Lawsuits to Challenge Reactionary Proposition 8

While Barack Obama was elected to the White House with a large convincing majority, signaling the end of the Bush neo-con era in U.S. politics, and symbolically helping heal the wounds of post-slavery racial discrimination, referendums effecting discriminatory laws against homosexuals were successful in various places around the country.

The biggest victory for the reactionaries and religious forces that brain trusted and bankrolled the anti-gay marriage campaign was for California's Proposition 8. The measure, which aimed to change the state's constitution to ban gay marriage appeared to have won. According to SF Gate:

With 96 percent of the vote counted, Prop. 8 was winning by a decisive 400,000-vote margin, 52.2 percent to 47.8 percent. It piled up huge margins in the Central Valley and carried some Democratic strongholds such as Los Angeles County. The measure lost in every Bay Area county but Solano.

Similar bans against gay marriage passed in Arizona and Florida.

Meanwhile, several civil liberties and rights groups moved to file legal challenges to Proposition 8. What follows is the text from the ACLU press release on the matter:

Legal Papers Claim Initiative Procedure Cannot Be Used To Undermine the Constitution's Core Commitment To Equality For Everyone

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

SAN FRANCISCO – The American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights filed a writ petition before the California Supreme Court today urging the court to invalidate Proposition 8 if it passes. The petition charges that Proposition 8 is invalid because the initiative process was improperly used in an attempt to undo the constitution's core commitment to equality for everyone by eliminating a fundamental right from just one group – lesbian and gay Californians. Proposition 8 also improperly attempts to prevent the courts from exercising their essential constitutional role of protecting the equal protection rights of minorities. According to the California Constitution, such radical changes to the organizing principles of state government cannot be made by simple majority vote through the initiative process, but instead must, at a minimum, go through the state legislature first.

The California Constitution itself sets out two ways to alter the document that sets the most basic rules about how state government works. Through the initiative process, voters can make relatively small changes to the constitution. But any measure that would change the underlying principles of the constitution must first be approved by the legislature before being submitted to the voters. That didn't happen with Proposition 8, and that's why it's invalid.

"If the voters approved an initiative that took the right to free speech away from women, but not from men, everyone would agree that such a measure conflicts with the basic ideals of equality enshrined in our constitution. Proposition 8 suffers from the same flaw – it removes a protected constitutional right – here, the right to marry – not from all Californians, but just from one group of us," said Jenny Pizer, a staff attorney with Lambda Legal. "That's too big a change in the principles of our constitution to be made just by a bare majority of voters."

"A major purpose of the constitution is to protect minorities from majorities. Because changing that principle is a fundamental change to the organizing principles of the constitution itself, only the legislature can initiate such revisions to the constitution," added Elizabeth Gill, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California.

The groups filed the lawsuit today in the California Supreme Court on behalf of Equality California and 6 same-sex couples who did not marry before Tuesday's election but would like to be able to marry now.

The groups filed a writ petition in the California Supreme Court before the elections presenting similar arguments because they believed the initiative should not have appeared on the ballot, but the court dismissed that petition without addressing its merits. That earlier order is not precedent here.

"Historically, courts are reluctant to get involved in disputes if they can avoid doing so," said Shannon Minter, Legal Director of NCLR. "It is not uncommon for the court to wait to see what happens at the polls before considering these legal arguments. However, now that Proposition 8 may pass, the courts will have to weigh in and we believe they will agree that Proposition 8 should never have been on the ballot in the first place."

This would not be the first time the court has struck down an improper voter initiative. In 1990, the court stuck down an initiative that would have added a provision to the California Constitution stating that the "Constitution shall not be construed by the courts to afford greater rights to criminal defendants than those afforded by the Constitution of the United States." That measure was invalid because it improperly attempted to strip California's courts of their role as independent interpreters of the state's constitution.

In a statement issued earlier today, the groups stated their conviction, which is shared by the California Attorney General, that the state must continue to honor the marriages of the 18,000 lesbian and gay couples who have already married in California.

A copy of the statement is available at: www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/37701prs20081105.html.

A copy of the writ petition filed today is available at: www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/37709lgl20081105.html.

In addition to the ACLU, Lambda Legal and NCLR, the legal team bringing the writ also includes the Law Office of David C. Codell; Munger Tolles & Olson, LLP; and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP.

I suppose one can take some umbrage in the fact that close to 50 percent voted against the discriminatory ban. But if it's your life that's affected, if you are the one who is treated as a second-class citizen, and it's your relationship that is labeled illegal and immoral, then I imagine that nothing would be truly satisfactory short of full civil rights -- and that's how it should be.

To love someone and to make your life with someone, while getting the sanction of the society to do so, is a fundamental right of every human being in this country. It is a matter of elementary decency that every person oppose these attacks on our gay brothers and sisters, and support the campaigns to rollback reactionary attacks such as Proposition 8. Kudos to ACLU, Lambda Legal, NCLR, and the various law firms offering their services. You can offer your support, too, by financially donating to one of the groups named.