California Proposition 8 Proponents Urge California Supreme Court to Reject a Stay of Gay Marriage Ban

Dear Friends,

The five official Proponents of Proposition 8, along with the ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8 campaign, today filed legal papers with the California Supreme Court asking the Court to accept original jurisdiction of three lawsuits challenging the measure’s validity, seeking to intervene in the lawsuits as Real Parties In Interest, and urging the Supreme Court to reject a stay of the initiative.

We are confident that we will prevail on the merits and that Proposition 8 will be upheld.  

In calling for the Supreme Court to take original jurisdiction of three challenges to Proposition 8, we said in our legal papers, “The people of California are entitled to a prompt resolution of whether Proposition 8 properly amended their Constitution.  Proposition 8 was the subject of a vigorous and expensive campaign that generated an intense debate and very strong feelings on both sides.  The people have a right to know as quickly as possible the status and definition of marriage under the California Constitution.”

Three lawsuits have been filed with the California Supreme Court claiming that Proposition 8 is a “constitutional revision” and thus allegedly could not have been enacted by voters. While urging the Supreme Court to accept original jurisdiction of the challenges, the authors of the measure and our campaign committee, which spent approximately $38 million campaigning in favor of the proposition, expressed confidence that the Court would uphold Proposition 8. “When using the initiative process to amend the Constitution, the people exercise their sovereign power of self-government.  The three branches of government must accord profound respect and great deference to that authority, which is the very basis of the government’s democratic legitimacy,” we wrote in papers filed with the court.  

Our legal filing pointed out to the California Supreme Court that the courts in neighboring states have uniformly rejected nearly identical challenges to measures banning same-sex marriage. “Other courts addressing similar revision/amendment arguments under closely analogous constitutional provisions have rejected them,” we said. “Proposition 8 is simple, narrow, and targeted to a single issue.  It restores the definition of marriage to what it was and always had been prior to May 15, 2008—nothing more…Whatever one’s view of the wisdom of Proposition 8, the people of California have spoken and their will should be respected.”

We also urged the Supreme Court to deny the request of those challenging Proposition 8 to stay implementation of the initiative. We told the Court that a stay would create a class of “interim same-sex marriages whose validity would be highly questionable” when Proposition 8 is upheld.  Additionally, we told the Court that a stay of Proposition 8 would undermine the preeminence of the Constitution as the ultimate expression of the people’s will. “Enjoining or staying the enforcement of Proposition 8 – as if it were a mere statute or municipal ordinance to be set aside by the judiciary pending further proceedings, rather than a presumptively valid expression of the people’s sovereign will – would be widely perceived as the judiciary ignoring or countermanding the supremacy of the Constitution and silencing the voice of the people on a vitally important matter of public policy.  That would be deeply harmful to the democratic process.”

Seeking to intervene as Real Parties in Interest in the three lawsuits on behalf of the official proponents of the measure, we argued in court papers that their fundamental rights as initiative proponents are at stake. As official proponents, the five authors of Proposition 8 have a unique legal position that requires legal representation separate from that provided voters by Attorney General Jerry Brown. Our Motion to Intervene noted that Brown has vigorously opposed Proposition 8 and cannot be counted on to vigorously defend the measure. Additionally, we noted in our filing that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger similarly cannot be counted on to defend the People’s vote since he has already publicly urged the Supreme Court to invalidate Proposition 8.  

The whole point of the initiative process is for the people to be able to pass laws despite opposition from government leaders.  It just makes no sense that we should have to rely solely on hostile government leaders to defend the will of the people when they opposed the measure in the first place.

Our legal team will continue to mount a vigorous defense of Proposition 8 and will update you on developments.

Thank you for your continuing support of Proposition 8.

P.S. — The cases seeking to invalidate Proposition 8 are Strauss v. Horton, S168047; City and County of San Francisco v. Horton, S168078; and Tyler v. State of California, S168066.