JURIST Supported by the University of Pittsburgh
PAPER CHASE NEWSBURSTDigest RSS feedFull RSS feed
Serious law. Primary sources. Global perspective.


Saturday, December 20, 2008

California AG asks state supreme court to invalidate same-sex marriage ban
Eric Firkel at 9:09 AM ET

[JURIST] California Attorney General Edmund Brown Jr. [official website] on Friday urged the Supreme Court of California [official website] to declare Proposition 8 [text, materials] unconstitutional [press release]. In a brief [text, PDF] submitted to the court, Brown argued that Proposition 8, the ballot measure that amended the state constitution [text] to ban same-sex marriage [JURIST news archive], should be overturned for violating the article I, section 1 of state constitution. Brown concluded:

The use of the initiative power to take away a legal right deemed by this Court to be fundamental and from a group defined by a suspect classification is a matter of grave concern. Existing precedents of this Court do not support the invalidation of Proposition 8 either as a revision or as a violation of the separation of powers. However Proposition 8 should be invalidated as violating the inalienable right of liberty found in article I section 1 of our Constitution.
Brown also added that even if the court finds Proposition 8 constitutional, "it should be narrowly construed to uphold the marriages that took place prior to the enactment of the initiative" between June 16 and November 4, 2008.

Last month, the Supreme Court of California agreed [order, PDF; JURIST report] to hear challenges to Proposition 8, while refusing a petition to stay [text, PDF] its enforcement. The court will begin hearing arguments in March to determine whether Proposition 8 violates the state constitution and, if not, its effect on existing same-sex marriages. Petitioners contend the initiative is a constitutional revision, not an amendment, and requires approval from two-thirds of the state legislature [official website]. The ruling followed two weeks of protests [NYT report; JURIST report] and petitions [materials] challenging the amendment since its approval [JURIST reports] by voters last month.





Link |  | print | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | Facebook page

For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...


LATEST LEGAL NEWS

 US House votes for 20-week abortion ban
3:57 PM ET, June 19

 UK Supreme Court allows families of Iraq soldiers to sue government
2:28 PM ET, June 19

 AI: China mining companies contributing to Congo rights abuses
12:51 PM ET, June 19

 click for more...

Get JURIST legal news delivered daily to your e-mail!

LATEST FORUM

Is Egypt's Stance on the Blue Nile Dam Legally Justified?
DOMESTIC
Zeray Yihdego
University of Aberdeen School of Law

ABOUT

Paper Chase is JURIST's real-time legal news service, powered by a team of 30 law student reporters and editors led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. As an educational service, Paper Chase is dedicated to presenting important legal news and materials rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in an accessible, ad-free format.

CONTACT

Paper Chase welcomes comments, tips and URLs from readers. E-mail us at JURIST@jurist.org