Supremes to review 'gay' lawsuits against Prop. 8

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – The California Supreme Court decided today that it will review lawsuits contesting legality of Proposition 8, the state's same-sex marriage ban – despite that 52 percent of voters passed the amendment to the state constitution.

Seven justices in Supreme Court courtroom in Sacramento, from left to right: Associate Justice Carlos R. Moreno, Associate Justice Joyce L. Kennard, Associate Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, Chief Justice Ronald M. George, Associate Justice Ming W. Chin, Associate Justice Marvin R. Baxter and Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan

According to court documents, the issues to be argued include the following:

1. Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution?

2. Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution?

3. If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?

The court ordered the State of California, Attorney General Jerry Brown, the state registrar of vital statistics and the deputy director of health information and strategic planning of the California Department of Public Health to "show cause before this court … why the relief sought by petitioners should not be granted" on or before Dec. 19.

The Supreme Court rejected a stay on Proposition 8, allowing it to remain in effect and preventing more homosexuals from exchanging vows until the case is decided. Approximately 18,000 homosexual "marriages" have taken place since June when the court ruled 4 to 3 to legalize same-sex unions.

In response to today's decision to hear the challenges Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, said the court must consider the will of the people.

"The court is playing with fire by threatening to destroy the people's vote on marriage," he said in a statement. "The California Constitution clearly says that the voters have the right to alter the highest law of the land. It's the beauty of the American system of government. The four Supreme Court justices who unconstitutionally invented homosexual 'marriages' – Ron George, Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar and Carlos Moreno – seem to be ignoring the fact that the people get the last word, not the judges."

The lawsuits, filed on behalf of homosexual couples, "gay-rights" organizations and the City of San Francisco, claim Prop 8 revises the constitution rather than amending it. An amendment only requires signatures on petitions before it can be placed on the ballot, whereas a revision must receive a two-thirds vote by the state legislature or a state constitutional convention before inclusion on ballots.

"The clear reading of the constitution, as well as California's legal and legislative history, tells us there is a world of difference between a constitutional amendment and a constitutional revision," Thomasson said. "Proposition 8 is a single-subject, voter-initiated amendment, not a legislature-initiated, multi-issue, whole-scale revision that alters many sections of the state constitution."

He cited Article II, Section I of the California Constitution:

All political power is inherent in the people.
Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit,
and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good
may require.

"It's unfortunate that the judges are giving time to the mushy, subjective arguments of homosexual activists who reject the clear reading of the constitution and the clear reading of Proposition 8," Thomasson said. "If the court disobeys the constitution by voiding Prop. 8, it will ignite a voter revolt. It will also threaten the validity of all future constitutional amendments."