Lawsuit Challenging Prop 8 in California Is Filed

[tjwash]

Just filed today at noon

Attorney General says 18,000 marriages since June still valid

The petition charges that Proposition 8 is invalid because the initiative process was improperly used in an attempt to undo the constitution’s core commitment to equality for everyone by eliminating a fundamental right from just one group – lesbian and gay Californians.

“If the voters approved an initiative that took the right to free speech away from women, but not from men, everyone would agree that such a measure conflicts with the basic ideals of equality enshrined in our constitution. Proposition 8 suffers from the same flaw – it removes a protected constitutional right – here, the right to marry – not from all Californians, but just from one group of us,” said Jenny Pizer, a staff attorney with Lambda Legal. “That’s too big a change in the principles of our constitution to be made just by a bare majority of voters.”

California voters adopted the constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage, overturning the state Supreme Court decision that gave gay couples the right to wed just months ago, 52 to 48 percent. Sponsors of the ban have declared victory, but the measure's opponents say too many votes remained uncounted for the result to be final.

The suit was filed today in the California Supreme Court on behalf of Equality California and six same-sex couples who did not marry before Tuesday’s election but would like to be able to marry now. California Attorney General Jerry Brown said that the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who married between June 16, 2008 and the passage of the proposition are still valid and must continue to be honored by the state.

[LittleApple81]

1. Bravo! I hope they succeed. Ignorance is not bliss, and ignoramuses with big

prejudices probably induced by religious intolerance are the ones trying to deny the rights of American men and women.

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. Bring it on civil rights haters!

[tjwash]

6. The times they are a changin'

The conservatives won their little battle last night, but the pendulum is starting it's swing in our direction regardless of the cheap little stunts that they try.

[qb]

3. I hope Proposition 8 can be struck down setting a precedent

that can be used to strike down similarly absurd constitutional amendments in other states.

[thereismore]

4. That's what I was thinking. Can we have a prop that would deny rights to people over 60? So then!

We can't have a prop that would deny rights to gays either.

[The Doctor.]

12. Most people over over 60 can't propagate, so marriage is out for them too!

God, I hate these assholes.

[CADEMOCRAT7]

5. I refuse to accept that prop 8 has passed. The count is not done. I am still in shock.

THIS IS DISCRIMINATION, BLATANT DISCRIMINATION ! It is like the fundies using "family values" as a cloak for racism. This is a cloak for homophobia. I am extremely upset, and will not admit this is happening. I want all the votes to be counted. LA and San Francisco were the last in to be counted, at least that is what I heard.
I am thankful for your post. I live in the Bay Area. No one, I mean, no one here thought this would pass. I feel like I felt when they stole the election from Gore, and when I watched the country going red...it is that same feeling.

[SoCalDemocrat]

7. I was confused by that

Wouldn't it require more than a simple majority to modify the state constitution?

[tjwash]

8. I went to the SSC right beforehand, and they dismissed it letting it get to the ballot

They even declined to comment why.

It's time to make the supreme court accountable for their non-decision that has caused this mess.

[nichomachus]

11. Sometimes they need to let something happen

before they can step in. It gives them a handle.

The proposition -- as just a proposition (not yet voted on) -- causes no one any harm, removes no rights. So, there's really nothing to rule on. Putting a question on the ballot is not unconstitutional. Once voted in, however, the harm begins and the rights are taken away -- it may be unconstitutional -- and then the judges can rule on it.

Does that make any sense?

[PatSeg]

9. K&R

"Spending for and against the amendment has reached $74 million, making it the most expensive social-issues campaign in U.S. history and the most expensive campaign this year outside the race for the White House."

That is insane!

[stopbush]

10. The haters have won nothing.

There was no need to challenge this discriminatory Prop until it passed. Now that it has passed, it will be reviewed by the courts and struck down as unconstitutional.

Why not put a Prop on the ballot to re-enslave blacks? I'm sure it would pass in some areas of the country. That doesn't mean the courts wouldn't strike it down. Passing such an "amendment" means nothing. Nothing.

Our courts are there to - increasingly - strike down the bigotries and prejudices enshrined in religious dogma, none more so than Christianity. I hope this challenge to Prop Hate is but the first salvo in driving religious bigotry out of the public square and back into the closed systems of the churches.