g********d
发帖数: 4174 | 1 SAN FRANCISCO -- California's same-sex marriage ban faces its next legal
test Tuesday when the state's highest court attempts to shed light on
whether the voter-approved measure's backers have legal authority to appeal
the federal ruling that overturned Proposition 8.
The California Supreme Court is scheduled to hear an hour of arguments on
that question, which could prove crucial to the future of the voter-approved
ban. The federal appeals court that is considering the initiative's
constitutionality wants the state court to weigh in on the matter before it
issues its decision.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has expressed doubts about the ability
of Proposition 8's sponsors to challenge the lower court ruling absent the
involvement of California's governor or attorney general, both of whom
refused to appeal a federal judge's August 2010 decision striking down the
ban as a violation of gay Californians' civil rights.
The court punted the question to the California Supreme Court earlier this
year, saying it was a matter of state law.
Lawyers for the coalition of religious and conservative groups that
qualified Proposition 8 for the November 2008 ballot maintain they are
legally eligible to represent the majority of California voters who approved
the same-sex marriage ban. They argue that because California has such a
vigorous citizen's initiative process, it would not make sense for elected
officials to effectively veto measures by not defending them in court.
"This is a pivotal hearing for us as we continue to fight to uphold the
People's vote to restore traditional marriage in California against these
ferocious attacks," Andy Pugno, legal counsel for the Proposition 8
coalition said in a letter to supporters last week. "We simply cannot allow
our opponents to manipulate the legal system to the point where there is
nobody left to defend the People!"
Lawyers for the two same-sex couples who successfully sued to have
Proposition 8 thrown out are arguing that ballot initiative proponents
cannot demonstrate that would be uniquely harmed if the same-sex marriage
ban is declared unconstitutional. Demonstrating a concrete and
particularized harm is the standard parties ordinarily have to meet to be
eligible to wage an appeal in federal court.
California Attorney General Kamala Harris has submitted a brief saying that
in her interpretation, proponents of successful ballot initiatives do not
have the right to defend their measures in court. Harris is a Democrat who
succeeded Gov. Jerry Brown in January as attorney general.
If the Supreme Court says the ban's proponents did not have standing to
appeal, and if the 9th Circuit and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court
ultimately agree, it would clear the way for same-sex marriages to resume in
California because former Chief U.S. Vaughn Walker's verdict would stand.
But such an outcome would also limit the potential impact of the closely
watched catch because it would prevent higher courts from reaching its
constitutional merits.
"What the court has before it are questions about how the state's direct
democracy rules should be understood to sync with its constitutionally-based
ideas of representative government," Ohio State University Moritz College
of Law Marc Spindelman. "Who speaks for the people and the state - and when?
Can unelected officials determine how state law will be defended? Should
they be allowed to defend the law when state officials elected by the people
to represent them will not? Are state officials who refuse to defend a
legal measure on appeal practically exercising a veto right that the rules
of direct democracy in California do not allow?
Proposition 8 reinstated a ban on same-sex marriages in California by
amending the state Constitution to supersede a California Supreme Court
ruling that had legalized gay unions five months earlier. The Williams
Institute, a think tank on sexual orientation and the law at the University
of California, Los Angeles, has estimated that 18,000 couples tied the knot
during the brief window. | g********d
发帖数: 4174 | 2 The court has 90 days to issue a ruling in the matter.
The full procedural question to be considered by the court:
“Whether under Article II, Section 8 of the California Constitution, or
otherwise under California law, the official proponents of an initiative
measure possess either a particularized interest in the initiative’s
validity or the authority to assert the State’s interest in the initiative
’s validity, which would enable them to defend the constitutionality of the
initiative upon its adoption or appeal a judgment invalidating the
initiative, when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so
.” |
|
