

[xxqqqzme]

16. What we need is our own proposition

banning out of state money from pushing this crap! Either that or we ban the initiative process altogether. We elect & pay a state assembly & senate to enact legislation. If banning gay marriage is sooooo necessary, then let's see the legislation! The initiative process is lazy legislation.

[BootinUp]

8. This certainly is a case of the tyranny of the majority. nt

[Bette Noir]

9. Tyranny, yes. Majority, I'm not so sure.

Millions and millions of dollars came from out of state to propagandize for 8. Mormons and conservative Catholic organizations, mostly. The ads were run, saturation-style, on every station, for weeks. The line they used was that, unless Prop 8 passed, churches would be sued, and small children would be taught homosexuality in public schools.

There was also the counterintuitive wording, that "no" meant "yes." If someone wasn't paying close attention, they may have voted against their convictions.

I'm convinced that most Californians are either in favor of gay marriage, or don't care. It was the overwhelming influx of foreign (as in out-of-California) money spent on misleading ads that blew this one.

I think our best bet for quick justice is the SCOTUS. There's that Equal Protection thing. While Obama has spoken against gay marriage (pesky religious convictions), he has also tempered that with the proviso that domestic partnership should carry the same rights and privileges as marriage. Maybe he's too young to know first-hand that Separate but Equal isn't, but I think he can be convinced.

[NBachers]

10. "Gay Marriage will be IMPOSED on Californians"

That was their tagline. As if each Californian will be forced into gay marriage against their will. The amount of angi-gay advertising, in all media, was truly overwhelming. And nauseating.

All this money can be traced back to the church outfits that funded them. Court challenges to the tax-exempt status of these churches should follow.

[JerseygirlCT]

12. Also the implication that churches would be required to marry

gay couples, which is absolutely, positively false. But a very, very handy canard.

No church is required to marry anyone now, nor would they be under marriage equality. But that message seems to be easily lost.

[alfredo]

13. There's nothing fair or American about denying one group of people

their basic human rights.

[dhpgetsit]

19. It is a civil rights / human rights issue.

Civil rights laws could not have been passed by ballot initiatives.
We should not allow ballot initiatives to be used to deny rights either.

To me that is the root of the problem. Ballot initiatives implement "majority rule", and the normal legislative process has checks against that. We have to hope that through the judicial branch and the legislative branch, this discrimination can finally come to an end.

[alfredo]

22. As a very tired poll worker, I am glad we don't have ballot initiatives

in our state.

[Betsy Ross]

11. By electing Barack Hussein Obama as our next president

we have shown that we can rise above discrimination. We will rise above discrimination based on sexual orientation as well; it just may take a little longer.

[xxqqqzme]

14. Hooray - yes it IS unconstitutional

but w/ the current SCOTUS, I won't be taking any bets.

[jgraz]

20. It will never make it that far. The California Supreme Court will strike it down.

The measure should have never been on the ballot. I hope it loses outright, but even if a bare majority votes for hate, it WILL NOT STAND.

[glitch]

24. Oh how sad, all that time and money wasted effort, all those earnest, vacuous phone bankers.

:evilgrin: although I do still think it won't pass I am very disappointed that it came this close. It should have been slammed down, utterly refuted.

[carnie_sf]

18. Makes me proud to live in SF

of course I'd be prouder if we'd passed prop. H

[AsahinaKimi]

21. Yes, take them to court ..

This is good news..
Gambare ne!!