OK, so several years ago California voters approved a proposition that effectively banned gay marriage. Gay rights groups (shouldn’t that be “gay lefts groups”?) promptly file suit with CA Supremes to block enforcement and got the initiative overturned. Gavin Newsome, mayor of SF, promptly started marrying homosexual couples.
So, this past election cycle the voters of CA approved an amendment to the CA Constitution defining marriage as “one man, one woman”.
Case closed, right?Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong.
Enter the lawyers.
From the Associated Press
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) – California’s highest court agreed Wednesday to hear several legal challenges to the state’s new ban on same-sex marriage but refused to allow gay couples to resume marrying before it rules.The California Supreme Court accepted three lawsuits seeking to nullify Proposition 8, a voter-approved constitutional amendment that overruled the court’s decision in May that legalized gay marriage.All three cases claim the measure abridges the civil rights of a vulnerable minority group. They argue that voters alone did not have the authority to enact such a significant constitutional change.As is its custom when it takes up cases, the court did not elaborate on its decision.
Note, the Supremes didn’t accept ONE challenge, they took THREE. Think maybe they’re just groping for a reason to invalidate another ballot proposition? The Justices pretty much have an open field on this one. As in no precedent.
…the cases present the court’s seven justices—six of whom voted to review the challenges—with complex questions that have few precedents in state case law.
Bottom line, they can probably do pretty much whatever they want. This one will be interesting. First of all, remember that in CA their Supremes are elected. I don’t know what the cycle is, but I do know they are on the ballot. They can also be recalled. I would certainly hope that if they overturn another election the CA voters will get even.