Lawmakers: Court should reject voters' decision

A member of the California Assembly has accused fellow legislators of violating the state Constitution by trying to influence the state's Supreme Court in a pending legal argument over the voter-approved constitutional amendment that limits marriage to one man and one woman.

Assemblyman Van Tran unsuccessfully opposed legislative resolutions adopted during the height of arguments over the state's cataclysmic multi-billion-dollar budget collapse that expressed the lawmakers' demands for the state court system.

On the schedule this week at the state Supreme Court are arguments over Proposition 8, which was approved by 52 percent of voters in November.

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

Tran said lawmakers were trying to "disenfranchise over 7 million voters" and suggested the resolutions should not even be considered by the legislature.

TRENDING: Montana lawmaker follows Trump's lead, moves to designate Antifa as domestic terror group

"Article III of California's Constitution provides for a government with a separation of powers, where we have three co-equal branches," he told fellow lawmakers. "This provides for a system of checks and balances to further protect the people of California."

He said the resolutions, which express lawmakers' belief Proposition 8 is a constitutional revision, "unduly influence the judicial process in the normal review of state law."

"HR 5 does nothing except further politicize this process," he said.

Officials at the Pacific Justice Institute, which has argued for the constitutional amendment, said the case will have far-reaching effects.

"Nothing less than our democracy hangs in the balance as the California Supreme Court considers Prop 8," said PJI's president, Brad Dacus. "Striking down Prop 8 would be one of the most egregious power grabs in California history.

"The people deserve better. Same-sex marriage must not be forced on voters who have carefully and clearly settled this issue, not once but twice."

Voters in California in 2000 adopted a definition of marriage as one man and one woman only. But the measure was a state law, and the state Supreme Court in 2008 overturned it, essentially instructing that the state create "marriage" for same-sex couples. The court's decision was overturned in the Nov. 4 election.

The same court Thursday will hear oral arguments on a series of cases filed after voters approved Prop 8 that challenge the amendment, mostly on the grounds that it is a constitutional revision instead of an amendment and, therefore, requires a higher standard of review.

RELATED: 'Gays' fume over image used to push same-sex marriage ban

However, even a news site for homosexual activists acknowledged the same issue was raised before the state Supreme Court last year prior to the vote, and the justices, "without comment, refused to hear a legal challenge."

Tran's alarm over the maneuvering by state lawmakers was shared by Karen England, executive director of the Capitol Resource Center.

"How arrogant for these lawmakers to express their personal opposition to Proposition 8 and try to persuade the court when their constituents voted in favor of traditional marriage," she said.

Republican assemblymen Chuck DeVore, Ted Gaines, Joel Anderson, Steve Knight, Mike Villines also spoke against the lawmakers' plans.

Meredith Turney, a spokeswoman for Capitol Resource, said lawmakers already had been given the proper procedure to express their opinion, with a friend-of-the-court brief they filed with the Supreme Court on the dispute.

"These lawmakers need to be held accountable for this," she said.

Turney noted a number of the lawmakers opposing the voters represent districts in which a majority of individuals actually voted for the limited definition of marriage.

Randy Thomasson, president of the pro-family Campaign for Children and Families, previously noted when state Attorney General Jerry Brown defied convention and opposed the new provision of his own state's constitution.

As attorney general, it is his responsibility to defend the status quo in California, including Proposition 8.

"It's appalling that Jerry Brown is violating his oath of office to 'support and defend' the written Constitution of California. He is disobeying his specific job description found in the Constitution, which is 'to see that the laws of the State are...enforced.' And Jerry Brown is not telling the truth when he says the Constitution provides homosexual couples the 'right to marry,'" Thomasson said.

"On the contrary, the Constitution reads that marriage is 'only between a man and a woman.' This is the same Constitution that he has sworn an oath to support and defend and which his job description requires him to enforce. It's very disturbing that California's attorney general is against the Constitution, against the voters, and against the rule of law."

Also arguing on behalf of traditional marriage has been Vincent McCarthy, senior counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, which has worked in support of Proposition 8.

"The fact is that the voters of California took appropriate and constitutional action when they approved a valid amendment codifying marriage as an institution between one man and one woman," McCarthy said in a statement. "The challenge to this amendment is legally flawed and improperly rejects the will of California voters. We're hopeful the California Supreme Court will take the action necessary to uphold this amendment and clear the way for its implementation."

Another organization supporting Proposition 8, the United States Justice Foundation, makes a separate argument that focuses primarily on question of the same-sex marriages that took place before the amendment was passed.

According to the USJF brief, the same-sex marriages never were valid.

"The Supreme Court did not, and cannot, change the language of California statutes, because changing the language of statutes may only be done by the California Legislature," the brief argues. "The power to write laws belongs to the people and political branches of government, not the judiciary."