by Jack Minor –
The California Supreme Court has ruled that sponsors of Proposition 8 and other ballot measures have the right to defend them in court if the state refuses to do so.
Proposition 8 was a constitutional amendment that declared marriage to be limited to a man and woman. It was passed by the people of California after the courts ruled that a similar initiative, passed as a law, was not constitutional.
Following the constitutional amendments passage, homosexual activists threatened violence against individual voters who voted for the measure. Some of the threats were:
- I have never considered being a violent radical extremist for our Equal Rights, But now I think maybe I should consider becoming one
- Can someone in CA please go burn down the Mormon temples there, PLEASE. I mean seriously. DO IT.
- I’m going to give them something to be f – ing scared of. … I’m a radical who is now on a mission to make them all pay for what they’ve done
- Burn their f–ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers.
- I hope the No on 8 people have a long list and long knives
- Trust me. I’ve got a big list of names of mormons and catholics that were big supporters of Prop 8. … As far as mormons and catholics … I warn them to watch their backs.
Supporters of same-sex marriage filed a suit against the amendment, where it was heard by openly homosexual Judge Vaughn Walker who overturned the amendment saying it was unconstitutional.
In his decision Walker said limiting marriage to a man and woman was an “artifact of a foregone notion that men and women fulfill different roles in civic life.” Walker admitted that California’s domestic partnership laws provided same sex couples all the benefits of opposite sex couples, however, he said that was not good enough because domestic partnerships “do not provide the same social meaning as marriage.” Walker also said, “Marriage is a culturally superior status compared to a domestic partnership.”
“That the majority of the California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant” he went on to say, “Parents’ genders are irrelevant to childrens’ developmental status.”
The case was appealed; however, former governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and then attorney general Jerry Brown stated they would not defend Prop. 8in court.
Following this declaration, supporters of Prop. 8 argued that they should be permitted to defend the amendment since the state would not. Homosexual activists argued that if the state chose not to defend a law, then no other group should either.
On Thursday, California’s high court disagreed, saying that the amendment sponsors could defend it stating that if they were not allowed to do so, the government could simply overturn any voter approved initiative by simply refusing to defend it.
“Neither the Governor, the Attorney General, nor any other executive or legislative official has the authority to veto or invalidate an initiative measure that has been approved by the voters.”
The court noted that if they had ruled the other way then politicians could effectively overturn initiatives involving campaign contributions or term limits by simply declaring they would not defend it.
The ruling does not settle the issue regarding the amendment’s constitutionality. The case is currently before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Prior to its taking on the appeal, it had asked the state Supreme Court to decide if the sponsors had standing to argue the case.
The decision was considered to be a setback for “gay” rights supporters.