Proposition 8 Challenged In Court …

Once again, the gay rights advocates are attempting to use the Court system to further their agenda in opposition to the citizens of this State. Three (3) separate lawsuits have been filed in an attempt to overturn the passage of Proposition 8.

Gay rights backers file 3 lawsuits challenging Prop. 8

UPDATE: Victory for Prop. 8 theatened by uncounted votes, lawsuits


Tags: , ,

One Response to “Proposition 8 Challenged In Court …”

  1. beetlebabee Says:

    The ink is not even dry and already the lawsuits begin. Have you noticed a trend here? Can’t abide the will of the people… SUE to get what you want. I don’t think that’s a good way to make friends and increase tolerance, but they’re welcome to try! Check out this letter:

    Statement By Andrew Pugno, General Counsel of – Yes on 8
    November 05, 2008
    Contact: (916) 608-3065
    By Andy Pugno

    “The lawsuit filed today by the ACLU and Equality California seeking to invalidate the decision of California voters to enshrine traditional marriage in California’s constitution is frivolous and regrettable. These same groups filed an identical case with the California Supreme Court months ago, which was summarily dismissed. We will vigorously defend the People’s decision to enact Proposition 8.

    This is the second time that California voters have acted to define marriage as between a man and a woman. It is time that the opponents of traditional marriage respect the voters’ decision.

    The ACLU/Equality California lawsuit is completely lacking in merit. It is as if their campaign just spent $40 million on a losing campaign opposing something they now say is a legal nullity. Their position is absurd, an insult to California voters and an attack on the initiative process itself.

    The right to amend California’s Constitution is not granted to the People, it is reserved by the People. The Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged the reserved power of the People to use the initiative process to amend the Constitution. For example, when the Rose Bird Court struck down the death penalty as a violation of fundamental state constitutional rights, the People disagreed, and in the exercise of their sovereign power reversed that interpretation of their Constitution through the initiative-amendment process. Even a liberal jurist who vehemently disagreed with the People’s decision on the death penalty, Justice Stanley Mosk, nevertheless acknowledged the People’s authority to decide the issue through the initiative-amendment process.

    It should also be noted that the ACLU recently made this same “constitutional revision” claim in a nearly identical matter in Oregon and it was unanimously rejected. The claim was made under almost identical provisions of the Oregon State Constitution, against an almost identical voter constitutional amendment which read, “…only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage.” The Court of Appeals of Oregon unanimously rejected the ACLU’s “revision” claim. (Martinez v. Kulongoski (May 21, 2008) — P.3d—-, 220 Or.App. 142, 2008 WL2120516).

    The coalition that has worked so hard for the past year to enact Proposition 8 will vigorously defend the People’s decision against this unfortunate challenge by groups who, having lost in the court of public opinion, now turn to courts of law to pursue their agenda.”

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: