Politics

SAN FRANCISCO (CBS 5 / AP / BCN) ― The California Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to hear legal challenges to the state's voter-approved gay marriage ban, but it refused to grant a stay suspending Proposition 8 until it rules on the measure's validity.

"This is welcome news," said state Attorney General Jerry Brown. "The matter of Proposition 8 should be resolved thoughtfully and without delay."

The high court accepted three lawsuits seeking to overturn Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment which passed with 52 percent of the vote. It states that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Proposition 8, if upheld, would overturn a May decision in which the high court ruled that the constitution's guarantee of equal protection provided a right to same-sex marriage.

The lawsuits were filed by two sets of same-sex couples and several cities and counties.

All three cases claim Proposition 8 abridges the civil rights of a vulnerable minority group and therefore voters alone did not have the authority to enact such a significant constitutional change.

The lawsuits contend the initiative is so sweeping it is a revision rather than an amendment to the state constitution and would therefore need approval by two-thirds of the California Legislature as well as a majority of voters.

The court granted review of the lawsuits by a 6-1 vote, with Justice Joyce Kennard dissenting. As is its custom when it takes up cases, the court elaborated little on its decision.

However, the justices did say they wanted to address what effect, if any, a ruling upholding the amendment would have on the estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages that were sanctioned in California before election day.

Along with the gay rights groups and local governments petitioning to overturn the ban, the measure's sponsors and Brown had urged the Supreme Court to consider whether Proposition 8 passes legal muster.

The initiative's opponents had also asked the court to grant a stay of the measure, which would have allowed gay marriages to resume again while the justices considered the cases. The court denied that request also by a 6-1 vote, with Justice Carlos Moreno dissenting.

"The California Supreme Court is recognizing the People's vote on Proposition 8 and is allowing the measure to go into full effect," said Andy Pugno, a lawyer for the Yes on 8 campaign. "This is a great legal victory for voters."

The court directed Brown and the Yes on 8 campaign to submit their arguments for why the ballot initiative should not be nullified by Dec. 19 and lawyers for the plaintiffs, who include same-sex couples who did not wed before the election, to respond before Jan. 5.

Oral arguments could be scheduled as early as March, according to court spokeswoman Lynn Holton.

Both opponents and supporters of Proposition 8 expressed confidence Wednesday that their arguments would prevail.

But regardless of the outcome, "the people of California won because we will get a faster resolution by having Supreme Court take the case directly," said Melissa Griffin, a legal analyst and columnist for the San Francisco Examiner. "A swift and legally sound resolution is in everyone's best interest." 

Both sides in the Prop. 8 dispute also agreed that the cases present the court's seven justices -- six of whom voted to review the challenges -- with complex questions that have few precedents in state case law.

"No matter what your view of same-sex marriage, it is important to understand that the passage of Prop. 8 has pushed California to the brink of a constitutional crisis," said San Francisco City Attorney Craig Herrera.

"Proposition 8 raised significant legal questions that impact every city and county in the State," added Ann Ravel, Santa Clara County Counsel. "We are heartened that the Supreme Court will hear the legal arguments we have raised in our petition."

The lawsuits argue that voters improperly abrogated the judiciary's authority by stripping same-sex couples of the right to wed after the high court earlier ruled it was discriminatory to prohibit gay men and lesbians from marrying.

"If given effect, Proposition 8 would work a dramatic, substantive change to our Constitution's 'underlying principles' of individual on a scale and scope never previously condoned by this court," lawyers for the same-sex couples stated in their petition.

Over the past century, the state Supreme Court has heard nine cases challenging legislative acts or ballot initiatives as improper revisions. The court eventually invalidated three of the measures, according to the gay rights group Lambda Legal.

The justices in their order Wednesday said they would consider three issues in the current case. The first is whether the initiative is a revision or an amendment.

The second issue is whether the measure violates the constitutional ban on separation of powers. Some of the lawsuits contend that the measure intrudes on the authority of the courts to decide on equal protection rights.

Finally, the court said that if it finds that Proposition 8 is constitutional, it would decide whether the measure retroactively invalidates marriages performed between the time the ruling went into effect in June and the Nov. 4 election.

One of the key underlying questions in the lawsuits is whether the voters passage of Proposition 8 would have an effect on the Supreme Court's ultimate decision.

Griffin said it wasn't clear from the court's writing on Wednesday, but noted that "there is case law that says initiatives are an expression of public will that should be honored to the greatest extent possible."

Still, the equal protection clause could counter that expression, she said.

"By its nature, the equal protection clause is meant to protect unpopular minorities from the tyranny of the majority. So, the critical interests here are initiative versus equal protection. In giving priority to one over the other, the 'will of the people' is certainly be relevant to the Court's decision-making," Griffin said.

Also in its order Wednesday, the court said the proponents of Proposition 8 could join the case as an official party to defend the measure, but denied that status to the Campaign for California Families, a group that supported the measure.

Tom Loarie, Yes on 8 Campaign Chairman for Contra Costa County told CBS 5 that the campaign was leery of Brown's role in defending the gay marriage ban since he has made his opposition to Prop. 8 so public.

The state Supreme Court supported us by deciding we will be a party of "real interest," said Loarie. "That means we will be able to defend this vigorously, and not just rely on Brown."

The panel, meanwhile, said other groups could participate by filing advisory friend-of-the-court briefs.

(© CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. The Associated Press and Bay City News contributed to this report.)