NoWowway_IHB
New member
There are at least 3 lawsuits in the works to challenge prop 8.
<em>http://www.365gay.com/news/sf-city-attorney-prepares-legal-challenge-to-prop-8/</em>One of the suits is planned by City of San Francisco attorney Dennis Herrera?s office. A second is by the three LGBT groups that won the historic California Supreme Court ruling that allowed same-sex marriage in the state. The third is by one of the couples who were married after the court ruling went into effect in May.
All three suits would begin if Prop 8 passes.
With 95 percent of the vote in across California the ?Yes? votes have a slim lead: 52 - 48 percent. Though some outlets called the ballot measure in favor of the anti-gay ban a few hours ago, as many as 3 million ballots - late absentee and provisional ballots - are left to be counted.
It is those ballots that opponents of the amendment are counting on for the measure?s defeat. But most political watchers in the state say it is unlikely the additional ballots will change the result.
The American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights filed a writ petition before the California Supreme Court on Wednesday, a preliminary move to a suit.
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.
The petition also says that Proposition 8 improperly attempts to prevent the courts from exercising their essential constitutional role of protecting the equal protection rights of minorities. The groups in the petition say that under 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, the groups said in a statement.
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, the petition said.
?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, Senior Counsel 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.?
Robin Tyler and Diane Olson, the first lesbian couple to be legally married in Los Angeles County, also plan a lawsuit against Proposition 8.
Their attorney, Gloria Allred, said the suit would argue that the measure is unconstitutional.
Proposition 8 is the first time such a vote has taken place in state where gay unions are legal.
A study by the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law indicated that by Election Day 2008, approximately18,000 same-sex couples had married in California.
Exit polls reported by CNN show that while a slim majority of white voters said they rejected the amendment, an equally slim majority of African American and Hispanic voters said they had voted for the amendment.
The battle for and against the measure, known as Proposition 8, cost more than $70 million, making it one of the most expensive ballot campaigns in history. Much of the money on both sides came from outside California.
Similar bans on same-sex marriage were approved by voters Tuesday in Florida and Arizona; while in Arkansas the electorate endorsed a measure to prevent same-sex couples from adopting.
<em>http://www.365gay.com/news/sf-city-attorney-prepares-legal-challenge-to-prop-8/</em>One of the suits is planned by City of San Francisco attorney Dennis Herrera?s office. A second is by the three LGBT groups that won the historic California Supreme Court ruling that allowed same-sex marriage in the state. The third is by one of the couples who were married after the court ruling went into effect in May.
All three suits would begin if Prop 8 passes.
With 95 percent of the vote in across California the ?Yes? votes have a slim lead: 52 - 48 percent. Though some outlets called the ballot measure in favor of the anti-gay ban a few hours ago, as many as 3 million ballots - late absentee and provisional ballots - are left to be counted.
It is those ballots that opponents of the amendment are counting on for the measure?s defeat. But most political watchers in the state say it is unlikely the additional ballots will change the result.
The American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights filed a writ petition before the California Supreme Court on Wednesday, a preliminary move to a suit.
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.
The petition also says that Proposition 8 improperly attempts to prevent the courts from exercising their essential constitutional role of protecting the equal protection rights of minorities. The groups in the petition say that under 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, the groups said in a statement.
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, the petition said.
?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, Senior Counsel 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.?
Robin Tyler and Diane Olson, the first lesbian couple to be legally married in Los Angeles County, also plan a lawsuit against Proposition 8.
Their attorney, Gloria Allred, said the suit would argue that the measure is unconstitutional.
Proposition 8 is the first time such a vote has taken place in state where gay unions are legal.
A study by the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law indicated that by Election Day 2008, approximately18,000 same-sex couples had married in California.
Exit polls reported by CNN show that while a slim majority of white voters said they rejected the amendment, an equally slim majority of African American and Hispanic voters said they had voted for the amendment.
The battle for and against the measure, known as Proposition 8, cost more than $70 million, making it one of the most expensive ballot campaigns in history. Much of the money on both sides came from outside California.
Similar bans on same-sex marriage were approved by voters Tuesday in Florida and Arizona; while in Arkansas the electorate endorsed a measure to prevent same-sex couples from adopting.
