State high court interested in Prop. 8 suits

[meegbear]

The California Supreme Court has asked state Attorney General Jerry Brown to reply by Monday to lawsuits challenging the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage - a sign that the justices are taking the cases seriously and will not dispose of them quickly.

Two groups of gay and lesbian couples and local governments led by the city of San Francisco filed the suits a day after the Nov. 4 election, when Proposition 8 passed with a 52 percent majority.

They argue that the initiative, a state constitutional amendment, violates other provisions of the California Constitution by taking rights away from a historically persecuted minority group and stripping judges of their power to protect that group. The couples' suits contend that Prop. 8 makes such fundamental changes that it amounts to a constitutional revision, which can be placed on the ballot only by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature.

Brown has said he will defend Prop. 8 in court while also supporting the legality of an estimated 18,000 weddings performed under the court's May 15 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage.

That ruling declared that state law defining marriage as being between a man and a woman violated the state Constitution. Sponsors of Prop. 8 contend that the initiative - which declared that only marriage between a man and a woman is "valid or recognized in California" - would invalidate all existing same-sex marriages.

The filing the court requested from Brown's office will not address the ballot measure's validity, but will focus instead on the initial questions of whether the justices should accept the suits for review - and, if so, whether they should suspend Prop. 8 while they decide the case, said the state's lawyer, Christopher Krueger, a senior assistant attorney general. Suspending Prop. 8 would allow same-sex marriages to resume.

<snip>

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/14/BAMU1449RR.DTL&type=politics

[terrya]

1. I think this is very encouraging news.

[PFunk]

2. Personally I think California is trying to find a way out/kill of this prop 8 mess.

And prop 8 itself. And I think it may use these suits to do it.

[Maat]

9. I agree with you.

And, the other side (Yes-On-8) is in trouble. It's our state attorney, Jerry Brown, who is obligated to defend it. I'm betting his 'defense' of it is going to very half-hearted. The only good argument, for the Yes-On-8 side, is the 'Friend of the Court' briefs from the fundamentalist law organizations (most out-of-state). I do not believe that those arguments will be looked upon favorably.

[AntiFascist]

15. His 'Preliminary Response' just got posted...

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/s168047-letter-denial-ag.pdf

"this Court's review will be limited in nature and will not have to "consider or weigh the...social wisdom or general propriety" of Prop. 8 (Amador Valley) Rather, the court's sole function will be to "evaluate <the amendment> legally in the light of established constitutional standards." These questions appear to be strictly legal in nature, and do not require fact-finding..."

Meanwhile, the 'Kingdom of Heaven Worldwide Mission' argues....:rofl:

[GodlessBiker]

3. Brown is beholden to the CA Constitution, not the results of any ballot initiative. I see no ...

reason why he should believe that he must defend the results of Prop 8 if he believes Prop 8 violated the State Constitution to try to revise the Constitution in this way.

[nichomachus]

4. I have the feeling his heart's not going to be in defending Prop H8

He may go through the motions, but I'm guessing it's not going to be an A-student effort. However, the Mormons and Catholics will have their $1,000 an hour shills there to plead their case.

[Ioo]

8. To me, the real "Tell" will be if he asks for the cases to be dismissed...

It is rare that a SC takes a case without it first going to a lower court... if he asks for it to be dismissed and sent to a lower court, WORRY, because the SC ruling will then be YEARS away... if he does not ask for it to be dismissed, and basically ask the SC to take the case, then the game is on, and the state is working in the background to get the gay marriage money pipe turned back on...

Let's hope they STAY prop 8 and allow the marriages to keep going, that will make many right wingers heads blow up!

[nichomachus]

11. This case may be different

Granted it's not filed in a lower court, but it directly addresses a constitutional issue that was decided upon by the supreme court earlier. Therefore they may decide that they are the ones to decide this too, rather than muck around in the lower courts. This case just didn't come out of the blue. And, they know that eventually it's going to get kicked up to them no matter what the lower courts rule.

Often, they like it to go through the lower courts so all of the issues are laid out before it gets up to the supreme court level, but on this the issues are already pretty clearly laid out.

[greeneyedboy]

5. His "defense" of Prop 22 was a great help in the Supreme Court in May.

If I recall correctly, his argument in favor of the DOMA that was overturned by the CA Supreme Court was based on an assertion that marriage isn't a fundamental right. Marriage had already been declared a fundamental right. The Supreme Court then smacked down the assertion and elaborated at length that marriage to the person of one's own choosing is a fundamental right included in the fundamental rights to privacy and liberty.

I for one am extremely glad Brown is our A.G., and look forward to his filing "in defense of Prop 8" due today.

[GodlessBiker]

6. Thanks. I'm looking forward to his brief, too.

[Ioo]

7. As AG I think he has to take on the case for the state... but will not try hard

I think that the state sees this whole issue as a huge windfall for them. They want gay marriage back because it was making great money.

He will go up there and try to defend this, but not very hard...

[Maat]

10. He is legally obligated to defend it, I believe.

His 'defense' will be very half-hearted, I believe.

[nichomachus]

12. Brown doesn't defend Prop 8 -- but argues that it should remain in effect until ruling

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/s168047-letter-denial-ag.pdf

He says that no immediate harm will come from leaving the ban in effect until a ruling is made. And, that seems like a valid argument. It would delay people getting married (assuming Prop 8 will be overturned) but it doesn't do anything irrevocable -- unless you want to argue that people should be allowed to marry until the matter is ruled on.

However, all he says about Prop 8 is that the justices should rule because it's an important legal case. I knew his heart wasn't going to be in defending it -- unless he's going to file a separate brief.

[AntiFascist]

13. I heard that there was a news story today...

that Gov. Schwarzenegger has not joined the legislative legal action (I assume this refers to the amicus brief) because he doesn't even think that Prop. 8 should be considered a Revision. He feels that taking away a Fundamental Right is wrong period. This is sounding better all the time.

[greeneyedboy]

14. you can subscribe to get updates when filings come in

The Court has a handy feature where you can sign up to get email updates on certain cases.


http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/prop8.htm

From that page , click on "case information", select "Supreme Court" and submit the form, then enter case number(s) to get updates on any/all of the cases (S168047 = Strauss v. Horton; S168066 = Tyler v. California; S168078 = San Francisco v. Horton; S168302 = Equal Rights Advocates & California Women's Law Center v. Horton).

Using the same form, you can see the calendar of filings and other information on the cases.


Be the first on your block to know what's going on! :-)

[ohm_moyh_gawd]

16. Another interesting tell will be...

Another interesting tell will be whether the CA Supreme Court will allow the proponents of Prop 8 to provide a defense along with the CA Attorney General's office. "Proposition 8 Official Proponents" and "Campaign for California Families" have already filed motions to intervene as "real parties in interest"; the SC has not yet ruled on whether they will allow them to become a part of the case. Frankly, these people have done quite enough meddling already and are only a cover for out-of-state interests to meddle some more. I hope the SC denies their motions and tells them that they have no standing in the case.