CA Supreme Court validates Prop. 8
The California Supreme Court ruled 6-to-1 Tuesday to reject challenges to Proposition 8, the Nov. 4, 2008, ballot initiative that amended the state Constitution to provide that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized" in the state.
The court also held that Prop 8 applies prospectively and does not affect the continued validity of the 18,000 marriages of same-sex couples that took place before the measure became effective last Nov. 5.
The court found that Prop 8 was a proper use of the initiative process rather than an overstepping to revise the structure of government, as had been claimed in lawsuits by a host of same-sex couples and public agencies in California. Although Prop 8 opponents felt it was too easy to amend the Constitution through the initiative process, the court said it would have been wrong to intrude. "We are constitutionally bound to uphold it," the court stated in its 136-page majority opinion.
The court also unanimously held that the scope of Prop 8, which passed by a margin of 52 to 48 percent, is limited solely to restricting the use of the term "marriage" to opposite-sex couples. That language does not affect same-sex couples' constitutional right to equality in marriage, which the court described for the first time in a 4-to-3 ruling in May 2008. "All three branches of state government continue to have the duty...to eliminate the important differences between marriage and domestic partnership, both in substance and perspective," Justice Kathryn Mickel Werdegar wrote in a concurring opinion that agreed with the result of the majority opinion but disagreed in part with its analysis. Prop 8 "puts one solution beyond reach by prohibiting the state from naming future same-sex unions as 'marriages,' but it does not otherwise affect the state's obligation to enforce the equal protection clause."
In a news conference after the ruling, San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said he was disappointed with the ruling but grateful that the protections established in the May 2008 decision "remain untouched." He also said he welcomed the dissenting opinion by Justice Carlos R. Moreno, who concluded that Prop 8 is invalid because it is not a lawful amendment to the Constitution.
"Today's ruling does not mean marriage equality will never be achieved," Herrera said. "It simply means that in the future we cannot rely on the courts to secure it. After five years of litigating, the final, decisive round won't be won in the legal arena. It will be won in the electoral arena."
As Herrera spoke hundreds of protesters who oppose Prop 8 held a demonstration in the intersection of Van Ness Avenue and Grove Street. They were part of a large crowd of demonstrators on both sides that had gathered in front of the Supreme Court building to await the decision.
Prop 8 opponents also said they planned Tuesday night rallies at 90 locations nationwide and a gathering Saturday in Fresno.
Diocese of Stockton Bishop Stephen E. Blaire responded to the ruling on behalf of the California Catholic Conference of Bishops:
"We laud the California Supreme Court's confirmation of Proposition 8 which preserves the traditional understanding of marriage in the state's constitution. We, however, are disappointed that the same Court validated the interim same-sex ‘marriages.'"
Bishop Blaire continued: "Natural law scholar and Princeton professor Robert P. George echoes our thoughts when he wrote: 'No matter what, the law will teach. It will either teach that marriage exists as a natural institution with public purposes and meanings, centered around bridging the gender divide, and bringing together one man and one woman to share their lives as husband and wife and to become father and mother to their children, or it will teach that marriage is a mere creation of the state, recognizing and condoning the private sexual choices of adults...'"
In Sacramento, Andrew Pugno, general counsel of the Yes-on-8 coalition ProtectMarriage.com, said the ruling culminates years of hard work to preserve marriage in California. He alluded to California's 2000 ballot initiative Proposition 22, whose definition of marriage was overturned by the Supreme Court's May 2008 decision and in turn restored by identical language in Prop 8.
"Hundreds of thousands of volunteers worked diligently to uphold the institution of marriage," he said. "Twice, voters have decided that marriage in California should be only between a man and a woman. We are extremely pleased that the Supreme Court has acknowledged the right of voters to define marriage in the California Constitution. The voters have decided this issue and their views should be respected."
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a statement applauding the validation of Prop 8: "The bedrock institution of marriage between a man and a woman has profound implications for our society. These implications range from what our children are taught in schools to individual and collective freedom of religious expression and practice."
