Dec 19, 2008 5:33 pm US/Pacific
Prop. 8 Sponsors Seek To Nullify 18K Gay Marriages
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) ―
-
-
Same-sex couple Ariel Owens and his spouse Joseph Barham walk arm in arm after they were married at San Francisco City Hall June 17, 2008, in San Francisco.
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
The sponsors of Proposition 8 asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to nullify the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters approved the ballot initiative that outlawed gay unions.
The Yes on 8 campaign filed a brief arguing that because the new law holds that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized or valid in California, the state can no longer recognize the existing same-sex unions.
"Proposition 8's brevity is matched by its clarity. There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions or exclusions," reads the brief co-written by Pepperdine University law school dean Kenneth Starr, the former independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton.
The campaign submitted the document in response to three lawsuits seeking to invalidate Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment adopted last month that overruled the court's decision in May that briefly legalized gay marriage in the nation's most populous state.
Both Attorney General Jerry Brown, whose office is scheduled to submit its own brief to the court Friday, and gay rights groups maintain that the gay marriage ban may not be applied retroactively.
The Supreme Court could hear arguments in the litigation as soon as March. The measure's backers announced Friday that Starr, a former federal judge and U.S. solicitor general, had signed on as their lead counsel and would argue the cases.
The new brief provides a preview of how Proposition 8's supporters plan to defend the measure.
Along with revealing for the first time that they object to carving an exception for already-married couples—a position that puts the future of thousands of unions in jeopardy—it asserts that the Supreme Court lacks the authority or historical precedent to throw out Proposition 8.
"For this court to rule otherwise would be to tear asunder a lavish body of jurisprudence," the court papers state. "That body of decisional law commands judges—as servants of the people—to bow to the will of those whom they serve—even if the substantive result of what people have wrought in constitution-amending is deemed unenlightened."
The cases are Strauss v. Horton, S168047; City and County of San
Francisco v. Horton, S168078; and Tyler v. State of California,
S168066.
(© 2010 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)
California's 1st Same-Sex Marriage
Click to enlarge
Stumble It!
Comments