RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Gay-rights advocates to challenge Proposition 8

After losing at the polls, gay-rights advocates filed a legal challenge Wednesday in California Supreme Court to Proposition 8, a long-shot effort that the measure's supporters called an attempt to subvert the will of voters.

Lawyers for same-sex couples said they will argue that the anti-gay-marriage measure was an illegal constitutional revision -- not a more limited amendment, as backers said.

The legal action contends that Proposition 8 actually revises the state constitution by altering such fundamental tenets as equal-protection guarantees. A measure to revise the state constitution can be placed before voters only by the Legislature.

Opponents of gay marriage expressed outrage at the move.

"This is exactly the type of behavior that brought us to this position to begin with," said Proposition 8 co-chair Frank Schubert. "The people voted eight years ago overwhelmingly in favor of traditional marriage, and they seem to be saying in pretty strong terms again ... that they favor traditional marriage, and yet this is not accepted by gay-rights activists."

"Now, if they want to legalize gay marriage, what they should do is bring an initiative themselves and ask the people to approve it. But they don't. They go behind the people's back to the courts and try and force an agenda on the rest of society."

Former California Supreme Court Justice Joseph Grodin said the legal challenge will be a "tough battle" for supporters of same-sex marriage.

Gay-marriage proponents see it differently. "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," said Elizabeth Gill, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California.

It is a matter of fairness, said Jenny Pizer, a staff attorney with Lambda Legal. "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," she said.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Equality California and six same-sex couples who did not marry before Tuesday's election but would like to marry now.

The state Supreme Court has twice before invalidated measures as illegal revisions, but some legal analysts expressed doubt that the Proposition 8 challenge would succeed. Similar attempts to overturn anti-gay-marriage measures have failed in Oregon and Alaska.

A spokesman for San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said Herrera would also file a legal challenge.

With more than 96 percent of precincts reporting in the state, the measure leads by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent, prompting the Los Angeles Times to call the race. Opponents of the measure have not yet conceded defeat.

The loss was devastating to many in the state.

Paul Waters and Kevin Voecks of Valley Village, who married more than four months ago, were stunned Wednesday. "More than half of my fellow Californians still don't get it," said Waters, 53. "They still don't understand that sexual orientation is ... not a thing that should differentiate."

Early in the campaign, strategist Jeff Flint noted, polls showed the measure trailing by 17 points.

"I think the voters were thinking, 'Well, if it makes them happy, why shouldn't we let gay couples get married.' And I think we made them realize that there are broader implications to society and particularly the children when you make that fundamental change that's at the core of how society is organized, which is marriage," he said.

Elsewhere in the country, two other gay-marriage bans, in Florida and Arizona, also won. In both states, laws already defined marriage as a heterosexual institution. But backers pushed to amend the state constitutions, saying that doing so would protect the institution from legal challenges.

Proposition 8 was the most expensive proposition on any ballot in the nation this year, with more than $74 million spent by both sides.

The battle was closely watched across the nation because California is considered a harbinger of cultural change and because this is the first time voters have weighed in on gay marriage in a state where it was legal.

Campaign contributions came from every state in the nation in opposition to the measure and every state but Vermont to its supporters.

And as far away as Washington, D.C., gay rights organizations hosted gatherings Tuesday night to watch voting results on Proposition 8.

Most of the state's highest-profile political leaders -- including both U.S. senators and the mayors of San Francisco, San Diego and Los Angeles -- along with the editorial pages of most major newspapers, opposed the measure. PG&E, Apple and other companies contributed money to fight the proposition, and the heads of Silicon Valley companies including Google and Yahoo took out a newspaper ad opposing it.

On the other side were an array of conservative organizations, including the Knights of Columbus, Focus on the Family and the American Family Association, along with tens of thousands of small donors, including many who responded to urging from Mormon, Catholic and evangelical clergy.

An early October filing by the "yes" campaign reported so many contributions that the secretary of state's campaign finance Web site crashed.

Proponents also organized a massive grass-roots effort.

Research and polling showed that many voters were against gay marriage but afraid that saying so would make them seem "discriminatory" or "not cool," said Flint, so proponents hoped to show them they were not alone.

Calm down MEM. You just can't go around giving marriages to every sexual preference out there. Should polygamists be allowed to marry? Incestuous couples? No one is saying you don't have a right to get yourself reamed if you choose to.

Whenever you get upset your English doesn't work to well.

Actually I'm having some Wendy's & fending off a cat while I was checking the board. If it makes you feel better though to feel otherwise, it's ok.

It is a matter of fairness, said Jenny Pizer, a staff attorney with Lambda Legal. "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," she said.

Nothing like trying to take away the constitutional right to vote. You hear the liberal talking about disenfranchising voters, what will this do if an activist court overturns the will of the people?

ppl?

Actually I'm having some Wendy's & fending off a cat while I was checking the board. If it makes you feel better though to feel otherwise, it's ok.

You won't be able to convince anyone of your views if you're illiterate.

Just heard this on the radio and don't know how accurate it is, but thought it interesting.

Supposedly, the Obama victory is part of the reason that so many of those anti-gay marriage ballot measures passed. Obama's candidacy got out the vote, including the African American vote and, in general, African Americans tend to be opposed to gay marriage.

As a result, people who might have otherwise not showed up to vote against the gay marriage propositions came out in force.

Perhaps they need to do more to keep marriage sacred? If gay marriage is a threat then just think about how others desanctify marriage with divorce. Maybe there should be testing involved too. As it is any dipshit can get married & desanctify this sacred act!

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

Well, if it's an option, then it's a privilege. Straight people are currently privileged to marry, gays are not. Unconstitutional.

Well, if it's an option, then it's a privilege. Straight people are currently privileged to marry, gays are not. Unconstitutional.

Adults are allowed to vote, children are not. Does that making the voting age unconstitutional?

Two different things G-man.

Dude, it's Snarf. He has no idea what he's saying, much less how to adequately explain it.