To recap, the court neutered state marriage licensing in 2008 by overturning a 2000 law that reinforced existing laws and a universal tradition of marriage uniting the sexes. They did that despite knowing that the people were going to be voting on a state constitutional amendment on the matter. The amendment was added to the state constitution when the California voters approved Proposition 8. The court heard arguments, including from the backers of Proposition 8, and agreed that the new amendment was a duly adopted constitutional amendment. Then the matter went on to the federal courts. One of those courts has asked the state's high court to decide whether or not the backers of Prop 8, the people that very court allowed to argue before it, should be allowed to argue before the federal court. This could be a stalling tactic designed to keep the matter from the Supreme Court of the United States until President Obama gets a chance to get more of his nominees on that bench, Anyway, our friend Maura Dolan reports at LATimes.com that the California high court will issue its opinion on the matter tomorrow.
The duly adopted state constitutional amendment is not a “same-sex marriage ban”.
If not, then the initiative process is essentially pointless, since it was instituted as a check by the people on the state government.
Is any of your money going to the League?
Interesting.
It is constitutional, moral, practical, and often necessary to treat different kinds of associations differently.
The California Supreme Court has announced it will issue a written opinion Thursday on whether conservatives who sponsored Proposition 8 are entitled to defend the measure that overturned the 2008 same-sex marriage ban.
The duly adopted state constitutional amendment is not a “same-sex marriage ban”.
The court's ruling, which will be made public at 10 a.m., will determine whether all initiative sponsors in California are legally entitled to defend their measures in state court when the governor and the attorney general refuse.
If not, then the initiative process is essentially pointless, since it was instituted as a check by the people on the state government.
The League of Women Voters has urged the California court to deny standing to initiative sponsors, as has Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris.
Is any of your money going to the League?
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court to clarify whether state law gives initiative backers special status to defend measures in court, but the appeals court won't be bound by what the California court determines.
Interesting.
It is constitutional, moral, practical, and often necessary to treat different kinds of associations differently.
Twenty years ago, many states like Oregon made it easier to have ballot measures. It was consider progressive, now states would like them to go away. It's more then just marriage, that is at stake. On the other hand, if lobby groups can legally redefine words as a right, they would try to argue to rewrite procedural laws as well.
ReplyDelete