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

[Grunty1]

They are so worried about the state of marriage that they are going to forcible end 18,000 of them.

If this wasn't so tragic for these couples, I would be laughing at the sure absurdity of it.

[Sportswoman]

These aren't REAL CHRISTIANS; they are FAUX CHRISTIANS. Look at them; the faces of Salem Villagers.

[lizziekw]

Oh no, they're real all right. I've seen them.

[titantom]

The union between two individuals would have to change all the word from Marriage to Civil Union. Also it would be called a Civil Union License for everyone Gay Or Straight.


I would love to get some feedback from Huffington Post bloggers on the idea I have. Please comment on this.

I am a proud Gay Catholic and my religion does not belong in my government and my Government does not belong in my religion. I do believe as a Gay man after further reflection that President Elect Obama is doing the right thing to bring us all together.

I do believe that a good solution to this whole mess would be for everyone including our straight counterparts is to call the legal part of this union a civil union for Everyone Gay or Straight and then the religious aspect could be called marriage. I think that would be a great compromise between the two parties. So to conclude we all
Gay or Straight in the eyes of the Law should all call the legal aspect of the union - Civil Union.
The religious aspect should be called Marriage.
That would solve the problem

[austinavery]

I am only one "Huffpo" reader, but I agree with you entirely. The benefits and burdens of a social contract can--and perhaps should--be separated from the religious statement that two people make by marring.

But the, as they say about flying pigs . . . .

[wiseraven]

To end the bickering and the bigotry, I agree and have wondered why we cannot have both civil unions for those persons, gay or straight, who marry outside of a church. I think, however, that this is more of the same "Willie Lynch" type of issue: divide and conquer.

If the powers that be can continue to pit one 'minority' group against another, then all of us will continue fighting each other while we are all continue getting the shaft by being distracted from the 'big' picture. The current meme pits the LGBT community against African-Americans and Latinos, just on the heels of these groups collectively electing Obama.

Yet, why do some people believe that their rights are diminished when someone else's are increased? Is the right to marry the only thing some people feel that they have left in this world. Does this make them better than....whom? If some of us are marginalized, we all are diminished.

[atomic]

That's not a bad idea really ... just make all "marriages" the same and call them Civil Unions with the exact same rights ..... then it's up to the Religious institutions to decide if they want to perform "Civil Union" ceremonies or not. Only problem is that while a Religious Institution can marry anyone they can't be forced to marry gays if they don't want to. Then they can call it what ever they like it's all Civil Unions. The religious fanatics won't agree to this because their problem is not about marriage ... it about gay sex ... it freaks them out completely ... they really don't want civil unions .. they just want gay people to either get cured or rot in hell and fire for all eternity.

[ianmcc]

You've posted this same thing four times. We get your point already. One more of the same and I am reporting you to the moderator for abuse.

[XCITIZEN]

Another person lurking on Huffington Post looking for any available opportunity to flip their phobic BS at a gay person. Good job. We can all see that's why you're here.

[Grunty1]

I'd certainly have no problem with that.

That's really all the gays want too, equal rights under the law. If they can get the legal part handled, they will have no problem finding a church to perform the ceremony, if they are so inclined.

[XCITIZEN]

I'm in agreement under this condition - that ALL LEGAL RIGHTS of marriage are extended. The real reason the homophobes are bashing us and trying to take away our rights is that they DO NOT WANT US to have the SAME RIGHTS that they have. The fact that we do not have the same rights gratifies their bigotry. They do not want us to have equality as citizens.

[jodieez]

how can we continued to be ruled by these christians,s imaginary friend they call god. what gives them the authority to dictate to the rest of us what is right and what is wrong.

Remember they called it wrong when they would not allow inter-racial marriage. We would have never had a president obama

[paulalex]

The main problem gays have is they don't have millions of single brain celled sheep pouring cash into a slush fund like organized religion has.

It has to come down to what is right and what is wrong, and for religious people that basic judgement call has become so mired in superstition and fear it's one they shouldn't have a hand in deciding on any level - hence the necessary and ABSOLUTE separation of church and state on EVERY level.

[postman606]

In the Catholic Church if two people marry, technically they cannot divorce, unless they make a payoff to the church. This ludicrous mixing of sacraments and the law is at the bottom of this mess. I guess the church crowd will next invalidate the baptisms of homosexuals.

[mjb5406]

PLEASE don't give them any ideas... I can see it now... "Don't ask, don't tell" before "I baptise you..."

[titantom]

One caviot to my first post that would mean that a legal documents for The union between two individuals would have to change the word from Marriage to Civil Union. Also it would be called a Civil Union License for everyone Gay Or Straight.

I would love to get some feedback from Huffington Post on the idea I have. Please comment on this.

I am a proud Gay Catholic and my religion does not belong in my government and my Government does not belong in my religion. I do believe as a Gay man after further reflection that President Elect Obama is doing the right thing to bring us all together.

I do believe that a good solution to this whole mess would be for everyone including our straight counterparts is to call the legal part of this union a civil union for Everyone Gay or Straight and then the religious aspect could be called marriage. I think that would be a great compromise between the two parties. So to conclude we all
Gay or Straight in the eyes of the Law should all call the legal aspect of the union - Civil Union.
The religious aspect should be called Marriage.
That would solve the problem.

[dwillisno1]

Your suggestion actually answers the equal before the law issue. Everybody gets a civil union. Everyone can call it what they want. What you will find out, however, the anti gay folks who have been fighting to preserve the term marriage will suddenly reveal through their behavior that what they really oppose is gay people being gay.

[titantom]

The only way we are going to be able to appeal to people is by lettiing the sunshine through whcih is we will find out if this is about complete bigotry or truthfully about religion.

[Grunty1]

That's true. Good insight.

[titantom]

The union between two individuals would have to change all the word from Marriage to Civil Union. Also it would be called a Civil Union License for everyone Gay Or Straight.


I would love to get some feedback from Huffington Post bloggers on the idea I have. Please comment on this.

I am a proud Gay Catholic and my religion does not belong in my government and my Government does not belong in my religion. I do believe as a Gay man after further reflection that President Elect Obama is doing the right thing to bring us all together.

I do believe that a good solution to this whole mess would be for everyone including our straight counterparts is to call the legal part of this union a civil union for Everyone Gay or Straight and then the religious aspect could be called marriage. I think that would be a great compromise between the two parties. So to conclude we all
Gay or Straight in the eyes of the Law should all call the legal aspect of the union - Civil Union.
The religious aspect should be called Marriage.
That would solve the problem.

[Ebonyman]

Dear Titantom:

Thanks for writing. first, let me say that I respect your civility and poise even as you speak about something that is near and dear to your heart. Not many gay people have the kind of spirit that you do, and for that, you should be commended.

I am as straight as they come! I love being a man and I love and admire women; they are truly God's gift to men. I believe in marriage as between one man and one woman for life! Perhaps "civil unions" is an acceptable format that two persons of the same gender could embrace. That is certainly what Elton John proposed. Maybe you should become a spoksperson for the gay community. Again, thank you for not attempting to shove your life down our throats, and may you have a great Christmas holiday season.

[titantom]

Thank you for the great words. I do want you to understand so we are both on the same page.

I did say that the legal part of what we call marriage now for everyone(Gay and Straight) would be called a Civil Union

I think if you think the same way as I then you would be a great proponent of Civil Unions for ALL as well.

You also have a Merry Christmas and A Prosperous New Year.

[XCITIZEN]

Hey ebonyman, thanks for the rude stereotype of gay people, and thanks for broadcasting to the whole world that you are straight as they come! I feel so much better about you as a person now! Gratifying as hell! Oh, and I get that you don't want gays to have the right to 'marry.' Ok, thanks again! You're straight, your against gay marriage, and most gays are incapable of being civil. Am I right? Did I understand correctly. Just checking. Did everyone get his point?

[dollbaby]

I'm also catholic, married, heterosexual. I like your idea!!!!!!!!! And with new research showing genetic connection I think this makes sense. Rick Warren protests too much.

[shimown]

Dear titantom,

We get it, you want all marriages to be civil unions, we get it. The proponents of Proposition 8 are not at all interested in all unions being equal or in accommodating in any way, those who are not like them. They are interested in ensuring that anyone who is not in a heterosexual union is denied the same status as them, as most of them see marriage as a holy sacrament (leaving aside the fact that they frequently violate that sacrament by divorce), something that only occurs between a man and a woman, and whose sole purpose is the propagation of the human species. They will not be educated on this point, and they will not waiver on their closed-minded stance. They are religious bigots, anachronistic, for sure, yet anachronisms with votes.

Save us all your repeated verbiage. Your proposal will go nowhere, not because your idea has no merit, but because those who need to be convinced are not interested in being convinced.

[rejoyce5]

Why doesn't everyone see this is the answer??? Thanks for your comments.

[Bluedrgn]

I like this idea. Eqaul under the law and privatly people can call it whatever they want.

[paulalex]

TIGHT LIPPED CLOSET GAYS!!!

[AngryCitizen]

hateful bigots.

[adampap]

Religion is an abomination.

Every religion is centered around a god or gods that almost certainly don't exist, who spoke to prophets that probably never existed and inspired the authorship of holy books which contain countless contradictions about moral and scientific claims, and documented events for which there is no archaeological evidence and which may or may not have taken place dozens or even hundreds of years before the authors were born.

I understand that there are many sensible people who are also religious, but their defense of religion makes it safe for extremists to use their faith as a tool of attack. By demanding respect for their kinder version of faith, they make it possible for the extremists to justify their prejudices. Religion is a conversation stopper because we're not supposed to offend religious people. And unfortunately it's amazingly easy to offend the religious. But why shouldn't these ideas be open to honest inquiry?

The fact is most of us don't get our morality from a book which condones slavery and says you should stone to death adulterers and children who stray from the faith. The extremists are the ones who truly get their morals from scripture. The rest of us get it from our innate sense of conscience and the lessons we have learned over thousands of years of human existence. Religious moderates need to realize this fact and shed their superstition so that the extremists can no longer use religion to justify their ignorance and bigotry.

[titantom]

I agree with you. What did you think of my idea below? It would keep these religious biggots out of the sysytem. If giving them there own word maybe they would leave us alone. But all people Gay or Straight in the eyes of the law would be called a Civil Union.

[AngryCitizen]

Sorry, you don't know there is no God. I am as left as you can get, and gay, and I am a Christian. I worship a different version of the God the right worships however.

[applescruff]

Or how about Gays call thier lifestyle a Religion? That way the government couldn't interfere in what they do and they'd be tax exempt.

[Skeptiqone]

I attended some of those weddings,,,as I have attended hundreds though out my life. It is so mean spirited to nullify them.

[titantom]

One caviot to my first post that would mean that a legal documents for The union between two individuals would have to change the word from Marriage to Civil Union. Also it would be called a Civil Union License for everyone Gay Or Straight.

[titantom]

I would love to get some feedback from Huffington Post on the idea I have. Please comment on this.

I am a proud Gay Catholic and my religion does not belong in my government and my Government does not belong in my religion. I do believe as a Gay man after further reflection that President Elect Obama is doing the right thing to bring us all together.

I do believe that a good solution to this whole mess would be for everyone including our straight counterparts is to call the legal part of this union a civil union for Everyone Gay or Straight and then the religious aspect could be called marriage. I think that would be a great compromise between the two parties. So to conclude we all
Gay or Straight in the eyes of the Law should all call the legal aspect of the union - Civil Union.
The religious aspect should be called Marriage.
That would solve the problem.

[timberdoodle]

Unfortunately religions are not prone to common sense as you can likely tell from your own that the catholic church is still advocating to the people in Africa that they shouldn't use protection when having sex seemingly oblivious to the fact hundreds of thousands are going to die with the spread of AIDS through unprotected sex.

[paulalex]

The biggest, splashiest, most expensive weddings held in churches are the ones that go south faster than an unemployed illegal.

Give me a good old fashioned civil union any day over a fake ceremony in a fake temple full of fake people.

As for all the perks that married folk get. The tax exemptions, the visiting rights the blah blah blah blah, they should be afforded to everyone.

Why should someone who is single have to pay more in taxes than two people who are married?

When kids come into the picture exemptions make sense, but otherwise no exemptions.

[adampap]

In theory that would work, but I don't think the redefining the word is what really bothers prop 8 supporters. I think they just use that as a talking point because they really don't have any good reasons for their viewpoint. Most of these people don't even believe homosexuality exists, and they think they can cure them through prayer. The root of their position is that of ignorance and fear. It's a good idea, but I don't really think the word marriage is what the bigots really care about.

[titantom]

But do you think we could at least get a majority of regular people to get it? The Religious right can't be the majority of voters. They are a minority just like us Gay people.

[applescruff]

I agree. I believe they need to hate to believe they have a position of power over others. Look how they have portrayed the gays that committed violence in isolated incidences after Prop8 as millitant group out to destroy thier religion . As if a small group like that could threaten the millions of them. Religions have always had scapegoats . It's thier M.O..

[QuietTom]

There are still those out there who think that gay people are asking for special rights when it's really just equal rights. Those judges last June did not grant a new right to gay Californians; they just read the constitution and said the right has always been there, just like it's been there for blue-eyed, freckle-faced people!

Then the fundies get their drawers in a bunch and come up with Prop 8 to specifically say that this right (which has been in the constitution along) will no longer be afforded to gay Californians. It could have been "blue-eyed Californians" or "freckle-faced Californians," but this those fellow human beings decided to choose "gay Californians." And they were allowed to do this.

Now Ken Starr and fellow thumpers say they will nullify just some of all the marriages that legally occured between June and November of 2008. Which ones shall Ken choose? Ken says, "This time, let's leave the blue-eyed freckled-faced Californians alone; let's get just the marriages of gay Californians (18,000 of them!) that were legitimately and constitutionally perfomed."

What if this hadn't been an election year, and the churches and their members had to wait another year or two to get Prop 8 on the ballot. Can you imagine if the number of marriages had grown to 100,000 couples during those election-less years. (Not that 18,000 is anything to sneeze at).

It's all so wrong.

[randyjet]

I would like to know just where in ANY constitution it says gay marriage is legal. It is only judicial interpretation that does that. Just as we could not do away with slavery by judicial fiat, we cannot do the same for gay marriage. If you pass an amendment legalizing gay marriage, then there will be no debate.

It is also in the US Constitution that ex post facto laws are forbidden. So the supporters of Prop 8 should leave what has happened alone. If these marriages can be thrown out, then Prop 8 can also be thrown out too. They should be careful what they wish for!

The CA Supreme Court has several options. They can uphold Prop 8 and leave it in place and outlaw further gay marriage or they can outlaw the ones which have been done, which will be VERY unlikely in any case. They can deny Prop 8 and allow such marriages to stand with that ruling. By pushing too hard, they will alienate and insult the majority of the court too. THAT will NOT serve them well at all.

[Mulvaney]

I doubt that the California Supreme Court will retrocactively nullify a right that they described as fundamental -- it is a more open question about whether they will allow a group of voters to take away anyone's right through an initiative. If they do, perhaps we could look forward to bans on divorces, witchcraft, or any number of practices banned in a religious text.

It was not that they were telling us interracial marriage was immoral and wrong -- and it took a decision of the court to set that aside. I hope the justices keep that in mind.

I have always said that I will stay out of your church and tell you that you are wrong if you stay out of my city hall and do not impose your religious beliefs upon others. But it does not look like they want to take me up on the bargain.

[randyjet]

This is an entirely different question than that of gay marriage. It is, was Prop 8 a FUNDAMENTAL change to the CA Constitution? They can certainly hold that it was NOT and still say that gay marriage was allowed under the Constitution and uphold the results of the referedum. I would not want to bet on how they will rule either. The judges who voted for gay marriage are up for re-election and they know that lots of liberals like myself are opposed to gay marriage and would vote against them. Obama carried CA AND Prop 8 ALSO carried too. If they want to keep their jobs, they will take that into consideration as well.