Posted on 11/19/2008 5:20:21 PM PST by goldstategop
The official proponents of Proposition 8 and ProtectMarriage.com Yes on 8, the campaign committee responsible for its enactment by voters today said it is profoundly gratified that the California Supreme Court granted all their requests by agreeing to accept original jurisdiction of three cases challenging the measures validity, granted their request to intervene in the cases as Real Parties in Interest, denied the request of others to delay implementation of Proposition 8, and refused to allow outside groups to directly participate in the litigation.
This is a great day for the rule of law and the voters of California, said ProtectMarriage.com General Counsel Andy Pugno. This order means that voters will get their day in court and ensures that voters will have a vigorous defense of Proposition 8 before the California Supreme Court. We are profoundly gratified with the Courts order and are confident that Proposition 8 will be upheld.
The Supreme Court has accepted original jurisdiction of three cases that claim Proposition 8 is a constitutional revision rather than a constitutional amendment and thus should not have been presented to voters. The Courts order accepting the cases, as was requests by the proponents of Proposition 8, will provide a ruling on Prop 8s validity in a matter of months, rather than potentially years of protracted litigation.
Perhaps the most significant part of the Supreme Courts order is to deny the requests of the plaintiffs in the three cases to stay the implementation of Proposition 8. This means that, once the vote is certified, Proposition 8 will take effect as of midnight, November 5th. The Constitution of California has been amended to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman will be valid or recognized in California.
The California Supreme Court is recognizing the Peoples vote on Proposition 8 and is allowing the measure to go into full effect, Pugno said. This is a great legal victory for voters.
Also of key significance, the Court has granted the request of the proponents of the initiative and their campaign committee to intervene in the litigation as Real Parties in Interests. This ruling grants the backers of Prop. 8 full legal standing to submit written arguments and appear in oral argument before the Court.
Granting the backers of Prop. 8 intervention in these cases means that voters can be certain that there will be a thorough and vigorous defense of Prop. 8, Pugno said. Voters will not have to solely depend on Attorney General Jerry Brown to defend the measure. Since the attorney general was an active opponent of Proposition 8, we did not want the fate of the measure to rest in his defense of it.
The Court also denied the request of unrelated parties, including the Campaign for California Families (CCF), to intervene in the litigation. The proponents of Prop. 8 had asked the Court to deny CCFs proposed intervention.
The cases seeking to invalidate Proposition 8 are Strauss v. Horton, S168047; City and County of San Francisco v. Horton, S168078; and Tyler v. State of California, S168066.
Those in favor of Prop. 8 wanted to defend their position in court. The day after the vote, gay activists started filing lawsuits to have it overturned. So those favoring Prop 8 want to defend it, because lawsuits were filed by the other side.
Heck the gay activists are the ones who started going to court in state after state to force homosexual marriage. Then if it’s denied, they go back to court anyway.
Do gays, ACLU, etc. have deep pockets to keep going back to court? Do they want to bleed the traditional marriage people dry since everyone ends up paying their attorneys big bucks??????
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.