Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Legal Circus That Killed Proposition 8
Public Discourse (The Witherspoon Institute) ^ | July 22, 2013 | Frank Schubert

Posted on 07/22/2013 8:25:25 AM PDT by fwdude

The legal wrangling over Proposition 8 has reminded me of a Big Time Wrestling match. It’s something I’ve followed with more than a passing interest, since I managed the campaign that enacted the constitutional amendment. Watching Prop 8 careen through the federal court system left me feeling frustrated and sometimes incensed that the system itself seemed so staged, and appeared to be so corrupt.

But I felt, like I did as a kid, that somehow, some way the initiative adopted by over seven million California voters would escape the grasp of slick-talking lawyers and self-interested judges and politicians and emerge victorious—living to fight another day. A rematch, if you will. Alas, it now sadly appears that absent some last minute legal ruling this initiative—and with it a good chunk of the initiative process itself—is dead.

Regardless of whether you see voters defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman as the “good guy” or the “bad guy” in this political drama, the process that killed marriage in California should greatly concern anyone who cares even remotely about democracy and the rule of law.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda
Good article from an inside guy.
1 posted on 07/22/2013 8:25:25 AM PDT by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fwdude
This issue was covered pretty well here on FR just after the Supremes ruled "No Contest". No that wasn't it, they ruled "No Standing".

The Bottom Line in California is that Jerry Brown and one Federal Judge now know that they can nullify any vote of the citizens of that once great state anytime they want. And there is no appeal possible.

Thankfully it has not not occurred to our Loony Tunes Governor that maybe there is a judge out there who thinks Proposition 13 is Unconstitutional since it harms women, children and minorities the most.

2 posted on 07/22/2013 8:34:28 AM PDT by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

The process was troubling.

I realize that the U.S. Supreme Court did not want to declare a constitutional right to homosexual marriage. And they actually did not overturn Proposition 8. But, by declaring that nobody had standing to defend the law in the court case, it resulted in a default judgement that Proposition 8 should indeed be invalid.

This result should trouble all of us. It may well be used on other issues besides homosexual marriage in the future. Liberals may even get snakebit on this, if some of their favorite laws get overturned if state officials refuse to defend their laws against court challenges.

We’re farther along than people think, to a situation in which only judges, or presidents assuming executive powers not given to them by the constitution, will make things up as they go along. And in the process, cut legislatures and the people out of the process altogether.

3 posted on 07/22/2013 8:34:31 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

Our side has filed a new thing with a clerk as the plaintiff. I am hoping they decide he has standing, as he is being asked to perform ‘marriages’ that have been constitutionally banned. Dare I hope?

4 posted on 07/22/2013 8:53:46 AM PDT by Persevero ( What is your 'fair share' of what someone else has worked for?" -Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

Invalidating votes is old hat for the elite class.

5 posted on 07/22/2013 9:09:15 AM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi --)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

I’m hopeful, too, persevero. They’re not so much trying to gain standing as to have the CA Supreme Court recognize that:

1) The California Marriage Amendment (Prop 8) has NOT been invalidated, and is still in effect.

2) Recognize that the federal court case only affected 2 counties in the state, leaving marriage inviolate in all the others.

This could be a long-shot, but the Court has set dates for the hearing to be held in August. A start (again.)

6 posted on 07/22/2013 9:14:31 AM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

Maybe because in a representative republic, we do not believe in mob rule via ballot initiatives?

7 posted on 07/22/2013 10:13:53 AM PDT by Clemenza ("History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil governm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza

“Maybe because in a representative republic, we do not believe in mob rule via ballot initiatives?”

Then get the initiative process off the books.

We can argue whether it’s good for California or bad for California, but it’s the law in California. And so long as it is, it must be respected.

8 posted on 07/22/2013 2:24:18 PM PDT by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson