Bill Maher's Gutfeld Appearance Highlighted a Point That's Viewed as Treasonous By the...
The Trump Hush Money Trial Imploded Yesterday
KC Star's Idea of 'Poetic Justice' for Harrison Butker Is What You'd Expect...
Wait, the U.S. Senate Chaplain Said What About the Death of the Iranian...
Joe Biden's Executive Privilege Plot Is a Nixonian Throwback
New Tool Keeps Families Up-to-Date on the Left's War on Parents
The ‘Trump Never Conceded’ Lie
Silver Lining in Jen Psaki's Lie: Gold Star Family Gets Red Carpet Rollout...
Universities Breed Evil
Biden Lawsuit Against Sheetz Gas Will Enrage Pennsylvania Voters
Two Contrasting Congressional Days
What Will Change in Iran After Raisi's Death? One Ex-CIA Official Weighs in.
Is It Any Surprise Oakland Took This Step in Response to Copper Thieves?
'Like a Bomb:' CNN Analyst Again Shocked by Michael Cohen's Latest Courtroom Meltdown
The B(D)S Movement

Calif. court considers Prop 8 legal question

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of
SAN FRANCISCO (BP)--California's Supreme Court appeared poised Tuesday to side with supporters of traditional marriage in a critical case that will help determine whether Proposition 8 is constitutional.

At issue during oral arguments was not the issue of "gay marriage" itself, but instead the question of whether -- the group that sponsored Prop 8 -- has what is called legal standing and can, under state law, defend the constitutional amendment in federal court.

The issue came to the forefront when former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and former Attorney General Jerry Brown (who is now governor) chose not to defend Prop 8 in court.

If the California court rules that has legal standing, then the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals -- which asked the California court to consider the legal standing issue -- will rule on Prop 8 and the definition of marriage. Opponents of Prop 8 argue that does not have legal standing and that it has no right to appeal last year's lower court ruling striking down Prop 8.

Passed in 2008, Prop 8 defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

During oral arguments, a majority of justices appeared skeptical to the argument that does not have legal standing. If it lacked it, some of them suggested, the governor and attorney general in essence would have the power to veto a citizen-approved initiative -- simply by not defending it in court.


Justice Joyce Kennard said if the court ruled against it "would nullify the great power pertaining to proposing and adopting state constitutional amendments."

Andy Pugno, an attorney with, said in an email to supporters that oral arguments went "fantastic."

"The justices seemed baffled by our opponents' extreme position," Pugno wrote. "According to them, our opponents should be entitled to challenge a voter-passed measure and, upon convincing the State's Attorney General not to oppose the lawsuit, exclude the measure's official proponents from the courtroom -- such that the majority of voters go completely unrepresented. As one justice said, 'that just defies common sense.'"

A written ruling is expected within 90 days.

Compiled by Michael Foust, associate editor of Baptist Press.

Copyright (c) 2011 Southern Baptist Convention, Baptist Press

Join the conversation as a VIP Member


Trending on Townhall Videos