Anti-Gay Group Sues To Force Brown & Schwarzenegger To Defend Prop 8

[WillParkinson]

Anti-Gay Group Sues To Force Brown & Schwarzenegger To Defend Prop 8

Equality California issued an alert this afternoon that the anti-gay Pacific Justice Institute has filed a lawsuit in an attempt to force Gov. Schwarzenegger and AG Jerry Brown to defend Prop 8. And of course, the lawsuit is being brought on behalf of a Christian pastor.

The institute is arguing that as the state's chief law enforcement officer, Brown does not have discretion to defend only laws with which he personally agrees. And because the California Constitution gives the governor final say when he and the attorney general disagree on legal matters, Schwarzenegger must be compelled to file an appeal to preserve Proposition 8 as well, the group's lawsuit states. "To allow an elected official to trump the will of the people by mere inaction and the lack of fulfillment of their duty to do their job would be an egregious violation of public trust," Pacific Legal Institute Brad Dacus said Tuesday. The institute brought its motion on behalf of Joshua Beckley, pastor of Ecclesia Christian Fellowship church in San Bernardino, and included with it a declaration of support from former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese III.

Equality California's Geoff Kos: "This is an outrageous attempt to try and force elected officials who have sworn to uphold the United States Constitution to defend a law that the Federal Court has found to be unconstitutional. It demonstrates their acknowledgment that the proponents of Proposition 8 lack standing to appeal, that the case should be dismissed and loving same-sex couples should be allowed to exercise their constitutional right to marry."

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/08/anti-gay-group-sues-to-force-brown.html

[bluestateguy]

1. So say they win

All the state has to do, if forced to defend it in court, is put on a completely incompetent defense with a lawyer like Lionel Hutz from the Simpsons.

[napi21]

2. Can you actually FORCE someone to fight a suit when they don't want to do so?

I'm not a lawyer, but usually laws make at least SOME SENSE. I can't see how this demand will ever get past a judges desk!

[wtmusic]

4. They're trying to force them to enforce the law

and it's always up to a prosecutor's discretion whether to enforce it, or not. IMO this can only go nowhere.

[FreeState]

14. Not only that - they are trying two force them to appeal not defend

two entirely different legal actions. The state constitution says they must defend the law - that part was done in the trial portion that already happened. An appeal is not defending anything.

[Sinistrous]

3. Oooh ! Edwin Meese!

Now THERE is a paragon of rectitude and competence.

[Ian David]

7. I hate those meeses to pieces! n/t

[Gman]

5. LOL!!! LOL!!!

They HAVE to sue Brown and Schartzeneger because THEIR conservative stacked SCOTUS MUST rule no one else has standing to appeal if they want to preserve their own precedents of the last 10 years. AND one of their own, Ted Olsen won the case that got the religious right thrown under the bus!

LOL!! You can't make this shit up!

[Ian David]

6. This is very easy. Defend it in court, but make sure it fails. Hire Patrick Fitzgerald to defend it.

[customerserviceguy]

8. It's a last grasp at the straws

Without the state defending Prop H8, there are no competent parties to bring a case before the 9th Circuit.

Game over.

[Q3JR4]

10. At first I was thinking to myself,

why do you want somebody that disagrees with your law to defend it in court? Then with one sentence fragment you banished my confusion: "there are no competent parties to bring a case before the 9th Circuit." That, in a nutshell, is what they want to change.

Q3JR4.

[EC]

9. They didn't defend it because they believed it was

unconstitutional therefore had no way to defend it...it wasn't what they personally felt one way or another....

There is no legal standing for their suit to force them to defend...as the judge said there is no credible evidence, just opinion...

[Q3JR4]

11. In the beginning I must say

that I wondered a bit about the logic of appealing proposition 8 in federal court, but I've taken a couple of weeks to think about it and I've come to a couple of conclusions.

In Judge Walker Vaughn's opinion striking down proposition 8 he referenced numerous court cases but two of them really stood out for me. He cited Romer v. Evens^* seven times, and Lawrence V. Texas^** eight times.

So I see 3 possible outcomes of the case.

First and foremost the Supreme Court sidesteps the issue all together by holding that nobody had standing to defend the statute when the state refused to get involved, uphold Vaughn's ruling, and overturns proposition 8 without making any substantive changes to federal marriage laws. If the Pacific Justice Institute has it's way or the justices just plain to choose to rule on the merits of the case, I think the four "liberal" justices will join with the man who wrote the two opinions listed above, Anthony Kennedy, and overturn DOMA and all the anti-gay marriage amendments nationwide on a vote of 5-4.

At the very least I think we'll get civil unions out of deal. I am an avowed pessimist, but even I can't see how this goes well for the anti gay marriage crowed.

Q3JR4.

<sub>*In 1992, Colorado votes approved Amendment 2 which would have prohibited all judicial, legislative and executive actions in any level of government in the state that were meant to protect homosexuals. The U.S. Supreme Court, on a vote of 6-3, overturned the law in 1996. During the four years the case worked it's way through the court system, the law never took effect.

**In 1998 a Texas sheriff entered into the apartment of John Geddes Lawrence and found Lawrence and another man engaged in sexual conduct. They were arrested, jailed, fined $200, but appealed the decision all the way to the Supreme Court. In 2003 on a vote of 6-3, sodomy laws were overturned.</sub>

[joeybee12]

12. I can't say FUCK YOU loud enough to such people...

...it's just impossible.

[Steakman1989]

13. Last Stand

There can't be anyway they think they can actually win this. Time and again whenever a civil rights situation makes its way into the judiciary, the Courts usually side with those that have been harmed. Even Republicans are recognizing the futility of this battle, so all that is left is a fringe far right. So long as SCOTUS doesn't pull a Dread Scott case out of this, I don't see this ending well for the far right.

[ShadowLiberal]

15. They're admitting that this case is basically over by doing this

By trying to force the state government to defend this case they're admitting they don't have standing to appeal it. How's this going to look a few months later when the appeal trial gets started? They'll be tripping over themselves trying to fight that and a case to force California to defend Prop-8.

Things aren't going to get any better for them at a national level when the Appeals court rules they don't have standing to appeal the case for the state. I've read that the Supreme Court (and probably some current judges on it) has historically been very skeptical that these third party groups have any standing to represent the state in cases where the state refuses to defend themselves.

Besides that, lack of standing would be a easy way out for judges who don't want to get involved in such a controversial case. That would let them put off taking a stand on gay marriage until the case about DOMA's constitutionality reaches them. It might even make it easier for them to rule in favor of gay marriage nationwide later on if they first rule states can't decide they won't recognize gay marriages.