Prop. 8 Sponsors Seek To Nullify 18,000 Gay Marriages

SAN FRANCISCO — 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. The document reveals for the first time that opponents of same-sex marriage will fight in court to undo those unions that already exist.

"Proposition 8's brevity is matched by its clarity. There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions or exclusions," reads the brief co-written by Kenneth Starr, dean of Pepperdine University's law school and the former independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton.

The campaign submitted the document in response to three lawsuits seeking to invalidate Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment adopted last month that overruled the court's decision in May that had 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.

Proposition 8's supporters assert that the Supreme Court lacks the authority or historical precedent to throw out the amendment.

"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.

Comments

[NYCJeff]

Just as the murder of Harvey Milk and San Francisco mayor Mascone helped galvanize a movement and brought about great change - so will the passing of prop 8. Sometimes the biggest losses in a movement are actually the biggest victories historically. So - to the biggots that voted for prop 8 (which is patently unconstitutional) - I thank you for your help - and I will invite all of you to my wedding next year.

[SunDriedTomato]

4,557 churches in California are fighting against Prop 8 in the supreme court. (California Council of Churches v. Mark D. Horton)

Some of those 18,000 gay marriages were performed by these churches, and some by county clerks, deputized individuals, etc. Forcing 18,000 divorces on 18,000 committed couples doesn't defend anyone's marriage. As Harvey Feinstein said, "Breaking the lock off my door doesn't make your home more secure."

[2008CaliforniaFan]

Ken Starr appears to be nothing more than a High Paid Gunslinger asked to come into town and shoot someone down.

I called the State Attorney Generals office this morning to ask a few questions. With as bad as our state deficit is I was and the fact that the state would end up paying "HUGE" Legal Fees and resources to fight Starr in the Courts when we could use the money for 'legitimate' economic issues.
Starr just wants to fill his pockets at the expense of people of California... and get his name in the headlines.

The Attorney Generals Office did not know and could not tell me who is Paying Starr. Who has the resources to find out.... and put it out here. (out of state funds from Utah again..? someone tell us)

So the BIG questions is...... Ken Starr : "WHO IS YOUR SUGAR DADDY?"

Lets ' Expose ' him for what he is

[aintnogod]

I believe that America's Constitution stipulates a separation of church and state. The idea that marriage is to be between a man and a woman is a religious stipulation and, thus, should have no bearing on the civil status of marriage. Prop 8 is unconstitutional because it interjects the Bible into civil law and the Bible has no bearing on civil matters. This is exactly why the founding Puritans fought to make marriage a civil matter and not a religious matter. They didn't want the state to interfere with their marriages. Now these head up their sand modern Puritans want to overturn over 200 years of work that their Puritan forebears established in the first place. Talk about radical revisionism. By the way, my marriage, as far as I can tell, is pretty solid even with 18000 married gay couples in California. I guess Christians are all secretly gay if gay marriages are a threat to their marriages.

[TRex86]

Prop 8 is preeminently the triumph of ignorance over enlightenment. It goes beyond prejudice--i.e., homophobia. Anyone that believes language like "marriage is only between a man and a woman" knows nothing of biology. Are they proposing genetic testing prior to marriage? Nobody gets to go in drag and claim the opposite sex identity? Dang!
Guess what? Even genetic testing doesn't answer the question. Common genetic defects include the fact that some infants are born with only an X chromosome (X0--Turner's synd); others are born with XXY (Kleinfelter's). Moreover, some are born with ambiguous genitalia, and there are rare conditions like testicular feminization in which an XY male is a perfectly formed female. Where do all these individuals fit under this idiotic law? Can't marry because you can't prove who you are? (In truth, regardless of the question whether homosexuality is genetic one's sexual identity is ultimately whatever one chooses it to be. It doesn't easily divide into cliches like "man" and "woman.")
Ergo, the troglodytes of California have enacted a law that by its nature not only repeals previously granted rights, but it discriminates against those with developmental and genetic handicaps--it even creates handicaps where none existed. It is founded in deepest ignorance. Clearly, it violates the American's with Disabilities Act. Hence, it must go the way of anti-miscigenation legislation into the garbage pile of history.

[ddoc701]

No No No, listen to the Mormons, Marriage according to god is between one man and his multiple child wives.

[fishgirl26]

Really?? Nullify 18,000 marriages??? This shouldn't have been an issue in the first place until the mormons and fundamentalists got a hold of it. Why not just let people be who they are and get married already. The funnyordie.com video says it all. Gay marriage is boost to the economy:) and well, it's just the right thing to do!

[TruthAndTheory]

I'm amazed that the passing of the bill wasn't enough for these hatemongers.

The way these folks portray religion is so unappetizing and repulsive. It's 100% negative.
They make it seem like religion is all about hating gays, hating gays, and hating gays.

[Mnemanth]

How can someone be so hateful that they want to quash someone else's love? And these people hide behind the facade of Christianity.

[ddoc701]

Hey religous a**holes, wanna tell people how to live their lives, start paying taxes.

[BENNYINSF]

"even if the substantive result of what people have wrought in constituti­on-amendin­g is deemed unenlightened." PROP 8 IS EVEN WORSE THAN UNENLIGHTE­NED...IT'S UNCONSITUTIONAL. I'M GLAD THEY REALIZE HOW STUPID THEY ARE.

[irisda]

wow! so getting the prop passed wasn't enough?
these people disgust me

[TheGuide]

The law passed after the fact. I don't see the court overturning it and it be consititutional. Like in other matters, these "marriages" are grandfathered in before the new law.

[Sparty1]

Some people amaze me at their need to worry about what someone else is doing in the privacy of their own bedroom and how the hell they're doing it. These people and their need to shove their beliefs down others throats is why I run as far away from religion as possible.

[afgail]

Ken Starr again. What is his obsession with other people's crotches? Sick, sick man.