|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Supporters of California’s ban on same-sex marriage told the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday that defining marriage is a states’ rights matter and
that Californians’ choice of a traditional definition in 2008 should be honored.
“The definition of marriage has always been understood to be the virtually exclusive province of the states,” the sponsors of Proposition 8 wrote in a brief submitted to the high court.
“And we submit that countless Californians of good will have opted in good faith to preserve the traditional definition of marriage because they believe it continues to meaningfully serve important societal interests,” the sponsors said.
Proposition 8, enacted by 52 percent of voters in November 2008, amended the state Constitution to provide that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
The initiative’s sponsors and their committee, Protect Marriage, are asking the Supreme Court to overturn a ruling in which the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in San Francisco last year that the measure violated the federal Constitution.
The appeals court said that because same-sex marriage was legal in California for several months in 2008 before Proposition 8 was passed, it was unconstitutional for the measure to withdraw that right for no reason other than animosity toward homosexuals.
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the appeal on March 26 and is due to issue a decision by the end of June.
The sponsors outlined their claims in an opening brief filed Tuesday.
Two couples who challenged Proposition 8 in a civil rights lawsuit and the city of San Francisco have a Feb. 21 deadline for filing a response. The sponsors have until March 19 to submit a reply.
The 9th Circuit ruling has been put on hold and Proposition 8 has remained in effect until the high court rules.
Nine states and the District of Columbia now allow gay and lesbian marriage while 41 others have prohibited it through laws or state constitutional amendments.
The Proposition 8 supporters’ brief says the nation is currently engaged in a “great debate” and that the high court “should allow the public
debate regarding marriage to continue through the democratic process, both in California and throughout the nation.”
The filing contends the purpose of the initiative was not to dishonor gays and lesbians.
Instead, the sponsors say, it was reasonable for California voters to believe that restricting marriage to male-female unions will “increase the
likelihood that children will be born and raised in stable and enduring family units by their own mothers and fathers.”
In another section of the brief, the sponsors, answering a question posed by the Supreme Court, argue they had the legal authority to step in to defend the measure in court after Gov. Jerry Brown and state Attorney General Kamala Harris declined to do so.
Julia Cheever, Bay City News
By
Julia Cheever, Bay City News
By
I’m no legal scholar, but my basic understanding of the Constitution and our history tells me that the 14th Amendment trumps anything the states want to do if the court finds that due process has been denied. Yes, marriage is a state power, but so was slavery. I don’t mean to invoke the American version of Godwin’s Law so quickly, but come on. There was a reason the 14th Amendment was put in place. Historically, states have been the bigger violators of rights in our history.
‘No Legal Scholar’, if I understand your premise correctly, then pot should be illegal in all states because the feds consider it illegal.
The Defense of Marriage Act is not being upheld by the current occupier of the White House, which is federal law. The states legislators (not the voters) in several states have decided on their own to circumvent or ignore federal law, with obama and holder’s approval. Is this what you are referring to as ‘due process’?
My understanding of Prop8 is that the Constitution and Bill Of Rights do not apply equally to all citizens. Only those citizens who have the approval of certain churches have equal rights. I think this approach has been tried before
“Still not right” is right on the money. There are so many state sodomy laws still on the books, and it is a pity that the feds give my tax money for things like gun control when it should be enforcing extant sodomy laws that states are not enforcing. We want due process! This is nothing but tyranny by omission. Citizens in states with anti-sodomy laws are forced to live amongst the perverted ones because Obama and Holder refuse to honor the Constitution.
You are absolutely right! The Bill Of Rights and the Constitution should give full citizenship rights only to those people who think the way you do. I’m sure that’s what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Why should those others have the same freedoms as you do. After all, they’re different.
What exactly is sodomy? Is the definition the same in all states?
What is so bad about not enforcing sodomy laws?
I say let everybody get married that wants to be married.
How does anybody know who engages in sodomy?
I’ve lived in several countries and it doesn’t seem to me that everybody is so torn up about sodomy.
I will never return to Argentina. I will visit the Basque Country just not Madrid. Also, I could live in the UK again but I prefer living in America. I like living here more than any other country in the world.
However, this is the only country that I’ve lived in where everybody complains about everything…never ends. I just love it!
Excuse me, but I’m a woman who is biologically unable to reproduce. Does that mean I should not be allowed to marry?
I have many female friends, moreover, who claim they have erogenous zones in many parts of their bodies. Does this make them abnormal? Boy, some couples must have a really boring sex life.
There are millions upon millions of people who choose not to “procreate”.
And, they can marry if they choose to.
There are also people who become priests, rabbi’s, etc. etc. etc. who choose to remain “celibate” and simply molest children of both sexes.
BUSTED!
Time to apply the same hypocrisy that anti-2nd amendment zealots are using to promote gun confiscation: Redefine the ‘outdated’ Bill of Rights’ so that it includes provisions for civil unions for ‘special’ couples (or threesomes or more) that all have the same parts and yet demand the same rights to marriage as normal, heterosexual couples.
After all, more than 200 years ago, no one envisioned the proliferation of people who could not procreate and produce their own offspring, demanding to be considered mainstream.
Good for you and your friends Cheryl. I don’t have time to explain further, but then you knew exactly what I mean in my previous post. I look forward to seeing pictures of you and your friends on the internet.