Schwarzenegger Refuses To Appeal Court Ruling Overturning Prop 8

SAN FRANCISCO — California's highest court on Wednesday refused to order Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state's attorney general to appeal a federal ruling that overturned the state's gay marriage ban.

The state Supreme Court denied a conservative legal group's request to force the state officials to defend the voter-approved ban.

The court did not explain why it rejected the emergency petition filed by the Pacific Justice Institute. The institute had argued that the attorney general and governor were required to uphold all laws, including initiatives passed by voters.

Earlier Wednesday, lawyers for Attorney General Jerry Brown and Schwarzenegger filed letters with the court maintaining state officers have authority to choose which laws they challenge or defend in court.

"The governor, like any litigant, has complete discretion over his own litigation strategy, including whether or not to appeal an order," counsel Andrew Stroud wrote for Schwarzenegger. "Here, the governor exercised his discretion and decided not to file an appeal."

Both men have declined to appeal Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's Aug. 4 ruling that found the ban, known as Proposition 8, violated gay Californians' civil rights.

The measure approved by 52 percent of California voters in November 2008 had amended the state Constitution to outlaw same-sex unions five months after the state Supreme Court legalized them.

Schwarzenegger, who has been under pressure from fellow Republicans to appeal Walker's decision, has said he supports the judge's verdict. Brown, who is the Democratic nominee to succeed Schwarzenegger as governor, has said he cannot defend Proposition 8 because he agrees it is unconstitutional.

"Although it is not every day that the attorney general declines to defend a state law, the state Constitution or an initiative, he may do so because his oath requires him (to) support the United States Constitution as the supreme law of the law," Deputy Attorney General Tamar Pachter wrote on Brown's behalf Wednesday.

The coalition of conservative and religious groups that sponsored Proposition 8 has appealed Walker's ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. But doubts have been raised about whether its members have authority to do so because as ordinary citizens, they are not responsible for enforcing marriage laws.

The 9th Circuit has said that is one of the issues it will take up when it hears oral arguments in early December.

If the federal appeals court dismisses the appeal because the ban's proponents lack legal standing, Walker's ruling would become final unless the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to take up the case.

If the high court refuses to intervene, gay couples would be able to marry in California again.

Comments

[The Ape Hunter]

11:15 PM on 09/18/2010

Even though we're not a Democracy, the powers that be, usually peddle "Democracy" because they know they can brainwash society into choosing what they want them to choose. Thus, its ironic that in this case, the powers that be, are overrunning democracy. Notice that in California, gay marriage has been up for vote many times since the 1970's. Each time that its been voted down by the most liberal state (religious are vilified) in the union, the powers figured the people simply need more brainwashing.

That's accomplished by both, negative & positive psychological tactics. The Orwellian "thought police" make examples of those with integrity & backbone enough to stand against the undeniably obvious unnaturalness, thus disorder, of homosexuality by attributing to them the status of "homophobia", "bigot", "intolerant" & "religious extremist".

Those not yet labeled & lacking fortitude, clearly understand the social implications from such punishment. Another validation of this is the fact that they ignore the fact that California is controlled by the 2/3 of Democrats whom easily get want they want or reject what they don't want in the voting booths. Yet, gays attack the religiously conservative minority of California. The positive tactic is the celebration of homosexuality in the media which completely fails to depict many dark realities of homosexuality.

Gay marriage was illegal prior to the last time it was proposed, before prop.8. After the 4 state judges ruled that it was unconstitutional, they then legalized gay marriage as if it had been legal prior to

[The Ape Hunter]

11:15 PM on 09/18/2010

Also, how could they have deemed it to have been unconstitutional if gay marriage was already illegal & had always been illegal. Why hadn't the law been deemed a violation in all the years it had been in place? They pulled the wool over Californians eyes in making it seem as if banning gay marriage was something new, simply because it had just been voted upon.

Also, the overturning ruling by the 4 state judges, was itself overturned. Thus, why was it proposed again as prop.8? Since the decision of those 4 judges did not stand due to being legally incorrect, then the proposition prior to prop.8 that banned gay marriage & they overturned, should have stood as voted upon. Why propose it again as prop. 8? They were hoping that this time there would have been enough people brainwashed.

Indeed, each time gay marriage has been proposed, it has gotten closer & closer to passing. Prop. 8 passed with only 52% of the votes. However, since this time it would be amended into the state constitution, there would be no more brainwashing opportunities. Thus, they pulled this latest judiciary chicanery in which they themselves may be guilty of "entrapment". The 14th amendment doesn't apply to marriage. It truly applies to what they did to Californians in this case. They charged the people with a crime then denied the people representation in the trial... for the people did not concede.

[The Ape Hunter]

11:14 PM on 09/18/2010

Even gays should not look the other way on this and accept it simply because it works in their favor. Due to the fact that the destruction of the U.S. Constitution & the unlawful expansion of government power will in the future come back to hurt us all... gays included.

I've learned government's dirty tricks because years ago was the first time they violated my 14th amendment rights, amongst others, within a ridiculous fiasco in which they brainwashed local/regional Californians to even participate in destroying the U.S. Constitution. This marks the 2nd time they violate my 14th

[Jdaddy1951]

12:08 AM on 09/10/2010

Good. Hasta la vista, Prop 8.

[ThatGuyisaGirl]

07:52 PM on 09/08/2010

If the Governor is not going to appeal and he was the defendant in the case, why are there going to be oral arguments in December in the appeals court? There's no appeal.

Does this not seem a bit odd that there's an appeal hearing when it hasn't been appealed by the losing party?

[The Ape Hunter]

04:57 PM on 09/18/2010

Oh you poor baby! The losing side didn't appeal so now you're upset that there's going to be arguments presented in appeals court. Gee, with such a keen sense for correctly identifying a party's asserted position, one would think that you would have noticed that the people of California didn't concede. However, they named Schwarzenegger & Brown the defendants because supposedly they represent the people of California.

You go ahead & continue to cry while I tell you more. The council representing the defendants couldn't have argued anything. Having clients that conceded from the start, what is there to argue? The homosexual judge, although having an obvious "conflict of interest", did get one thing correct... the 14th was indeed violated. The people of California were charged with a crime, after the state provided booths, ballots, propositions & choices (entrapment), but were not granted an advocate. Thats precisely why they call it the "PROTECTION" clause. The people don't need protection from forced marriage... unless they're in India.

Don't stop crying yet. The Governator proved to be incompetent as a representative. However, simply because the overwhelming majority, which are Democrats, obviously voted for prop 8, it doesn't mean he's not supposed to represent the people of California. In fact, he didn't represent anyone but the corporate oligarchy that peddles homosexuality. Conceding to gay marriage is definitely not a Republican gig. Being that Schwarzenegger & Brown were the defendants, charged with a crime and lost, I await their sentencing date with great eagerness.

[JohnFromCensornati]

07:40 PM on 09/08/2010

Terminated.