ITP V.011 SOCIAL JUSTICE: MARRIAGE EQUALITY: CALIFORNIA:CA Supreme Court Issues Ruling in Prop 8 Case

A ruling on the issue of Proposition 8 in California State supreme court states that Federal Court (U.S. Supreme Court) will likely decide on gay marriages.

FROM NOH8:
The California Supreme Court decided today that the sponsors of Proposition 8 and other ballot measures are entitled to defend them in court when the state refuses to do so, a ruling likely to spur federal courts to decide the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans (LA Times).

When the Federal District Court ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional under U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker in August of 2010, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court to clarify whether state law gives initiative backers special status which would grant them the ability to defend the initiative in court (LA Times).



This landmark decision in the Prop 8 case sets the stage for a federal ruling on the constitutionality of Prop 8, which may have the ability to affect marriage bans outside of California.

This victory today is an incredible step forward in the fight for federal equal rights!

FROM SDGLN:
SAN FRANCISCO – In a crucial decision related to the ongoing litigation involving Proposition 8, the California Supreme Court has just ruled that private parties do have legal standing to defend the state’s laws in court even if the state's top officials do not agree to do so.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this year asked California’s high court to review the standing issue:

“Whether under Article II, Section 8 of the California Constitution, or otherwise under California law, the official proponents of an initiative measure possess either a particularized interest in the initiative’s validity or the authority to assert the State’s interest in the initiative’s validity, which would enable them to defend the constitutionality of the initiative upon its adoption or appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative, when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so.”

In its ruling today the state Supreme Court wrote:

In response to the question submitted by the Ninth Circuit, we conclude ... that when the public officials who ordinarily defend a challenged state law or appeal a judgment invalidating the law decline to do so, under article II, section 8 of the California Constitution and the relevant provisions of the Elections Code, the official proponents of a voter-approved initiative measure are authorized to assert the state’s interest in the initiative’s validity, enabling the proponents to defend the constitutionality of the initiative and to appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative.

On Aug. 4, 2010, federal district Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional, and the Governor and the Attorney General of California later said that they would abide by the ruling and not appeal the decision.

ProtectMarriage, the anti-gay group that raised millions of dollars in support Prop 8, which took away marriage equality from gay and lesbian Californians, then appealed Walker’s ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

During the appeals hearing at the Ninth Circuit, the judges punted to the California Supreme Court to get a ruling on whether privates parties have legal standing in filing the appeal.

The state’s high court grilled both sides during a session on Sept. 6, 2011.

Charles J. Cooper, the attorney for ProtectMarriage, was challenged by one justice on whether he could prove where there was actual injury to the Prop 8 proponents. Yet another justice dismissed Cooper’s citing of Karcher case law to support his contention that ProtectMarriage has a right to standing, noting rather dryly that the Karcher legal case had nothing to do with the initiative process.

Ted Olson, one of the high-profile attorneys for the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER), also took a bruising from the justices but scored more points. He said it would cause chaos if citizens could make the courts second-guess the Attorney General’s enforcement of laws.
Olson argued that the only people who were harmed by Prop 8 were gay and lesbian Californians who cannot get married, not heterosexual couples who can legally wed.

The California Supreme Court’s ruling, which is non-binding in federal court but will carry considerable weight, will now be forwarded to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is scheduled to resume deliberations in the appeals case on the week starting Dec. 5, 2011.

Shortly after the state Supreme Court's ruling that Prop 8 supporters had legal standing, AFER issued the following statement:

Our federal lawsuit for marriage equality is back on the fast track!

Now that the California Supreme Court has finally issued its advisory opinion that the Prop. 8 Proponents have standing to appeal, we can expect a speedy ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

We are on the cusp of achieving what we have been fighting for. For countless couples like our plaintiffs, Kris Perry & Sandy Steir and Paul Katami & Jeff Zarrillo, marriage equality cannot come quickly enough. ...

The Ninth Circuit’s impending ruling is important for a host of reasons:

First, we are confident that the Court will affirm our historic District Court victory. The anti-marriage Proponents of Prop. 8 failed to present a shred of credible evidence to justify discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans. Marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, plain and simple.

Second, a Ninth Circuit victory can set an enormous precedent. The District Court decision that affirmed the right to marry for gay and lesbian Americans has had tremendous impact on public opinion. Since we filed the Perry case, seven national polls now show that a majority of Americans support marriage equality. That support will only grow as our case progresses and Americans are able to see the truth: when you look at the facts no American should ever be denied the fundamental freedom to marry.

Third, the potential reach of our case is greatly amplified. The Ninth Circuit is the largest appeals court in the nation, stretching the entire west coast and as far east as Montana and Arizona. This is an essential and critical step to bring our case before the U.S. Supreme Court and achieve our ultimate goal: full federal marriage equality. ...

Every step of the way, AFER's stellar bi-partisan legal team—led by Ted Olson and David Boies, along with experts in sociology, psychology and history, as well as thought and political leaders—is defending the right to marry both inside and outside the courtroom.

The anti-marriage activists that passed Prop. 8 have used up every trick in their book to delay, conceal, and distract from the truth. Now they need to confront the fact that they have no case.

Reactions to the ruling

Rick Jacobs, chair and founder of the Courage Campaign:

"While we respect the recommendations that the California Supreme Court made to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals -- that they grant standing to the proponents of the so-called ProtectMarriage.com -- it is only a recommendation. Allowing the Prop 8 proponents to have special rights in Court may open the floodgates to wealthy special interests to do the same. The judges of the 9th Circuit must determine if people who had enough money to buy a ballot measure that calls for people to vote on each other's rights should have special rights in federal court. Regardless, we are confident that justice and love will prevail."

Jon Davidson, legal director of Lambda Legal:

"While a disappointing ruling, this case is now back in federal court, where we expect a quick victory. The ruling addresses only a procedural legal question. The key question underlying this case is whether the U.S. Constitution permits a state electorate to treat one group of people unequally to everyone else by depriving them of what the state's high court has held to be a fundamental right. A federal court has already ruled that it may not. We look forward to seeing that decision upheld so that same-sex couples in California may once again enjoy the freedom to marry.

"Today's ruling also does not settle the question as to whether Prop 8 proponents have standing in federal court. It remains up to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to decide whether or not the U.S. Constitution allows initiative proponents to defend a challenge to the measure the proponents supported when elected state officials don't. We think the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that they don't."

“In the end, the proponents of Prop 8 are just people with an opinion. That does not make them entitled to stand in for the government when they don't agree with its decisions. We believe the U.S. Court of Appeals should rule that they lack standing under federal law and, if they don't, that the full Ninth Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court should rule that initiative proponents are not entitled to take over the government's role."

FROM HUFFINGTON POST:
In a move that will likely be seen as a blow to most supporters of marriage equality, the California Supreme Court ruled today to allow opponents to defend the ban on same-sex marriage in federal court, writing that doing so was backed by the state's constitution.

Now, as Reuters is reporting, the legal battle over the ban is expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, which then could rule on whether there is a federal constitutional right for gay couples to wed.

The ban on same-sex marriage in California has its share of roller coaster-like setbacks and advances in recent years.
Thanks-Stay Metal, Stay Brutal-\m/ -l- GAY PRIDE