Democrats Seek to Void Prop. 8

gavel

Democratic legislators ask state Supreme Court to void Prop. 8

Opponents contend that a ban on gay marriage can only be done by a revision of the state Constitution involving the Legislature. The Prop. 8 campaign leader calls the effort ‘a Hail Mary.’
By Dan Morain
November 11, 2008

Reporting from Sacramento — Forty-three Democratic legislators, including leaders of the California Senate and Assembly, filed a brief Monday urging the California Supreme Court to void Proposition 8.

No Republican legislator signed the petition, though Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, denounced the anti-gay marriage measure over the weekend.

With almost 11 million ballots tallied, Proposition 8 had 52.3% of the vote to 47.7%. Although many ballots remain to be counted, the 500,000-vote spread is viewed as insurmountable.

“The citizens of California rely on the Legislature and the courts to safeguard against unlawful discrimination by temporary, and often short-lived, majorities,” the legislators said in the document, written by attorneys at the firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.

“This is a Hail Mary, no question about it,” said Frank Schubert, manager of the Proposition 8 campaign.

Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown’s office would be obligated to defend the initiative. But Schubert said that if the high court agrees to hear the case, backers of the initiative would seek to intervene to defend it.

In their brief, lawmakers described the 500,000-vote margin as a “bare majority,” and said it was “compromising the enduring constitutional promise of equal protection under the law.”

“Proposition 8 seeks to effect a monumental revision of this foundational principle and constitutional structure by allowing a bare majority of voters to eliminate a fundamental right of a constitutionally protected minority group,” the brief says.

“If Proposition 8 takes effect, this court will no longer be the final arbiter of the rights of minorities,” it continues.

The action contends that the ban, created by the initiative that defines marriage as being between one man and one woman, cannot be done by a mere constitutional amendment. Rather, it must be done by a revision of the entire Constitution and the Legislature would have to be involved.

As advocates of same-sex marriage turn to courts, protests, and perhaps a future ballot measure in an attempt to overturn Proposition 8, Schubert declared that the vote is “as over as Barack Obama’s election.”

The chief strategist for Proposition 8 said the best way to overturn the measure would be to place an initiative on the ballot that would repeal it. But he doubts that will happen.

“Politically, this was the best chance they could have possibly had,” Schubert said of the measure’s opponents.

The all-important ballot title written by Brown cast the measure as one that would revoke a right, a move that had been viewed as particularly helpful to opponents.

Also, Schubert noted, there was a huge Democratic turnout — although many Democrats, particularly African Americans and Latinos, don’t support same-sex marriage and voted for Proposition 8. Exit polls showed blacks supported the measure 70% to 30%.

One of the closing ads featured Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). Popular though she is, Schubert said, it was odd that Proposition 8 foes would select Feinstein to lecture voters, including minorities, about discrimination.

“It had the feel of a lily white, liberal campaign,” Schubert said.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-marriage11-2008nov11,0,5162523.story

Note from Beetlebabee: There are several lawsuits going on simultaneously.  If you can’t get what you want, SUE!  That seems to be the gay activist motto here.  This one was sent to me from L.A. County.

Emotional L.A. Board of Supervisors backs Prop. 8 challenge*

12:52 PM, November 12, 2008

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted this afternoon to join a lawsuit filed by the City of Los Angeles, San Francisco and Santa Clara County challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage initiative voters passed by a narrow margin this month.

The vote was carried by the board’s three Democrats: Supervisors Gloria Molina and Zev Yaroslavsky, who proposed the board join the lawsuit, and Supervisor Yvonne B. Burke, who voted in support.

Of the two Republicans, Supervisor Michael Antonovich was out of town, and Supervisor Don Knabe left the meeting just as speakers began.

More than a dozen speakers appeared in support of the board’s vote and opposition to Proposition 8, including Los Angeles City Atty. Rocky Delgadillo, San Francisco City Atty. Dennis Herrera and several gay couples. Both Molina and Yaroslavsky, who have officiated at same-sex wedding ceremonies since California legalized them in June, said they acted out of a sense of duty and personal responsibility.

Yaroslavsky pointed out a couple he married who were among those speaking in support of the vote.

“Some of us may ask why the county supervisors would be involved and get so involved in this issue,” Molina said, citing the board’s responsibility to supply marriage license, uphold the law and “balance the enforcement of Proposition 8 with recognizing the constitutional right of all our citizens.” Molina added, “On a personal note, I am here to say that the passage of Prop. 8 saddened and angered me on various levels.”

Yarolslavsky noted that was “a close call” given how divided the state and county have been on the question of gay marriage. He said that he was not always a supporter of gay marriage (he supported civil unions instead) but said he “was persuaded” by colleagues and his children.

“It’s very important for the County of Los Angeles to be at the table on this,” he said. “It doesn’t hurt anybody. It doesn’t adversely affect anybody else.”

*Update: Antonovich had earlier said he would not support the legal challenge. His statement: “The appropriate time to have raised legal objections was prior to the election –- not after the people have once again voted on the issue. This move will disenfranchise voters who turned out in record numbers to participate in the process and have their voices heard.”

Advertisements

17 Comments

  1. prop8discussion said,

    November 12, 2008 at 3:27 pm

    this website has all the info you need to fax a letter to gov. S in order to hold him accountable:

    http://jennifer-roback-morse.blogspot.com/2008/11/ca-governor-encourages-supreme-ct-to.html

  2. beetlebabee said,

    November 12, 2008 at 3:55 pm

    Thanks P8. I’ll write. Anyone who sends a letter, post it here too.

  3. beetlebabee said,

    November 12, 2008 at 5:36 pm

    To send a letter regarding the L.A. Supervisors (Elected officials) trying to overturn the will of the people, email a letter to: SecondDistrict@bos.lacounty.gov

    Hello,
    I am writing concerning the proposition 8 lawsuit vote in which apparently the LA Board of Supervisors is voting on whether they should file a lawsuit against proposition 8 that was recently voted on in the California election. Firstly I have a question which is what is the justification for a lawsuit? Secondly I understand that when calling the lady on the phone is taking a “tally” about how many people are for or against the idea of a lawsuit. This is the height of folly! LA county already voted for proposition 8! Is it the intention of the LA county to continue to vote on and off the record until they get a vote that satisfies the rather vocal and obnoxious minority? The people have spoken, please don’t let your constituency down.

    Troy XXXXXXXX

  4. beetlebabee said,

    November 12, 2008 at 7:43 pm

    Troy got this response:

    Date: Thursday, November 13, 2008, 12:17 AM
    Supervisor Antonovich is opposed to any efforts to challenge Proposition 8.

    Voters in 2000 voted against same sex marriage in California — only to be rejected by 4 members of the California Supreme Court. On November 4, the voters once again decided that in California marriage is between a man and a woman.

    Any challenge will disenfranchise voters who turned out in record numbers to participate in the process and have their voices heard.

    Tony Bell
    Assistant Chief Deputy
    Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich
    500 West Temple St.
    #869 Los Angeles, CA 90012

  5. November 12, 2008 at 7:55 pm

    The case law does not favor the suit.

    The state Supreme Court heard this revision argument when they were hearing the appeal of a death sentence, and ruled that an initiative that restored the death penalty after the Supreme Court ruled it to be cruel and unusual punishment to be a legitimate amendment.

  6. jitterbug of California said,

    November 12, 2008 at 9:43 pm

    Here in Sacto.a man lost his job as Art Director for the CMT because his name was put on antigayblacklist.com with the amount of money he paid. He resigned because of the public humiliaton, boycotts, hateful emails, etc. I wish they would have fired him because he would have one heck of a lawsuit. Look for the story on Sacbee.com. His name is Scott Enrick and he happens to be a Mormon. So much for discrimination and tolerance from the gay community. This is very sad.

  7. Pam said,

    November 12, 2008 at 11:44 pm

    What a great blog you have. I live in Arizona and was active in the Prop 102 campaign (our version of Prop 8).

    If you don’t mind, I’ll put your blog as a link on my new blog – http://www.justcontemplatingmynavel.blogspot.com. Thanks for the great information. ~Pam

  8. ivoteyesonprop8 said,

    November 13, 2008 at 12:56 am

    I can’t believe that the LA County Board of Supervisors thinks that they should be getting involved in a law suit. They seem to have forgotten that they are elected public officials and represent a lot of people, not just the No on 8 supporters and protesters. It seems unethical for them to be taking sides in a law suit. Thanks for the info!
    ~Mikken
    http://ivoteyesonprop8.wordpress.com

  9. clay said,

    November 13, 2008 at 1:23 pm

    We voted TWICE. If the proposition is voided, then we no longer have a democracy. The time for validating a petition is BEFORE the election. Isn’t that why we have an Attorney General?

    ca

  10. WaltzInExile said,

    November 13, 2008 at 1:56 pm

    The U.S. government is not a strict democracy, it is a democratic republic with three branches of government and a federalist system in which the U.S. Constitution is the highest law of the land. We don’t always make laws based on majority/plurality vote.

  11. beetlebabee said,

    November 13, 2008 at 2:06 pm

    Pam, how was the 102 fight?

  12. clay said,

    November 13, 2008 at 4:32 pm

    Yes, I understand we are a democratic republic. But in the initiative process it is simple majority. In fact, the initiative process is the closest thing we have to true democracy. And from what I can see, is the only place left were the people have direct input.

    clay

  13. debbie said,

    November 13, 2008 at 4:41 pm

    I was taught in a system of checks and balances i regards to the Federal and State government. It appears that here in CA we have judicial trying to takeover. I thought they made sure laws were enforced. Did not know they created laws.

  14. debbie said,

    November 13, 2008 at 4:46 pm

    I’m also having a problem with being told that my children will not be taught about gay marriage in school and, if they are, that I can opt out. Both are wrong. A word that I have been thinking about lately is “intent”. The gay community may say that “it” won’t be taught in schools, but I think they lie. I believe it is their “intent” to have my children taught in schools anyway possible.

    What is the intent of the gay comunity, same-sex marriage aside?

  15. kirstykaye said,

    November 13, 2008 at 6:39 pm

    After reading your posts I looked up the history of Jim Crow Laws. Between 1870 and 1884 11 southern states banned blacks and whites from marrying calling it miscegenation. Sadly folks this his how you sound, and in the end you will lose just as the South lost. I think you will find the evidence in our President Elect who is both black and white. Discrimination is never kind or condoned by God and will always be overcome. Because all men are created equal.

  16. beetlebabee said,

    November 13, 2008 at 6:47 pm

    Perhaps you should read a few more posts, including the one on how Marriage isn’t a civil right, and how gay marriage has nothing in common with the civil rights movement because gays already legally have every right in California that every other person has. The only thing the voters have said they can’t have is the word, marriage.

    To call the two situations even remotely similar smacks of complete historical ignorance. Do you even know what blacks went through during those slavery years? How can you even compare the two? It’s an insult to the hardship they suffered to use the righteous indignation of those experiences for sheer political gain.

  17. Mike M2 said,

    November 13, 2008 at 11:54 pm

    The “gay rights” movement has become nothing more than a code word for religious persecution and Christian Bashing. The hate and violence being expressed by the homosexual community is both shocking and deplorable. It is the gay community that has preached tolerance for years. It appears that they are and always have been the intolerant bigots they accuse others of being, and with the passage of prop. 8 we are seeing a level of bigotry and hatred not seen since the days of Jim Crow. Gays have always held contempt for Christians who are trying to live good and decent lives because they believe what the bible says and try to abide by it’s teachings. It is the bible that teaches that homosexuality is wrong. So it is the bible’s author…i.e…God that the gays are ultimately against, and as such they are attacking all his devout followers. Their violent “protests” at churches and Temples have revealed their true nature and has opened the eyes of many.

    The people have spoken on this issue, both in 2000 and again now. The issue should be settled. The gay community should stop trying to force their life style, their morals, their agenda on the rest of us. The people of this great state have overruled the 4 misguided justices that tried to force the rest of us to embrace a lifestyle and value system that God himself has clearly told us not to embrace. What we will not tolerate is this blatant attempt at the repression of our freedoms. We have the freedom to choose which way we will live and what we will do and WE HAVE CHOSEN.. When will the Gays, Liberal media and Democrats stop their religious persecution, hate mongering and Christian bashing? What will it take to get them to give the tolerance to Christians that they demand for themselves? Wars and revolutions have been fought over religious freedoms… Is that what it will take?

    Michael


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: