Thankfully we have the law on our side! The right is right when they warn that "it's only a matter of time"!
By BOB EGELKOSAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE
The state Supreme Court plunged back into the same-sex marriage wars today, agreeing to decide the legality of a ballot measure that repealed the right of gay and lesbian couples to wed in California.
At the urging of both sponsors and opponents of Proposition 8, the justices voted 6-1 to grant review of lawsuits challenging the Nov. 4 initiative, with Justice Joyce Kennard dissenting.
However, the court refused, 6-1, to let same-sex marriages resume while it considers Prop. 8's constitutionality. Justice Carlos Moreno cast the dissenting vote.
Approved by 52 percent of voters, Prop. 8 restored the definition of marriage - a union of a man and a woman - that the court had overturned May 15. Both Kennard and Moreno were in the majority of that 4-3 ruling.
In its order today, the court asked for arguments on whether Prop. 8, if constitutional, would nullify 18,000 same-sex marriages performed between when the ruling took effect in mid-June and Nov. 4. Attorney General Jerry Brown, who will defend Prop. 8 as the state's chief lawyer, contends those marriages are legal, but sponsors of the initiative disagree.
The justices asked for written arguments to be submitted by Jan. 15. The court could hold a hearing as early as March, with a ruling due 90 days later.
If the court had dismissed the suits, they could have been refiled in a county Superior Court, where most cases begin. They could still have reached the state's high court, but only after appeals that might have taken years.
The lawsuits that the court agreed to review were filed by two groups of same-sex couples, a gay-rights organization and a group of local governments led by the city of San Francisco. Civil rights, religious and feminist organizations have since filed separate suits challenging Prop. 8 that the justices may add to their docket.
All the suits argue that Prop. 8, drafted as a state constitutional amendment, makes such drastic changes that it amounts to a revision of the Constitution.
Unlike constitutional amendments, which can qualify for the ballot with signatures on initiative petitions, revisions can be placed on the ballot only by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature or a state constitutional convention.
The state's high court has defined a constitutional revision as a fundamental change in government structure and has struck down only two initiatives as revisions. The last time was in 1991, when the court overturned provisions of a measure that would have required California courts to follow federal standards on criminal defendants' rights rather than relying on the state Constitution to grant broader rights.
Opponents of Prop. 8 argue that it is a revision because it deprives a historically persecuted minority of fundamental rights and leaves courts powerless to intervene. A ruling upholding the measure would leave any minority group vulnerable to repeal of its rights by majority vote, the lawsuits argue.
Supporters of Prop. 8 say it is merely a constitutional amendment restoring the traditional definition of marriage and leaves the structure of state government unaffected. They contend a ruling overturning the measure would strike a blow at the people's power to change their Constitution by initiative.
In today's order, the court said it would also consider whether Prop. 8 violates the constitutional separation of powers. That was an apparent reference to opponents' arguments that the initiative interferes with judges' authority to apply the constitutional guarantee of equal rights.
In its 4-3 ruling legalizing same-sex marriages, the court said California's ban on such unions - enacted by the Legislature in 1977 and reaffirmed by the voters in 2000 - violated gays' and lesbians' right to marry the partner of their choice and to be free of arbitrary discrimination.
The court also said laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation are presumed to be unconstitutional, in the same category as bias based on race or sex. That part of the ruling is unaffected by Prop. 8.
The lead case in today's order is Strauss vs. Horton, S168047.
San Francisco Chronicle Reporter Bob Egelko can be reached at begelko@sfchronicle.com
No comments:
Post a Comment