Posted on 09/06/2011 2:10:09 PM PDT by SmithL
The California Supreme Court signaled today that it won't stand in the way of a showdown in federal court over the state's ban on same-sex marriage.
At a hearing in San Francisco, all seven justices, including newly confirmed Justice Goodwin Liu, appeared to agree with sponsors of the voter-approved Proposition 8 that they had the right to appeal a federal judge's ruling declaring the 2008 ballot measure unconstitutional.
When Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled in August 2010 that Prop. 8 violated the rights of gays and lesbians to marry their chosen partners, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown declined to appeal. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals then asked the state's highest court whether the initiative's sponsors, a conservative religious coalition called Protect Marriage, had the right to represent the state's interests in an appeal.
At today's one-hour hearing, the answer seemed to be yes.
"Is there any authority for the governor and attorney general to second-guess the majority of Californians?"
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
“When Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled in August 2010 that Prop. 8 violated the rights of gays and lesbians to marry their chosen partners...”
Excuse me? Where is this right? When did it come into existence? I wasn’t aware that there is a general right to “marry” a chosen partner. Does it violate the “right” to marry your dog if that is your chosen partner?
Or for those with a better than six grade reading ability - average Americans.
Theodore Olson, lawyer for same-sex couples challenging Prop. 8, argued that California law does not give initiative sponsors, or any other private citizens, "the right to take over the attorney general's responsibility to represent the state."
I'd love to be at the SC if Olson tries that line of reasoning on the SCOTUS. He'll get eaten alive. This junk only works in California and Illinois.
Average or normal Americans.
Maybe they're making a 9th Amendment argument:
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Not saying I agree with it, but the argument could be made.
Heavens! What on earth happened to Ted Olson?!
Ted Olson's current wife describes herself as "a lifelong democrat."
I would guess that after his wife was killed on 9-11 he drifted over to the dark side.
I don’t like all this devil’s advocate game they’re probably playing. It was like this in the Prop 8 ‘trial.’ Judges have to cover their arses and do the fake while the voters of California aren’t looking. I wouldn’t be surprised if they find that no standing exists with Protect Marriage.
Regardless, I’d encourage all good Freepers to donate to this worthy coalition. I think I’ve donated to them a personal record amount, more than to any other political cause. It’s really that important.
Wishful thinking.
Probably would shoot some queer who chose my dog as his b!tch (partner) ... my dog is too classy for that bunch.
If it's not in state law, it's not in state law.
State law is what controls here. In CA, a governor or attorney general can defend an initiative in the courts. As governors Arnold & Brown, and Brown as AG and his successor Harris all refused to defend Prop 8.
It's not settled that a petitioner can defend their initiative independently before the courts.
Further, the job they did at the trial court was horrible.
He may have remarried and taken up to arguing cases with Al Gore’s David Boise instead of against him, but we’ll remember Ted’s late wife and fellow Freeper, BKO, on 9/11 this Sunday.
Vaughn Walker is a homosexual dirt-road Romeo who didn’t even have the integrity or common decency to recuse himself from the case.
Rights are reserved to the states and the people. They may have done a bad job, but it is ludicrous to turn the defense over to the political class if they refuse to defend. You must grant standing to the people.
Natural Rights are real. Most laws on the books are a contrivance of men and those that violate Natural Rights/Law are bad law. Actually, in this case, the silence on the matter is acquiescence on the part of the state.
I wonder if prop.8 even passes if it was put to the vote today. If it is upheld by our black robed masters, won’t they just keep putting it to a vote until it gets repealed?
It passed by 52% in 2008.
Freegards
No, because the Ninth Amendment is a rule of construction, not a vehicle for establishing substantive rights.
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.