NOM BLOG

NOM Commends California Supreme Court Decision Granting Standing of Proposition 8 Proponents to Defend Measure in Higher Courts

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 17, 2011
Contact: Mary Beth Hutchins (615-337-3710)


NOM Logo

Ruling Clears Way for Prop 8 to Eventually Head to the US Supreme Court

Washington — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today praised the unanimous decision of the California Supreme Court recognizing that California law gives initiative proponents the right to defend their own initiative, and predicted the ruling would speed the case to the US Supreme Court where NOM expects a victory. NOM was the largest contributor to qualifying Prop 8 to the ballot and has invested substantial funds in the defense of the initiative in court.

“It has been nothing short of shameful to see Governor Jerry Brown, his predecessor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Kamala Harris abdicate their constitutional responsibility to defend Proposition 8 in Court,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “Although today’s ruling from the California Supreme Court confirms that the proponents of Prop 8 have the right to defend their initiative when the state officials refuse to fulfill their sworn duty, it is gratifying to know that the over 7 million Californians who supported the initiative will have a vigorous defense of their decision in our federal courts.”

The decision of the California Supreme Court today now will be considered by the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which must ultimately decide whether the right of Initiative proponents recognized under state law meets the requirement for legal standing in the federal court. While the decision of the California Supreme Court is not binding on the Ninth Circuit, it seems certain that the Ninth Circuit would not ignore the advice, having asked the California Supreme Court to address this legal question.

“With this victory in hand, it is time for the Ninth Circuit to move the Prop 8 litigation forward to its eventual decision by the US Supreme Court,” Brown said. “We fully expect the Ninth Circuit, the most overturned court in America, to invalidate Prop 8, finding some phony right to same-sex marriage in the US constitution. However, once this case gets out of San Francisco and reaches the US Supreme Court, we fully expect to be victorious.”

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, or John Eastman, Chairman of the Board, please contact Mary Beth Hutchins (x105), [email protected], or Elizabeth Ray (x130), [email protected], at 703-683-5004.

###

62 Comments

  1. Bryce K.
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

    Interesting, but I doubt this will lead to anything other than another smackdown of Proposition 8's proponents.

  2. Randy E King
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 1:44 pm | Permalink

    Best news I have heard all day.

    With the recent rash of court rulings in opposition to granting special rights for people based solely on a depravity they enjoy I see this as the final hurdle in the administration of the coup-de-gras for marriage corruption in the State of California - my home State.

  3. Richard Cortijo
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

    I'm thinking a Double Smackdown of Prop8ers!

  4. Frank
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

    There wasn't a first smackdown so I don't expect a second. In the end SCOTUS will uphold traditional marriage.

  5. Rick DeLano
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

    Congratulations to NOM and to all on a stupendous victory- one that will lead us to the Supreme Court, where the foundational flaw in the "Dream Team" legal strategy will finally become apparent: the inability to count to five :-)

  6. Davide
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 2:20 pm | Permalink

    This is great news but no unexpected!

  7. Ash
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 2:20 pm | Permalink

    Great news!

  8. Leo
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

    Thanks NOM for the good news!

  9. Alan E.
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 2:38 pm | Permalink

    "It has been nothing short of shameful to see Governor Jerry Brown, his predecessor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Kamala Harris abdicate their constitutional responsibility to defend Proposition 8 in Court,”

    Where does it say they must defend any case? Would you rather they give a shoddy defense in something they believe is indefensible?

  10. Daughter of Eve
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 2:55 pm | Permalink

    Finally, a "measure of sanity" in the People's Republic of China.

  11. Daughter of Eve
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 2:55 pm | Permalink

    Oops, I meant People's Republic of CA. Honest mistake, given their similar human rights leanings.

  12. Billy
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

    Be careful what you wish for. This could have national ramifications.

    Had it been confined to CA based on standing, your house of cards would have been safer.

  13. TC Matthews
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

    Common sense finally.

  14. Brad T.
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 3:31 pm | Permalink

    @ Alan E. - No court has ruled that the Gov. and AG's actions were unconstitutional. On the other hand, a federal court has ruled that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.

    And Brian's claim about a "phony right" is nonsense and he knows it. Check the Constitution, you won't find a right to herero marriage in their either. That's a blatant mischaracterization of a hard fought legal victory and you know it.

  15. Tim K.
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

    @ Alan E. - No court has ruled that the Gov. and AG's actions were unconstitutional. On the other hand, a federal court has ruled that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.
    And Brian's claim about a "phony right" is nonsense and he knows it. Check the Constitution, you won't find a right to herero marriage in their either. That's a blatant mischaracterization of a hard fought legal victory and you know it!

  16. Louis E.
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

    I'm not sure who would vote to join Scalia,Roberts,and Thomas in upholding marriage properly defined...but we can hope.If they decide in favor of SSM then we will need to ban it by Constitutional Amendment.

  17. torqueflite
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

    This was expected, and it comprises no "victory" for proponents on the merits or constitutionality of Prop. 8. It DOES move the case forward so that a ruling on the merits can now be made. I fully expect that this cruel and unjust initiative will be vacated and marriage equality will at last become the law of the land.

  18. Louis E.
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

    "Marriage equality" ought to be explicitly prohibited under the General Welfare Clause...the public interest is served by the existence of opposite-sex couples and harmed by the existence of same-sex couples,and marriage as a civil institution is justified solely as a means of elevating the former above the latter.

  19. tam
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

    Excellent news indeed! The more public debate there is about same sex marriage, the more people support it -- especially when that debate occurs under oath and people must defend their views under cross-examination.

    No wonder support for marriage equality keeps growing and growing.

  20. TC Matthews
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

    CA Supreme Court unanimously upholds our right to defend Prop 8!!! Nice that. Unanimously.

  21. Son of Adam
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

    the U.S. Supreme Court typically does not get too far ahead of either public opinion or the law in the majority of states. For example, few states still had laws requiring racial segregation or outlawing interracial marriage by the time the Court struck those laws down. Most states had already struck down or repealed their own laws against same-sex intimacy when the Supreme Court finally invalidated Texas’s law in Lawrence. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the most liberal members of the court, has indicated that it is counterproductive for the Court to go "too far too fast." Although she tirelessly defends abortion rights, she has still said that "[t]he court bit off more than it could chew" when it decided Roe v. Wade.

    It is highly unlikely that the Supreme Court will overrule 30 state constitutional amendments defining marriage as being between one man and one woman and 31 out of 31 referendums and force gay marriage on everyone. Any lawyers bringing such a case before the Court will need favorable votes from five of the nine justices. Yet as Constitutional law scholar Andrew Koppelman put it, "When I try to count the votes in favor of same-sex marriage on the Supreme Court, I have trouble getting to one."

  22. Louis E.
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 5:04 pm | Permalink

    Tam,the idea that opposite-sex relationships are of no greater importance to human society than same-sex sexual relationships is so absurd that people are struck speechless that anyone would promote it...that is not lack of a counterargument.

  23. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 5:54 pm | Permalink

    Excellent news!

  24. Rover Serton
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 6:44 pm | Permalink

    Son of Adam, well put. On the flip side, the court will also not throw out the 6 states and DC that SSM is legal so that the state laws won't be trown into chaos. I expect teh SCOTUS to make a narrow ruling but I doubt if they will outlaw SSM.

    Louis, Look up what it takes to make a consitutional ammendment. NO CHANCE in the world! 2/3's of both houses? 3/4 of the states? no chance.

  25. Son of Adam
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 6:48 pm | Permalink

    "Look up what it takes to make a consitutional ammendment. NO CHANCE in the world! 2/3's of both houses? 3/4 of the states? no chance."

    At least for now.

  26. M. Jones
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 7:19 pm | Permalink

    Finally when the state fails to protect people of faith, the court stands up and says enough is enough. We now have our religious liberty and freedoms protected as representatives of the state!

  27. WeTheSheeple
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 7:29 pm | Permalink

    The 9th circuit will grant standing, but rule that Prop8 removed an existing right from gay couples in California. Since the ruling will be limited to just California the SCOTUS won't bother taking any appeal.

  28. Chris in Lathrop
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 7:42 pm | Permalink

    @M. Jones: This has never been about "protect[ing] people of faith." Proposition 8 was a thinly veiled attempt at enforcing a religious creed. Remember that this is not the Theocratic States of America and be happy, because the Christian faith may not perpetually remain the majority faith, and should that day come, you will be protected in your faith by the same laws you are looking to usurp.

  29. Son of Adam
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 7:45 pm | Permalink

    "The 9th circuit will grant standing, but rule that Prop8 removed an existing right from gay couples in California. Since the ruling will be limited to just California the SCOTUS won't bother taking any appeal."

    Did you see that in your crystal ball? LOL!

  30. David in Houston
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 7:55 pm | Permalink

    Considering that the Yes on 8 side had virtually no defense during the trial, I fail to see how they could possibly win at the highest court of the land. Perhaps the argument, "The majority is always right." is their pathetic defense.

    For the record, 7 mil. voted for Prop. 8. But there are 23.6 mil. registered voters in California. That means that only 30% made the effort to vote discrimination into the California constitution. 70% either didn't care about the issue, or voted against it.

  31. Rick DeLano
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 8:08 pm | Permalink

    Umm, David, the last time I checked, you have to vote in order to have your vote counted. Of course, this is indeed an impediment to the advocates of same sex pseudo-marriage, since they seem to do wonderfully at winning polls.

    It's elections they have a hard time with.

    Now if only you guys could pass a Constitutional amendment replacing elections with polls..............that's the ticket. The latter are so much (easier to rig)...er... more progressive.

  32. SC Guy
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 8:12 pm | Permalink

    Well, we just have to keep fighting to the best of our abilities. That's all we can do and pray for a good ruling!

  33. Louis E.
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 8:20 pm | Permalink

    RoverSerton,given that 88% of the states have laws that would be threatened without the amendment,the support is clearly there at that level.

    Since having their relationships treated as marriages is a "right" that same-sex couples SHOULD NOT HAVE,its removal serves the public interest,so?

    DavidinHouston,Judge Walker admitted arguments he should have thrown out and vice versa.It's impossible to justify turning an institution that exists to further the state interest in securing preferential treatment to opposite-sex couples into something that treats alternatives as if of no lesser value to society.

  34. Posted November 17, 2011 at 8:21 pm | Permalink

    Given that this case went through the California Supreme Court anyway, must wonder why the plaintiffs did not file the original complaint in California Superior Court, much like how the Baker v. Nelson , 409 U.S. 810, 34 L.E.2d 65, 93 S Ct 37 91972) plaintiffs originally filed their lawsuit in Minnesota district court.

    Justice Joyce Kennard was the reason. She had voted to strike down Prop. 22 in In Re Marriage Cases , 43 Cal.4th 757 [76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384] (2008) And yet, in her concurring and dissenting opinion in Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco , 95 P.3d 459 (2004)

    In restricting marriages to couples consisting of one woman and one man, California's marriage laws are not plainly or obviously unconstitutional under either the state or the federal Constitution. Neither Constitution expressly prohibits limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, and neither Constitution expressly grants any person a right to marry someone of the same sex. Nor does any judicial decision establish beyond reasonable dispute that restricting marriage to heterosexual couples violates any provision of the California Constitution or the United States Constitution.

    Indeed, there is a decision of the United States Supreme Court, binding on all other courts and public officials, that a state law restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples does not violate the federal Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and due process of law. After the Minnesota Supreme Court held that Minnesota laws preventing marriages between persons of the same sex did not violate the equal protection or due process clauses of the United States Constitution ( Baker v. Nelson (1971) 291 Minn. 310 [191 N.W.2d 185]), the decision was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, as federal law then permitted (see 28 U.S.C. former § 1257(2), 62 Stat. 929 as amended by 84 Stat. 590). The high court later dismissed that appeal “for want of substantial federal question.” ( Baker v. Nelson (1972) 409 U.S. 810 [34 L. Ed. 2d 65, 93 S. Ct. 37].)

    As the United States Supreme Court has explained, a dismissal on the ground that an appeal presents no substantial federal question is a decision on the merits of the case, establishing that the lower court's decision on the issues of federal law was correct. ( Mandel v. Bradley (1977) 432 U.S. 173, 176 [53 L. Ed. 2d 199, 97 S. Ct. 2238]; Hicks v. Miranda (1975) 422 U.S. 332, 344 [45 L. Ed. 2d 223, 95 S. Ct. 2281].) Summary decisions of this kind “prevent lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions.” ( Mandel v. Bradley, supra, at p. 176.) Thus, the high court's summary decision in Baker v. Nelson, supra, 409 U.S. 810, prevents lower courts and public officials from coming to the conclusion that a state law barring marriage between persons of the same sex violates the equal protection or due process guarantees of the United States Constitution.

    The binding force of a summary decision on the merits continues until the high court instructs otherwise. ( Hicks v. Miranda, supra, 422 U.S. at p. 344.) That court may release lower courts from the binding effect of one of its decisions on the merits either by expressly overruling that decision or through “ ‘doctrinal developments’ ” that are necessarily incompatible with that decision. ( Id. at p. 344.) The United States Supreme Court has not expressly overruled Baker v. Nelson, supra, 409 U.S. 810, nor do any of its later decisions contain doctrinal developments that are necessarily incompatible with that decision.

    93 P.3d at 503 to 504

    Thus Kennard, plus the four dissenters in Marriage Cases , means that Prop. 8 would be upheld in the California Supreme Court.

  35. Daughter of Eve
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 8:38 pm | Permalink

    "The 9th circuit will grant standing, but rule that Prop8 removed an existing right from gay couples in California. "

    That's a blatant untruth.

    Prop 8 was simply a vote to MAINTAIN the preexisting definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. Never, at any point, was sexual orientation at issue. Never have Californians of any sexual orientation been banned from marriage. If a gay man wanted to marry a gay woman before Prop. 8 he could, and he still can. To make it an issue about sexual identity is simply dirty politics.

    IF you can find any language in Prop 8, which bans a person who labels him/herself as homosexual from marrying, by all means, produce the proof.

    Let's tell the truth.

  36. Daughter of Eve
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 8:42 pm | Permalink

    "Proposition 8 was a thinly veiled attempt at enforcing a religious creed."

    False!

    Produce some proof of religious imposition in the language of Prop. 8, or, indeed, any language in it which targets a person who self-labels as homosexual.

  37. Daughter of Eve
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 8:55 pm | Permalink

    As a wise person recently said, "It is Constitutional, moral, practical and often necessary to treat different kinds of voluntary associations differently. Everyone has the same access to state marriage licenses, whether they want to use that access or not." (P. Walrus)

    Prop. 8 keeps gender segregation out of the public institution of marriage.

  38. Posted November 17, 2011 at 9:13 pm | Permalink

    I fully expect that this cruel and unjust initiative will be vacated and marriage equality will at last become the law of the land.

    Why?

  39. Bruce
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 9:42 pm | Permalink

    "Prop 8 was simply a vote to MAINTAIN the preexisting definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman."

    This is not correct. The only reason Prop 8 even existed was to overturn the California Supreme Court ruling which permited same sex marriage. It's simply impossible to MAINTAIN something that doesn't exist.

  40. Brian
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 10:19 pm | Permalink

    not sure why all the "victory" talk.....all this means is that the case is moving forward. The Argument against marriage equality is ridiculous and doesn't hold up under scrutiny in a courtroom. so the chances of a victory her on this site is remote.

  41. Rover Serton
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 10:44 pm | Permalink

    Louis, Granted teh 3/4 of the states might pass but 2/3 of the house and senate?

    It is always interesting to understand motivations. For Maggie, it is for the money and the church, I suspect yours is the church. I am embarrased to consider Daughters of eves. Mine is just equality. Have a good night all.

  42. Randy E King
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 10:50 pm | Permalink

    Bruce,

    The California Supremes inacted marriage corruption by overturning the will of the people under the mistaken belief that we the people of the state of California really did not mean what we said.

    So we the people were forced to enact a constitutional amendment so as to remove all doubt from our appointed attorney's what we the people meant when we told them that the definition of marriage is to remain as intended.

    Marriage corruption supporters are about to find out that all of history is relevant; not just those moments in time that appear to defend thier position when selectively referenced.

  43. Mark
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 11:10 pm | Permalink

    NOM may win the occasional battle, but the war is lost. SSM is the proverbial genie that isn't going back into the bottle.

  44. Andrew D
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 11:12 pm | Permalink

    Daughter of Eve, a blatant untruth, eh? Do you know what the official ballot title of Proposition 8 was? "Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry."

    Yes, this "blatant untruth" was the official title prepared by the Attorney General and even upheld against a challenge in courts.

  45. Randy E King
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 11:35 pm | Permalink

    Andrew,

    the original title was penned by then AG Jerry Brown who was - and is - alligned with the marriage corruption movement. The agents of freedom were forced to sue your comrad and force him to remove his blatant attempt to circumvent the will of the people.

    Have you no shame?

  46. Louis E.
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 11:48 pm | Permalink

    Andrew D,the fact that an opponent of the initiative had the job of titling it and applied a title framing it in the terms favored by opponents did not make that characterization accurate.

    Rover Serton,I have never belonged to any religion or believed that the Infinitely First Cause of the Universe ("God" for a one-word name) writes books or founds official fan clubs for itself.

    Brian,there is no remotely rational argument FOR "marriage equality".

    Bruce,the previous California court ruling was the attack in the face of which the preexisting definition had to be maintained.

  47. Andrew D
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 11:56 pm | Permalink

    Louis E., a court determined that it was accurate.

  48. Daughter of Eve
    Posted November 18, 2011 at 1:18 am | Permalink

    "The only reason Prop 8 even existed was to overturn the California Supreme Court ruling which permited same sex marriage."

    Would that be the court which legislated from the bench? The people of CA felt compelled to return marriage to it's previous designation as a public union between opposite sexes. Hence, Prop. 8. You can't in all honesty claim that marriage was anything other an opposite-sexed before the activist judges jumped the gun and undermined the right of the people to decide if they wanted to redefine marriage in the first place.

  49. Daughter of Eve
    Posted November 18, 2011 at 1:23 am | Permalink

    "Do you know what the official ballot title of Proposition 8 was? "Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.""

    You are correct, but have you really thought about that title? "Same-sexed." That means the implications of Prop 8 have to do with gender, not sexual orientation. The good people of CA didn't want marriage to become gender neutral, or "neutered." The good people of CA could care less if the individuals seeking a SSM are gay or straight; they wanted to make sure that at a man and a woman (of either sexual orientation) would be equally represented in each public union called "marriage."

    Remember, couples don't have rights, and never have; individuals do. People who self-label as homosexual have always had the right to marry; if a gay couple consisting of a gay male and a gay female wanted to get married, they always have had that opportunity.

  50. TC Matthews
    Posted November 18, 2011 at 1:36 am | Permalink

    And before there was prop 8 which addressed the State Supreme Court blunder, there was prop 22 which said the EXACT SAME THING almost ten years earlier.

  51. NormanF
    Posted November 18, 2011 at 4:53 am | Permalink

    Protecting marriage is the first and foremost responsibility of society.

    California's corrupt elite would not attend to it so the voters of that state had to set them straight.

    I do understand liberals don't like their decision. But in a society based on definitive principles we must maintain clarity about marriage and the family.

    This is about that - it has always been about that and never about gays rights to live together.

    Every one has freedom of association irrespective of sexual orientation but no one has the right to redefine the meaning of the family unit for society.

    This is only way we can protect every one's rights and make it clear to our children the values we believe in, that our ancestors taught us are necessary for the well-being of those now alive as well as of their posterity.

  52. NormanF
    Posted November 18, 2011 at 5:02 am | Permalink

    Gays and unmarried persons have all the rights and benefits of marriage apart from the name in California.

    They are not satisfied with the fact that true equality is impossible.

    That has never existed in any relationship in history. Liberals are trying to foist on us a spurious "right" that has no legitimate precedent.

    There has never been until now in history any controversy over what is meant by marriage.

  53. NormanF
    Posted November 18, 2011 at 5:10 am | Permalink

    Proposition 22 was a initiative law passed by the voters to protect marriage as being only between a man and a woman.

    California's State Supreme Court jumped the gun before voters could decide to give it constitutional backing.

    And yes, the people of the state in passing Proposition 8 as an amendment to their state Constitution, affirmed the court decided it wrongly and they always retain the sovereign power to overrule it for the common good.

    Liberalism has lost sight of the common good in our country in pushing the special interest agenda of the homosexual lobby.

    The rights of a civilized society prevails over the injured pride of at best a minority of individuals in it. That is, the right of society to define and defend the fundamental basis of its very existence.

  54. Son of Adam
    Posted November 18, 2011 at 5:45 am | Permalink

    "The Argument against marriage equality is ridiculous and doesn't hold up under scrutiny in a courtroom."

    The arguments for natural marriage has indeed held up in a vast majority of courtrooms, Brian.

    http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/iMAPP.Jan2011-2-american-courts.pdf

  55. Daughter of Eve
    Posted November 18, 2011 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

    "The Argument against marriage equality is ridiculous and doesn't hold up under scrutiny in a courtroom."

    I guess it depends on how you define marriage equality. Not all voluntary relationships are equally the same. A same-sex relationship, whether between of whatever combination of sexual orientations, is inherently different than an opposite-sexed one for obvious reasons.

    Equal treatment of individual citizens is not affected by defining marriage by gender. Bringing sexual orientation into a gender-issue is mixing apples and oranges.

    We can designate different voluntary relationships with different titles, even though they might share a few common denominator characteristics. Business partners might be same-sexed or opposite-sexed, but we don't issue them a marriage license when they go into business together. We issue them a business license. Marriage has a different meaning altogether.

    If we don't allow for gender segregation in other public institutions, why would we allow it in the public institution of marriage?

    Marriage between a man and a woman already demonstrates equality. The two individuals involved can enjoy whatever sexual orientation they want to declare. And each sex is equally represented in each and every union.

    So, making this an issue about gay "rights"--rights they have but refuse to acknowledge, is a classic red herring argument.

  56. Posted November 18, 2011 at 11:01 pm | Permalink

    The states should call for a constitutional convention to consider, and consider only, the Marriage Amendment. We could pressure the Supreme Court not to rule in favor on SSM, pressure Congress to go ahead and pass the Amendment and send it to the states, or even go through with the Amendment Convention. For the feasibility of a one amendment and one amendment only convention , see "The National Spectator' 10/10 issue. Different issue, same process.

  57. Louis E.
    Posted November 18, 2011 at 11:54 pm | Permalink

    The Constitution was the creation of a convention called to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation.Its language on Constitutional Conventions makes NO provision for their agenda to be limited.The movement to get a balanced-budget amendment passed by convention came within two states when it finally became clear to enough people that the attempt to limit a Convention's agenda would be invalidated.The Constitution gives two options,you call a Convention that can propose anything it likes including replacing the whole Constitution from scratch,or you don't call a Convention!

  58. Little man
    Posted November 19, 2011 at 9:54 pm | Permalink

    Rover Serton: You would say, of course, 'equality' is your only motivation to support same-sex civil marriage. What does motivation have to do with anything? How about reason?

  59. WeTheSheeple
    Posted November 21, 2011 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

    Gay men had the right to marry each other prior to Prop 8 passing.
    Lesbians had the right to marry each other prior to Prop 8 passing.

    It doesn't matter how that right came to be, but the simple fact is they had that right. That's why the 9th circuit will overturn Prop 8- it took away an existing right.

  60. Louis E.
    Posted November 22, 2011 at 2:20 am | Permalink

    You're saying that how wrong and harmful a "right" can be,it can never be taken away?
    We got rid of the "right" to own slaves,didn't we?

    California allows too many rights to same-sex relationships as it is,the general welfare requires that their status be permanently and unambiguously inferior to opposite-sex relationships.The greater importance of the latter to human society can not be sanely treated as subject to the slightest doubt.

  61. Brian O.
    Posted November 25, 2011 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

    The fact that NOM has contributed so much money to uphold Proposition 8 is clearly evidence of its constitutionality! Thanks, NOM!

  62. ChuckGG
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

    NOM should be careful what it wishes for. Based upon reading the arguments in the case presided over by Judge Walker, it is very clear Prop-8 stands no chance of prevailing in the Supreme Court, if the court decides to hear it, and that still is up for grabs. The logic against Prop-8 are very logical and clear. Those for retaining Prop-8, at best, are grabbing at straws. If this does get to SCOTUS, I predict an easy win for Marriage Equality.