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

[eus]

These people need to figure out how to mind their own business. Too bad there isnt a colony they could be send to--theyre an extreme burden on the taxpayers.

[Skeetshooter]

When is Ken Starr going to get out of my bedroom? When are we going to pass a law forcing him to stay out of all of our bedrooms?

Truly serious minded Americans have now owned up to the fact that we have many higher priorities than protecting the sanctity of heterosexual marriage by equating gay people with child molesters and gay marriage with marriage to pets and parking meters.
Nero fiddled while Rome burned, and the world watches in giddy astonishment as Ken Starr fiddles with the rights of our last beleaguered minority.

To the list of threats to marriage which includes no fault divorce, drive thru Vegas marriages, and a lower age of consent than the drinking age, must we add Kenneth Starr's incredibly boring marriage? Ken, sort yourself out, spice up your own marriage and I guarantee you will lose interest in mine.

[smithshaw08]

Yes in reality, they are so concerned with what we are doing in our bedrooms, they use their bibles to justify their obsession. My dog sleeps with me, but we have no intimate relations, honest!

[dlrdmd1]

funny, I agree, other than treats

[KarenGeorgetown]

The silver lining may be that they are actually asking for the 18,000 marriages to be nullified.­.... it's the beginning of the end for them and they don't see it. You can only nullify something considered legitimate, so here is the Dark Side admitting these marriages as the real deal. The writing is on the wall, homophobes, let it go. Gay marriage is inevitable­.... thank goodness. Now maybe we can move into the enlightened 21st Century together.

[wdw505]

it doesn't matter any more......­.a lot of companies have already corrected the error.....­so whatever is decided it will not matter

[Eric8869]

Yawn are you still here?

[NWBrunette]

I hope and pray that the national GLBT community and every other citizen with an open heart and a civic mind rises up and smashes these closed-minded disparaging scoundrels and their campaign of hatred.

[dlrdmd1]

Stick to your own state. Ours has spoken

[BlackWidowPilot]

HAs it really? Or were a majority merely sold a bill of rotten goods by a vocal minority of heretical religious fanatics and their authoritarian fellow travelers?

Back in 1967, my wife and I would not have been allowed to be married in 16 states, and that was just fine with a majority of Americans polled about the matter. We would have been subjected to public ridicule and harassment, and even harassment and arrest by law enforcement in those 16 states, along with prosecution in a court of law in those 16 states, ad again, it was all good with most Americans polled at the time.

Then along came the US Supreme Court, and Loving vs. Virginia (1967).

Care to take a wild guess what the unanimous decision of the US Supreme Court was, and what that whole suit was about?

Leland R. Erickson

Citizen

PROTESTant

[dlrdmd1]

I am not close minded. Man and woman = child. You need a man and a woman to produce a child. When did the test tube enter into the equation? I don't get it. You need to mix the x and y chromosomes around. If you don't you get abberations. Look at the pure bred dogs and cats..Duh They are riddled with bad backs, kidneys, short life, die early. It is basic biology. Ask any biology instructor about inbreeding. Name another biological unit that does this? You can not, so your argument is frivilous.­..I can not believe you spend your time arguing about this. Go back to world topics, and leave California alone to deal with Jerry Brown

[alguien]

and exactly WHAT does anything you wrote have to do with same-sex marriage?

[CarmanK]

The courts are to mete out justice. It is their responsibility to protect the rights of minorities as well as solve society inequities. It is rediculous that Prop 8 would be interpreted retro-actively to annul legal marriages. Prop 8 deprives people of their rights to "love" and protect one another, I find it repulsive and it is probably unconstitutional. I hope it is any way!!!

[truthyguy]

Don't these people have something better to do with their time? Like maybe volunteer at a hospital, nursing home, school, etc.?

[dlrdmd1]

The gays? Probably. My friends do all the time. Just got back from a party (homo and hetero) and we had a good time. Supported the local Childrens Hospital.
That's what we do in California, we just have a good time. Some of you other people around the country seem to have a hard time with that. My friends respect my opinions and I do theirs. Arianna, a little help here...

[mjb5406]

The funny thing is that the whole concept of marriage is NOT religious, it's civil. For the religious nutjobs to think they can rule other peoples' lives in the name of religion is hypocritical.

[Brian Normoyle - Huffpost Blogger]

You're absolutely correct.

[BlackWidowPilot]

Those who would misuse the Bible to condemn those who are gay need first really take an honest, in depth look at what the Scripture says *in context:*

http://www.guerrillascholar.com/cogito/?p=78

With a record like this, I would for one suggest Mr. Starr reconsider whom he is supporting:

http://www.armchairsubversive.org

"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone!"

Leland R. Erickson

Citizen

PROTESTant

[yeswecancan]

The Religious, intolerant Right has stuck themselves in the eye here ... it's called overreaching. The vindictive nature of their attempt to not just win on Prop 8 but to erradicate in an ex post facto way these lawfully conducted ceremonies is going to go a long way toward influencing the Court in favor of overturning Prop 8. This is just like Ken Starr .... never seen a sleazy position he couldn't wallow in.

[RobinD]

What the hell is wrong with these people?

[StevenKeirstead]

They think the marriages in question are evil, but how can equality be evil?

[esgabel]

Small minded, mean spirited..­.no matter what he thinks he will accomplish legally he can never extinguish the love of those couples...­he's lost already. Don't give him the satisfaction of seeing any sadness or disappointment, gay marriage will be more than accepted and all the Rick Warrrens and Ken Starrs will eventually see the sad pettiness of their ways--

[Molson]

When is it enough for these people? Perhaps after they forcibly annul 18,000 marraiges, they'll begin to take away children gay people adopted, or find some other reason to pick on families like mine? I used to think that was preposterous, but now I'm not so sure.

The level of hate these people have in their hearts is astounding.

It's funny how they think the court has no authority to overturn the amendment, and yet who do they ask to enforce the amendment? The governor or legislature? No, they ask the courts! It takes alot of b*lls to be that blatantly hypocritial.

[llstudent]

They are going to lose this one.

[jatoner]

given that one definition of "covet" is to pay inordinate attention to something or to display an unnatural fixation- it seems like the prop H8 supporters are coveting the relationship of married homosexuals, and thus breaking one of the 10 commandments.

[liberalsrheros]

with ken starr's history, when it's all said and done there will undoubtedly be graphic closing argument about a land deal in arkansas.

[eugenegerard]

The state should get out of the marraige business. The state should license legal unioins. If you want a religious ceremony, go to your church. Any one that fulfills licencing requirements for a civil union will be given all the rights of married couples under present law. That's the way they do it in Europe It makes sense.

[karinova]

Totally. I don't even understand how this got so far.

If I understand it correctly, as it stands now, in order to have ANY kind of "union," you have to get a government-issued license. Only then can you go have a ceremony. After you've gotten the license, it's up to you how you want to have it officiated (or exercised, or whatever the word is).

So, what do churches have to do with it? I don't even get that.
Why doesn't this whole thing begin and end on the issue of licenses?

Seems to me that the government can't discriminate when it comes to issuing licenses of ANY kind. Not on the basis of gender or religion, anyway.

So you get a license. Now, churches actually do have the right to refuse services to anyone. But the government does not. They HAVE to honor that license, right? If someone wants a civil officiant, I don't see how the government can Constitutionally refuse.

And of COURSE civil weddings are valid.

[Nolewoman]

Good point.

[swo68]

That's essentially gays being allowed civil unions, right? Even religious folks like Rick Warren are ok with that.

[JessWonderin]

Will Ken Starr please help me plead MY case?

I plan to sue the State Of California to overturn ALL divorces of anyone married in a church . . . "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Matthew 19:5,6.

I DEMAND the State declare all divorces VOID and force the ORIGINAL couples back together and then allow the general public the option to stone those left-over adultery 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. marriage partners . . . .

Comm on KEN let's SAVE MARRIAGE!!!!

[luvobama]

Good. Then I won't have to from a broken home anymore. And my abusive step father will get stoned to de ath.

[karinova]

Oh, dude.
Hugs.

.
As a (non-religious) child of elective divorce, I kind of with somebody WOULD try to discourage it. What is UP with those people who get married five, six, seven times? What does marriage even mean to them?

In my experience. divorce blows. Worst of all is joint custody, where the kids have to schlep their stuff back and forth every week (or sometimes daily). How selfish can you get?? I'm like, YOU'RE the ones who blew it-- YOU make some sacrifices and move every week, and let the kids stay in the same beds. Ugh.

[karinova]

Delicious!

[mjb5406]

It can be a Rollback, like you see at Walmart!