California Supreme Court to Hear Proposition 8 Challenges

UPDATED: I mentioned the lunacy of the legal briefs often filed by the Christianist organizations. A shining example of just how unhinged thes folks are can be found here. This people are simply not dealing with a full deck and it is clear that their arguments are based soley on religion. Let's hope more briefs like this are filed with the California Supreme Court.

*

I imagine the justices of the California Supreme Court are feeling tremendous pressure and have both fears of a recall effort and - some will not like me saying these - for their personal safety should they strike down Proposition 8. Frankly, the Christianist organizations behind Proposition 8 have done much to demonize the judiciary which has a sworn duty to protect minorities under the constitution from hate and discrimination by a rogue majority. It's a sad state of affairs when judges need to be fearful of alleged "Christians" who might resort to physical violence, but having regularly followed the major Christianist websites for years, that is what these hate merchants have wrought. Here's what the Los Angeles Times is reporting so far:

*

The California Supreme Court today denied requests to stay the enforcement or implementation of Proposition 8, and at the same time agreed to decide several issues arising out of the passage of Proposition 8. The court’s order, issued in the first three cases that had been filed directly in the state’s highest court challenging the validity of Proposition 8, directed the parties to brief and argue three issues: (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?

*

From what I have read and reviewed to date, the correct answers to these questions is as follows: (1) yes, it is unconstitutional; (2) yes; and (3) Proposition 8 is not retroactive and therefore does not impact legal marriages entered into prior to its enactment. A retroactive application would amount to an ex-post facto law which would be invalid under the U.S. Constitution.

*

Generally, the quality of the legal work of the Christianist attorneys is sub par and/or they display lunacy that helps our cause. Matt Staver of Liberty Counsel has a big mouth, but in my opinion, he's not the hotshot attorney he likes to think he is. We can only hope that such is the case in this briefing battle.