California’s New Serious Threat to Marriage

[Hemidakota]

[e-mail from Family Leader]


The battle for the definition of marriage continues to be hot even after the California Supreme Court affirmed the Prop 8 victory. In a new effort, two attorneys, both known for their star power, have filed a federal challenge to the same-sex marriage ban in California, claiming that it violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Ted Olson, a conservative and David Boies, a liberal, who squared off before the Supreme Court over the Bush v. Gore election make an odd couple legal team, but the Hollywood money behind them from figures such as director Rob Reiner and "MLK" producer Bruce Cohen think this challenge has merit, and they hope it will make it all the way the Supreme Court whose decision could then have the affect of overriding all the state marriage amendments.

The suit, known as Perry v. Schwarzenegger, alleges that Prop 8 creates a class of "second class citizens" and thereby violates the Constitution.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, in a dereliction of duty to defend the people's vote, has declined to defend the constitutionality of Proposition 8, telling a San Francisco judge that the legality of the marriage measure is for the courts to decide. (Yes, of course, but without the state's defense?).

The governor's decision to remain neutral in a federal challenge to Proposition 8 means no statewide official will be defending the measure in federal court.

The stakes are high-and in pursuing this case, the Hollywood bigwigs are taking on a court case that long-time same-sex marriage advocates have sought to avoid. To these advocates, the federal judiciary is seen as conservative and they have argued that a gradual approach to change public opinion and win in states would be a crucial preparation for a challenge in the Supreme Court, which often looks to public opinion in morality-linked cases.

They point to Justice Anthony Kennedy as being the swing vote on the nine-member court and note that he has already ruled in favor of gays in two important cases.

A loss for them before the Supreme Court, however, could mean a number of years before the Court is ready to revisit same-sex marriage again and could influence the outcome for gays in other legal battles.

It could take at least two years for the case to make its way to the Supreme Court,that also could ultimately refuse to hear the case.

Andy Pugno, speaking for California's Protect Marriage coalition, of which we are a part, has said, "This new federal lawsuit, brought by a pair of prominent but socially liberal lawyers, has very little chance of succeeding. But we will take it seriously and take action to provide a vigorous defense of Prop 8, just as we did in the California courts."

At Family Leader, we see the most immediate threat being the federal court passing an injunction against Prop 8, allowing same-sex couples to continue to marry in California until the case is resolved. This would be a media opportunity to continue to celebrate same-sex marriage and influence public opinion.

What is certain is that two such high profile attorneys representing same-sex marriage advocates will attract media attention and will give them ample opportunity to persuade the public to their viewpoint.

The first federal hearing is July 2.

[Jbs2763]

why bother having elections if the courts decide in the end

[Seanette]

What was that about the Constitution "hanging by a thread" again?

[James_Fryman]

The suit, known as Perry v. Schwarzenegger, alleges that Prop 8 creates a class of "second class citizens" and thereby violates the Constitution.

There is always going to be classes of citizens. At least untill zion is built or the second coming happens

[Hemidakota]

I thought we are second citizens when it comes to the majority voice and who really care about this nation and its future?

[James_Fryman]

I do. but Im just a kid I dont know what Im talking about

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by Seanette

What was that about the Constitution "hanging by a thread" again?

That referred to the Constitution of the United States of America.

[Seanette]

And we're not seeing "legislating from the bench" at a Federal level?

[MarginOfError]

People that think a court challenge to a referendum or a piece of legislation is evidence that the Constitution hangs by a thread would amuse me if not for the simplicity of thought behind the sentiment. The Constitution was written specifically so that these referendum and legislation could be challenged. These court systems are evidence that the system is working and that should be celebrated.

Your claims that the Constitution hangs by a thread are made simply because you don't like the opposing point of view. I would be very surprised to hear people who feel this court case is an affront on the Constitution also believe that the Court cases challenging gun control laws were an affront to the Constitution. Judicial review is an important part of the Constitution, and the 'hanging by a thread' argument is a smoke screen that is used by only when people don't like the challenge.

It might also be worth while to look into the veracity of that whole 'hanging by a thread' prophecy.

[Elgama]

I am just wondering how this will threaten people who are married or want to get married? will it stop them? Its hardly a threat to my marriage