This City Councilman Turned a $50K Deal Into a Personal Payday. Now He's...
Meet the Conservative Outsider Who Wants to Bring Common Sense Back to His...
How This Small-Town Police Force Became a 'Criminal Organization'
Iranian Regime's Latest Move Shows How Desperate It Has Become
CBS News Tried to Recalibrate Detention Stats — DHS Was Having None of...
If 'The Only Thing More Powerful Than Hate Is Love' Democrats Missed the...
Elites Did Their Part to Fight Global Warming by Flying Dozens of Private...
Man Who Pushed Propaganda About a Young Gazan Boy Slaughtered By The IDF...
Harry Sisson Refuses to House Illegals in His Home, And Claims ICE Agent...
Critics Blast Katie Porter's Pre Super Bowl X Post As She Tries to...
Will We Reach 100 Days of Straight Liberal Content on the Apple News...
Immigration Win: Federal Court Sides With Trump Admin on TPS Terminations for Multiple...
Federal Judge Blocks California Effort to Demask ICE Agents
Jasmine Crockett Might Be Running the Most Incompetent Campaign in History
WaPo Claims That Bad Bunny's Profane Performance Represented 'Wholesome Family Values'
OPINION

Fed. court punts Prop 8 case to Calif. court

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
SAN FRANCISCO (BP)--The federal appeals court considering the high-profile Prop 8 case submitted a technical legal question to the California Supreme Court Jan. 4 in a move that could have a major impact on the future of "gay marriage" in the United States.
Advertisement

At issue is whether ProtectMarriage.com -- the group that sponsored Prop 8 -- has what is called "legal standing" to defend Prop 8 in federal court. If it doesn't, then the case would be dismissed and the court would have to determine whether the lower court ruling that reversed Prop 8 was legitimate. But if ProtectMarriage.com is found to have legal standing, then the case can go forward and the appeals court will rule on the larger issue of "gay marriage" legalization.

The question of legal standing became a legitimate one when former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and then-California Attorney General Jerry Brown -- who have the duty under state law to defend laws -- chose not to defend Prop 8 in court. ProtectMarriage.com became the primary defendant.

Passed by voters in 2008, Prop 8 amended the state constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman. If the ruling overturning it is upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court -- which is not yet involved -- then "gay marriage" likely would be legalized in all 50 states.

In its Jan. 4 order, a three-judge panel for the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court to decide whether under the state constitution or state law the "official proponents of an initiative measure" can defend the measure "when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so." The panel heard oral arguments in the case in December.

Advertisement

"Because we cannot consider this important constitutional question unless the appellants before us have standing to raise it ... it is critical that we be advised of the rights under California law of the official proponents of an initiative measure ...," the Ninth Circuit order read.

The panel said it was unaware of any "controlling state precedent on this precise question."

The panel stayed the case until the California Supreme Court submitted its answer.

Groups that support Prop 8 expressed frustration at the prospect they might lack legal standing but confidence their side would prevail.

"Politicians should not be able to nullify a democratic act of the people by refusing their duty to defend it," Alliance Defense Fund attorney Jim Campbell said. ADF has helped defend Prop 8. "The people of California have the right to be defended, and thus the official proponents of Proposition 8 must have standing to defend that law. Otherwise, the governor and attorney general will succeed in indirectly invalidating a measure that they had no power to strike down directly. With this recent development, the Alliance Defense Fund and the rest of the Protectmarriage.com legal team remain confident that the right of the people of California to protect marriage in their constitution will ultimately be honored."

Advertisement

In a separate ruling Jan 4, the Ninth Circuit panel denied legal standing to Imperial County, which had sought to intervene in defense of Prop 8. Prop 8 backers had hoped the court would side with the county.

Supporters of the traditional definition of marriage warn that "gay marriage" legalization will negatively affect all of society, impacting everything from the tax-exempt status of religious organizations, to the way private businesses are operatedm to what is taught in elementary schools.

Michael Foust is an assistant editor of Baptist Press.

Copyright (c) 2011 Southern Baptist Convention, Baptist Press www.BPNews.net

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement