Validity of Proposition 8 rests in hands of state Supreme Court

SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. — The fate of traditional marriage in California, which was protected in the state constitution thanks to the Nov. 4 passage of Proposition 8, is now in the hands of its Supreme Court. The state’s high court has 90 days to issue a ruling.

The panel’s seven justices heard just over three hours of testimony March 5, including an hourlong presentation by Kenneth W. Starr, lead attorney for Protectmarriage.com, which sponsored Proposition 8.

“The constitution has now been amended by the sovereign people who are its creators,” Starr, former judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. and Solicitor General of the United States, said. “That is the beginning and end of this case.”

Opponents of the measure, representing a broad base of gay rights groups, argued several points in trying to sway the jurists to toss the amendment, including a procedural challenge that the amendment reflected a wholesale revision of the constitution, which must be initiated by a 2/3 vote of legislators, not voters.

“Proposition 8’s brevity is matched by its clarity,” Starr responded. “There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions, or exclusions. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

“Describing Proposition 8 as a revision to the state constitution depends on characterizing Proposition 8 as a radical departure from the fundamental principles of the California Constitution. But that portrayal is wildly wrong. Proposition 8 is limited in nature and effect. It does nothing more than restore the definition of marriage to what it was and always had been under California law before June 16, 2008—and to what the people had repeatedly willed that it be throughout California’s history. It is now part of the state constitution.”

State Attorney General Jerry Brown in his written challenge for the court argued that the amendment should be rescinded because it trumped an “inalienable right,” a claim, Starr refuted before the bench.

“The people have the inalienable right to control their constitution.” Starr said.