CA Homosexuals Might Get Their Marriages Overturned by Proposition 8

On May 15, 2008 the California Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision struck down a people’s initiative in 2000 that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Mystically four State Supreme Justices found that California’s State Constitution made the people’s initiative unconstitutional in 2008.

On July 16, 2008 the California Supreme Court unanimously dismissed a homosexual activist challenge of Proposition 8 appearance on the November 2008 ballot. I am betting the Justices of the California Supreme Court are elected rather than appointed (Really it’s a good bet). The unanimity to shoot down the homosexuals in July is in stark contrast to a close decision for the homosexuals in May.

Proposition 8 proposes amending the state's constitution to provide that the only kind of marriage that will be valid or recognized in California will be a marriage between one man and one woman.

I am betting Proposition 8 on November 4, 2008 will pass thus overturning the California Supreme Court’s 4-3 decision in May. And the homosexual activists KNOW IT.

In Bennett v. Bowen, No. S164520 the homosexual activists that had big buck homosexual organizations on the legal team (including the ACLU of course) went down in flaming defeat with the unanimous decision.

This is what Christian influenced OneNewsNow.com says about Bennett v. Bowen:

The California Supreme Court has ruled that the marriage protection amendment will remain on the state's November ballot.

Following the California's Supreme Court ruling that legalized homosexual "marriage" in that state, activists sued to keep the marriage protection amendment off the November ballot. However, they failed in their attempt on Wednesday when the court ruled in favor of Proposition 8's inclusion on the ballot.

Glen Lavy with the Alliance Defense Fund says the homosexual activists trying to keep the amendment off the ballot showed their contempt for the will of the people and the democratic process by filing such a baseless lawsuit. "I would have been shocked if the court had prevented this amendment from going on the ballot," he comments. "The lawsuit was frivolous. There was no basis for the arguments. It would have been ridiculous for the court to rule in their favor," Lavy contends. Matt Staver of Liberty Counsel represented the Campaign for California Families and argued in defense of the amendment. "[We] really didn't know which way the court was going [on this particular issue]," he says. "But the good news is they've rejected the argument by same-sex advocates to remove the marriage amendment from the ballot.

"Now the secretary of state is free to print all the information to notify the voters and, in fact, the voters will speak in November," the Liberty Counsel founder continues. "And when they speak, I believe they'll pass these 14 words. These 14 words will overrule the 4-to-3 decision of the California Supreme Court and restore marriage as the union of one man and one woman." Those 14 words are: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." According to Staver, passage of Prop. 8 would invalidate all same-sex marriages performed in California prior to the enactment of the amendment.

The legal Christian perspective is confident Proposition 8 is something the California Supreme Court can’t touch if passed.

Not so fast though, a blog dedicated to legal reasoning has this to say about Bennett v. Brown:

The California Supreme Court, which approved same-sex marriage in a landmark ruling in May, has refused to remove a proposed ban on same-sex marriage from the state's November ballot.

The state's highest court cleared the way on June 16 for state voters to weigh in on a ballot initiative, Proposition 8, which would outlaw same-sex marriage under the state constitution.

On June 20, LGBT-rights advocates asked the state supreme court to block the vote and pull the measure from the ballot, saying it would destroy fundamental rights that can't be curtailed by popular initiative. Bennett v. Bowen, No. S164520.

Under the supreme court's May 15 ruling, the court relied on state constitutional rights of privacy and equal protection to allow equal marriage rights to same-sex couples. The suit argues that repeal of those rights requires revision of the state constitution, which can only be done by a two-thirds vote of the state Legislature, before going to voters.

Same-sex marriages have been taking place throughout the state since June 16, when the original decision became final. If Proposition 8 is approved by voters and same-sex marriage is outlawed, the California Supreme Court is likely to be faced with the legal question of whether the existing same-sex marriages are valid and a renewed challenge to the constitutionality of Proposition 8.

The one-page order signed by Chief Justice Ron George, denies, without explanation, the request to pull the measure from the ballot. The order was unanimous. (The National Law Journal Legal Pad LA)

The author of this article (Pamela A. Maclean) speculates that the California Supreme Court will again enter the legal fray of difficulties with a passage of Proposition 8. So it might still be the will of the voters versus the will of judicial system.

JRH 7/17/08