Statement By Andrew Pugno, General Counsel Of ProtectMarriage.Com (On ACLU Lawsuit Alert)

ProtectMarriage.com ^ | 11/5/2008 | Andrew Pugno

[goldstategop]

“The lawsuit filed today by the ACLU and Equality California seeking to invalidate the decision of California voters to enshrine traditional marriage in California’s constitution is frivolous and regrettable. These same groups filed an identical case with the California Supreme Court months ago, which was summarily dismissed. We will vigorously defend the People’s decision to enact Proposition 8.

This is the second time that California voters have acted to define marriage as between a man and a woman. It is time that the opponents of traditional marriage respect the voters’ decision.

The ACLU/Equality California lawsuit is completely lacking in merit. It is as if their campaign just spent $40 million on a losing campaign opposing something they now say is a legal nullity. Their position is absurd, an insult to California voters and an attack on the initiative process itself.

The right to amend California’s Constitution is not granted to the People, it is reserved by the People. The Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged the reserved power of the People to use the initiative process to amend the Constitution. For example, when the Rose Bird Court struck down the death penalty as a violation of fundamental state constitutional rights, the People disagreed, and in the exercise of their sovereign power reversed that interpretation of their Constitution through the initiative-amendment process. Even a liberal jurist who vehemently disagreed with the People’s decision on the death penalty, Justice Stanley Mosk, nevertheless acknowledged the People’s authority to decide the issue through the initiative-amendment process.

It should also be noted that the ACLU recently made this same “constitutional revision” claim in a nearly identical matter in Oregon and it was unanimously rejected. The claim was made under almost identical provisions of the Oregon State Constitution, against an almost identical voter constitutional amendment which read, “…only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage.” The Court of Appeals of Oregon unanimously rejected the ACLU’s “revision” claim. (Martinez v. Kulongoski (May 21, 2008) --- P.3d----, 220 Or.App. 142, 2008 WL2120516).

The coalition that has worked so hard for the past year to enact Proposition 8 will vigorously defend the People’s decision against this unfortunate challenge by groups who, having lost in the court of public opinion, now turn to courts of law to pursue their agenda.” 2008 Protect

[goldstategop]

The YES on 8 Campaign is committed to securing the people's enactment from a frivolous ACLU lawsuit. Those who have lost an election campaign should not be allowed to get the result they want in the courts.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[Bubba_Leroy]

All they need to win the suit is the same 5 out of 9 supreme court justices that legalized homosexual marriage in the last suit.

[Dilbert San Diego]

where’s Gavin Newsom? Why isn’t he out there leading the charge back into court?

Interesting review of the legal points. And a good question is posed as to why they spent $40 million trying to defeat Prop. 8. If they really believe that it was an illegal proposition, why would they try to defeat it? Why not just file suit after it passes, and save $40 million? I mean, if they really believe what they are saying?

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

Pray for God to protect the traditional definition of marriage. May His will be done.

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

Pray for God to protect the traditional definition of marriage. May His will be done.

[Dilbert San Diego]

It was 4 out of 7 on the Supreme Court which legalized same-sex marriage. The legal issue before the court is different this time. Now they have to decide if it was legal to have a proposition on the subject of marriage, not deciding whether marriage somehow discriminated against homosexuals.

but you are right, if the judges are hell bent on imposing homosexual marriage, they might just see merit in this newest lawsuit. Hopefully the judges have respect for the rule of law.

Does anyone else think that these endless lawsuits about marriage, and judges making up the law, has the effect of eroding respect for the rule of law? Laws written in plain language, laws which give every individual the same legal rights, somehow get interpreted as to be “discriminating” against a poltically correct oppressed group.

[Valpal1]

All the people need to do is remove the 4 of 7 judges that overturned their previous legislation.

Start the recall petition ASAP. California threw Rose Bird out on her butt and they should do the same again to this latest crop of judicial activists.

[GSP.FAN]

Sorry i am building bigger cages for hens and rooster’s.I do not have time to worry about the GLBT...

[Ol' Sparky]

Does anyone else think that these endless lawsuits about marriage, and judges making up the law, has the effect of eroding respect for the rule of law?

If this gets overturned, the law will mean no more than it did in the old Soviet Union or does today in China. Tyrants aren't legitimate sources of authority.

[patriot preacher]

All this will be a moot point by next spring. When Barack Obama is inaugurated, among the first things he will do is fire all Federal Prosecutors hired under the Bush (and probably the Clinton) administrations. After all, Bill Clinton did it in 1993. Bush only fired 8, and he got sued for it! But Clinton set the precedent.

He will immediately have his Prosecutors file an injunction on the state of California IN FEDERAL court, barring enforcement of the ban on gay marriage on the basis that this is a violation of their “civil rights.”

He will also urge Congress to pass a law legalizing same-sex marriage and making it binding on all states.

Think it can’t happen? I didn’t think a Marxist could become President of the United States either.

[Homer_J_Simpson]

Think it can’t happen? I didn’t think a Marxist could become President of the United States either.

0bama is William Ayers with good press. We could well be entering a national nightmare. If Mark Steyn is on target in "America Alone" that goes for all western civilization. This is not Jimmy Carter II. For sure we will discover just how tough our Constitutional foundation is.

And now back to my regularly scheduled rosy outlook.

[Dilbert San Diego]

There is little chance that Congress will pass a law legalizing homosexual marriage and make it binding on all the states. As of right now, I don’t think it could happen. But as you say, who knew a Marxist could be elected president. If things fall into place the way the gay activists want, they might get their dream of 50 state homosexual marriage.

[TheDon]

It should also be noted that the ACLU recently made this same “constitutional revision” claim in a nearly identical matter in Oregon and it was unanimously rejected. The claim was made under almost identical provisions of the Oregon State Constitution, against an almost identical voter constitutional amendment which read, “…only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage.” The Court of Appeals of Oregon unanimously rejected the ACLU’s “revision” claim. (Martinez v. Kulongoski (May 21, 2008) --- P.3d----, 220 Or.App. 142, 2008 WL2120516).

The ACLU is wasting their time and money....hmmmm....

[dbz77]

On the amendment v. revision issue, it is important to look at the relevant case law. In People v. Anderson (1972), the California Supreme Court had ruled "that capital punishment is both cruel and unusual as those terms are defined under article I, section 6, of the California Constitution, and that therefore death may not be exacted as punishment for crime in this state." In that same decision, the Court noted that the "cruel or unusual punishment clause of the California Constitution, like other provisions of the Declaration of Rights, operates to restrain legislative and executive action and to protect fundamental individual and minority rights against encroachment by the majority. It is the function of the court to examine legislative acts in light of such constitutional mandates to ensure that the promise of the Declaration of Rights is a reality to the individual." Later that same year, voters passed an initiative which constitutionalized the death penalty. This initiative affected the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, a right of a minority. Lawyers for Lavelle Frierson, in their appeal of his death sentence, argued that the initiative amounted to a revision. The Court rejected that argument in People v. Frierson. So case law states that amendments can be used to reduce (and extend) the scope of the cruel and unusual punishment clause.