The attempt by anti-democratic forces to deny Californians the right to vote on Proposition 8, which would ban same-sex marriage in the state, was squashed Wednesday by the state Supreme Court, according to the San Francisco Chronicle:
Californians will get to vote in November on a state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, the state Supreme Court decided Wednesday.
In a unanimous order, without comment, the court dismissed a lawsuit by gay rights advocates seeking to remove an initiative sponsored by conservative religious groups from the Nov. 4 ballot. The measure, Proposition 8, would overturn the court’s 4-3 ruling May 15 that allowed gay and lesbian couples to marry in California.
The lawsuit against Prop. 8 argued that the one-sentence initiative was actually a broad attack on basic rights recognized by the court – a measure that would simultaneously deprive one group of fundamental freedoms by majority vote and strip the courts of their ability to enforce constitutional guarantees.
Although its backers call it a constitutional amendment, Prop. 8 is actually a constitutional revision, the suit contended. A revision must be submitted to the voters by a two-thirds majority of the state Legislature.
The suit was “a desperate effort to keep the amendment away from the democratic process,” said attorney Glen Lavy of the Alliance Defense Fund, which represents sponsors of Prop. 8.
A spokesman for the Alliance Defense Fund added this:
“Equality California and its allies were desperate to evade the democratic process. They already used the courts to erase the votes of nearly 5 million Californians who voted to protect marriage. We’re pleased the court did not allow them to silence the people’s voice this November as well,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Brian Raum. “The opponents of marriage have proven that they are willing to use any means necessary to impose their will.”
It’s good to know that there’s still at least some small measure of sanity left in the California Supreme Court. Of course, it would also be nice to know 1) what they plan to tell those gay couples who get married what will happen if the initiative passes, and 2) whether they have any intention of letting Prop. 8 from ever going into effect, if it is passed. But I guess you can’t have everything.
The Reformed Pastor 
July 19, 2008 at 12:53 pm
There are four options: 1. Abolish the Institution of Marriage for violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 2. Heterosexual relations are legally the Perpetuation of the Human Species. 3. Homosexual relations are legally the Perpetuation of the Human Species. 4. Heterosexual relations and homosexual relations are both legally the Perpetuation of the Human Species. Choose well!
July 22, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Yes, choose well indeed. Not that is will matter much. The court has found that restricting marriage violates not only the equal protection clause but also the right to privacy (which is explicit in our state constitution). If this proposition passes, it does not change our equal protection clause. The court will very quickly block it via court order.
I guess Californians still haven’t learned that you can’t overturn the equal protection clause for gay marriages anymore than you can overturn Perez v. Sharp.
July 22, 2008 at 7:34 pm
I don’t understand this at all. An amendment to a constitution is normally held to be constitutional per se. If the amendment in question constitutes a restriction of the equal protection clause, so be it. That’s why it’s a constitutional amendment, after all.
I’m not saying you’re wrong about what the Supreme Court will do, Mike. I just don’t see how they can do so in a way that doesn’t make them the final arbiters of whether the constitution can be changed at all. Of course, that may be exactly their intention…
July 23, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Any law involving marriage, i.e., special legal status, special legal rights, special legal benefits, must apply to ALL adults equally whether they are married or single. If the Institution of Marriage has nothing to do with the Perpetuation of the Human Species then two adult human beings liking, or, loving each other is none of societies, or, the States business. It’s nobodies business but their own.
July 24, 2008 at 1:37 pm
“just don’t see how they can do so in a way that doesn’t make them the final arbiters of whether the constitution can be changed at all.”
David,
It does get a little complex. In our state constitution, voters may AMEND but not MODIFY the text. Any modifications must be done through our legislature. Rescinding the equal protection clause for a group of people would be a clear modification, not an amendment, to the constitution. The court refused to hear the lawsuit asking to prevent the initiative from being on the ballot but this is to be expected. The courts generally do not take up a proposed constitutional amendment until it has passed. If the amendment is unquestionably unconstitutional, then the ballot initiative is not certified by the State Attorney General. However, this is very rare. Given that the court has found restricting marriage violates both the equal protection clause and right to privacy and also recognized sexual orientation as a suspect class requiring strict scrutiny this amendment will not pass muster and will be considered a impermissible revision of the constitution.
January 26, 2015 at 6:20 pm
[…] reformed pastor: “Californinans to vote on Gay Marriage” – a word from the other side, considering the measures to prevent the voting on […]