Judge Vaughn R. Walker
Posted on 07/02/2009 10:07:28 AM PDT by NYer
.- The U.S. District Court has agreed to allow ProtectMarriage.com to defend Proposition 8 in a lawsuit, after the state's Attorney General, Jerry Brown, refused to do so. The ruling will allow the coalition to defend the successful California initiative from last November that restored marriage to being only between a man and a woman in the state constitution.
Andrew Pugno, general counsel for ProtectMarriage.com, has said that he is “pleased that the court will allow us to defend marriage and the will of the people against challenges to the voter-approved measure.”
“This decision will give the official proponents of Proposition 8 a full seat at the table in this litigation,” Pugno told CNA, observing that the coalition will now have the same rights and powers as the other participants in the case.
In its decision, the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California noted that California Attorney General Brown was not defending the law, claiming that the voter-approved proposition was unconstitutional, despite the ruling of the California Supreme Court last May, which upheld the constitutionality of the proposition.
Today's ruling observed that “although the responsibilities of the Attorney General of California contemplate that he shall enforce the state’s laws in accordance with constitutional limitations, Attorney General Brown has informed the court that he believes Prop 8 is unconstitutional.”
“This should be disturbing to the people of California, since the constitutional duty of the Attorney General is to defend measures passed by voters,” Pugno told CNA.
Pointing to other legal challenges against traditional marriage in California law, he added that “today’s ruling designating us to defend Prop. 8 reflects the unfortunate fact that, if left up to state officials, the will of the people would not be defended at all.”
Cases in which California's Attorney General has refused to defend an existing law are extremely rare. One such instance was in 1964, when California voters approved Proposition 14, which would have allowed for racial discrimination in selling and renting houses. In that case, the state’s Attorney General refused to defend the law, claiming that it was blatantly unconstitutional. Both the California and U.S. Supreme Courts agreed, striking down the proposition.
Attorney General Brown has recently tried to draw parallels between the two situations, telling the Huffington Post, “As California's Attorney General, I believe the Court should strike down Proposition 8 for remarkably similar reasons -- because it unconstitutionally discriminates against same-sex couples and deprives them of the fundamental right to marry.”
Perry v Schwarzenegger, a lawsuit filed in May, challenged the constitutionality of Prop. 8. In addition, a motion for a preliminary injunction was also filed, which would suspend Prop. 8 and allow same-sex couples to resume obtaining marriage licenses while the case worked its way through the courts. A hearing to determine whether the injunction will be ordered is scheduled to take place tomorrow.
However, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker suggested using tomorrow's hearing to set a trial schedule instead. The judge said that a quick trial would be favorable to avoid that confusion that may be caused for the state if a temporary injunction were to be ordered.
Both Attorney General Brown and Governor Schwarzenegger have argued against the injunction, saying it will create too much chaos and complexity. Both have also voiced support for a quick hearing of the case.
Pugno told CNA that despite being granted intervenor status, ProtectMarriage.com will not be receiving taxpayer funds to support them in defending Proposition 8. “The cost and burden will fall entirely upon the proponents and their supporters,” he said.
Yet in spite of these obstacles, Pugno remains hopeful about the future of Proposition 8.
“Marriage between a man and a woman predates government, is recognized as the foundation of the family, and has been twice reaffirmed in a statewide vote as the will of the people in California,” he explained. “We look forward to helping safeguard what the voters have put in place as this lawsuit moves forward.”
Ping!
The will of the people was perfectly clear in the results of a certified election vote tally.
Californians: How much time left on Brown’s term? Can you not get him removed from office for dereliction of duty? If his job is to defend the laws of California, and he obviously is not doing that by being selective, then he’s not doing his job.
Now that is progress.
How come if a pro-life politician is ever elected he has to promise to uphold the law of the land, but the same rules don’t apply in this case?
Brown is too busy running for his old office of Governor next year.
How is this any different than siblings not being allowed to each other; parents not being able to marry their children; “funny uncles” not being allowed to marry their nieces, etc.?
Why is this any different than laws against bigamy, polyandry, etc.?
Get your attorney’s fees paid by the state through use of the Attorney General statute.
Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
Checkout: http://SilencingChristians.com
court PERMITS??? What’s with that? They PERMINT them to defend part of their constitution!
The court denied the preliminary injunction sought at today’s hearing by the sodomites’ lawyers.
Time to give to ProtectMarriage.com like there’s no tomorrow.
Clarifying, the homo-nazis tried to get the effects of Prop 8 put on hold until the case could work its way through the courts, effectively allowing fake marriage to take place again in CA. The court denied them this, but wants the case decided quickly - who knows what that means in court timeline language?
This is great news. The absolute convolution that resulted from the California Supreme Court not putting a stay on their decision until Proposition 8 could get a fair vote by the people was an egregious affront to Californians, who now must deal with the damage done.
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.