Replies

The CA Supreme Court ruled that Prop 8 was an amendment to the CA Constitution.

Right, and didn't the SCOCA also rule Prop 8 unconstitutional (state)? Then the proponents of Prop 8 went to the feds, right? (Unlike some here suppose, I was personally involved in the fight to get Prop 8 passed and STILL have a bumper sticker on my car saying to vote for Prop 8. My contention, however, is you don't go to the feds for a problem that is not a U.S. Constitution problem but a local/state problem, or you open Pandora's box.)

The people of CA need to hash this thing out one way or the other, and there also needs to be judges with backbone (like Scalia) who ignore the (dicta?) in the SCOTUS decision that essentially personally demeans proponents of protecting traditional marriage.

The sodomite agenda is ultimately to do away with the Bible and its values which includes traditional, Biblically defined marriage. (Marriage was created and defined by God, right? Another sad example of man futility trying to reinvent what God created.)

Thanks for helping to keep us informed.

There seems to be some confusion about how the Prop 8 case progressed to SCOTUS. Here's how it did so.

In Stauss v. Horton, the Supreme Court of CA ruled that Prop 8 was a legitimate amendment to the CA Constitution, that existing CA domestic-partnership laws remained in effect, that same-sex marriages which occurred before the passage of Prop 8 were still valid, and that Prop 8 carved out a narrow exception for equal access to the term "marriage." Strauss v. Horton was the combination of three lawsuits filed by same-sex couples and various CA cities against the State of CA and some of its officials. ProtectMarriage.com, who sponsored Prop 8, was granted permission under CA law to participate in the defense of the case alongside the State of CA.

In Perry v. Schwarzenegger later Perry v. Brown, the same-sex couples appealed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of CA, which is in the federal court system. Judge Walker held a bench trial and ruled that Prop 8 violated the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The decision was stayed pending appeal.

In Perry v. Brown, the Prop 8 proponents (defendant-intervenors) appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The 9th Circuit asked the Supreme Court of CA to decide whether or not the Prop 8 defendant-intervenors could defend the State's interests in the State's refusal to do so. The CA Supreme Court ruled that they did have legal standing to defend it. The 9th Cicrcuit upheld the ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of CA (Judge Walker) that Prop 8 was unconstitutional.

In Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Prop 8 proponents appealed to the SCOTUS. They ruled that the Prop 8 intervenors did not have legal standing to appeal the ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of CA to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. SCOTUS remanded the case back to the 9th Circuit with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of standing.