Queerty _BREAKING: Marriage-Equality Foes Ask Supreme Court To Review Prop 8 Decision Add a comment 4Print The sponsors of California’s Proposition 8 have petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn a February decision that struck down the anti-equality measure. Calling the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals two-to-one decision “misguided,” the group’s petition admitted that the Constitution does not mandate one-man/one-woman marriage but claims “it leaves the definition of marriage in the hands of the people, to be resolved through the democratic process in each state.” But Charles J. Cooper, lead attorney for Prop 8 sponsor Protect Marriage, said the Supremes have “made it very clear that the age-old definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is constitutional as a matter of state public policy.” He chastened the lower court for “essentially reject[ing] all relevant Supreme Court and appellate court precedent while attacking the character and judgment of millions of Californians.” The 9th Circuit’s ruling has been put on hold pending the outcome of this appeal for review, which requires four votes by the high court. After the filing, Rick Jacobs, founder of the pro-equality Courage Campaign, is quick to call the haters out: “The President of the United States, a majority of the American public, two federal courts and most of America’s NATO allies view marriage equality as a fact. But Brian Brown, Charles Cooper, Andy Pugno, and Mitt Romney continue to stampede over the cliff of historical irrelevance, insisting that America will cease to function if gays and lesbians can marry. The major problem with this thesis is that seven states and the District of Columbia welcome marriage for all and the country functions just fine, the sun still shines and the world still rotates on its axis. We can only hope that the Supreme Court will once again act for all Americans on the right side of history, not for a few hysterical ones scared of love.” Still, the Supremes better do what Mitt and company ask—or else they might take their toys and go home. photo by: Pargon Jump to 4 Comments BY: DAN AVERY ON: JUL 31, 2012 TAGGED: CALIFORNIA, COURAGE CAMPAIGN, COURT CASES, LAW, LAWSUITS, PROPOSITION 8, PROTECT MARRIAGE, RICK JACOBS, SUPREME COURT Email This inShare Paid Distribution Kiss And Tell: People That Tried To Out Celebrities As Gay (Bossip) Paid Distribution Men That Used To Be Women (ChaCha) Tom Hardy Has Dated Men, But Won’t Bottom / Queerty PHOTOS: Olympic Stallion Danell Leyva Likes To Send Sexy Self-Pics (Praise Jesus!) / Queerty PHOTOS: Broadway Bares XXII Wraps With A “Happy Ending” [?] 4 Comments No. 1 · Scott As I understand it, the court will not be deciding on the constitutionality of same sex marriage but the constitutionality of a majority taking rights away from a minority. If the justices find that it is constitutional I would think it paves the way for the repeal of the voting rights act, civil rights act, and gives the anti-abortion groups a plank to stand on. Am I missing misreading this? Jul 31, 2012 at 6:00 pm · @Reply · Flag No. 2 · B No. 1 · Scott wrote, “As I understand it, the court will not be deciding on the constitutionality of same sex marriage but the constitutionality of a majority taking rights away from a minority…. Am I missing misreading this?” Sort of – the ruling was with regard to the constitutionality of a change whose sole effect was to take away an existing right from a minority. Even if the Supreme Court upholds the challenge to Proposition Eight, a woman’s right to an abortion is not automatically ensured. With respect to Proposition Eight, there was what the computer industry calls a “race condition” – two processes running concurrently where the result depends on which completes first and with the timing of which completes first being indeterminate. Proposition Eight was introduced before the Supreme Court ruling that invalidated Proposition 22. Both had the same wording but Proposition 22 made it an ordinary law and Proposition Eight made it part of the state constitution. A case went through the courts, however, that resulted in Proposition 22 being invalidated before Proposition Eight was passed. If the timing was different, with Proposition Eight passing before the court case, we would not have had a window in which same-sex marriages were legal in California, and hence no existing right to take away – if Proposition Eight had been part of the state constitution at the time, the California Supreme Court would not have allowed same-sex marriages (the California Supreme Court did not invalidate Proposition Eight subsequently when it had a chance to do that). The clever thing for the pro-Prop-Eight people to argue might be that because Proposition Eight was introduced before same-sex marriages were temporarily made legal, it was not intended to take away an existing right. The counter argument of course is that it did in fact take away an existing right and that the campaign (the ads, etc. to influence voters) to get Proposition Eight passed started after same-sex marriages were legalized, and became an attempt to take away an existing right even though there was no such right when Proposition Eight was filed. Jul 31, 2012 at 8:56 pm · @Reply · Flag No. 3 · Jim H. @Scott: Yep. I think this one’s squarely within the holding of Romer v. Evans. Jul 31, 2012 at 8:59 pm · @Reply · Flag No. 4 · Ronn Does anyone know how soon or a deadline for the court to say yes or no if they are going to take the case? Jul 31, 2012 at 9:38 pm · @Reply · Flag Add your Comment Name (required) Email Address (required) Website URL It’s easier to add your comments when you are a member. Register or log in! Post comments that are relevant to the article, written in clear language and that avoid personal attacks on bloggers and your fellow commenters. And take a moment to read the Queerty Comment Policy. Notify me of followup comments via e-mail Send me the Queerty Daily Newsletter POPULAR ON QUEERTY Another Judge Takes A Swipe At DOMA, Rules For Same-Sex Couples In Pedersen v. OPM Berenstain Bears Try To Avoid Chick-Fil-A Hateration, Publisher Not So Much 4 When Kids Attack: Teen Terrors Send Lesbian To Hospital in MO 8 With Third Party Abstaining, New Zealand Parliament Closer To Approving Marriage Equality 1 FROM AROUND THE WEB Gay marriage a wedge issue in presidential race? (Fox News) Gender Benders: 15 Actors Who Play Gay But Really Are Straight or Vice Versa (Are Their Roles Believable?) (Styleblazer) Stars Who Don’t Think They’re Hot (Zimbio) Are You Making These 5 Horrible Bedroom Mistakes? (MyDailyMoment) [?] Full story here: http://www.queerty.com/breaking-marriage-equality-foes-ask-supreme-court-to-review-prop-8-decision-20120731/#ixzz22G1ZmCmF

BREAKING: Marriage-Equality Foes Ask Supreme Court To Review Prop 8 Decision
The sponsors of California’s Proposition 8 have petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn a February decision that struck down the anti-equality measure.
Calling the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals two-to-one decision “misguided,” the group’s petition admitted that the Constitution does not mandate one-man/one-woman marriage but claims “it leaves the definition of marriage in the hands of the people, to be resolved through the democratic process in each state.”
But Charles J. Cooper, lead attorney for Prop 8 sponsor Protect Marriage, said the Supremes have “made it very clear that the age-old definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is constitutional as a matter of state public policy.” He chastened the lower court for “essentially reject[ing] all relevant Supreme Court and appellate court precedent while attacking the character and judgment of millions of Californians.”
The 9th Circuit’s ruling has been put on hold pending the outcome of this appeal for review, which requires four votes by the high court.
After the filing, Rick Jacobs, founder of the pro-equality Courage Campaign, is quick to call the haters out:
“The President of the United States, a majority of the American public, two federal courts and most of America’s NATO allies view marriage equality as a fact. But Brian Brown, Charles Cooper, Andy Pugno, and Mitt Romney continue to stampede over the cliff of historical irrelevance, insisting that America will cease to function if gays and lesbians can marry. The major problem with this thesis is that seven states and the District of Columbia welcome marriage for all and the country functions just fine, the sun still shines and the world still rotates on its axis.
We can only hope that the Supreme Court will once again act for all Americans on the right side of history, not for a few hysterical ones scared of love.”
Still, the Supremes better do what Mitt and company ask—or else they might take their toys and go home.
photo by: Pargon
Jump to 4 Comments
BY: DAN AVERY
ON: JUL 31, 2

Tom Hardy Has Dated Men, But Won’t Bottom / Queerty

PHOTOS: Broadway Bares XXII Wraps With A “Happy Ending”

[?] 4 Comments
No. 1 · Scott
As I understand it, the court will not be deciding on the constitutionality of same sex marriage but the constitutionality of a majority taking rights away from a minority. If the justices find that it is constitutional I would think it paves the way for the repeal of the voting rights act, civil rights act, and gives the anti-abortion groups a plank to stand on. Am I missing misreading this?
Jul 31, 2012 at 6:00 pm · @Reply · Flag
No. 2 · B
No. 1 · Scott wrote, “As I understand it, the court will not be deciding on the constitutionality of same sex marriage but the constitutionality of a majority taking rights away from a minority…. Am I missing misreading this?”
Sort of – the ruling was with regard to the constitutionality of a change whose sole effect was to take away an existing right from a minority. Even if the Supreme Court
upholds the challenge to Proposition Eight, a woman’s right to an abortion is not automatically ensured.
With respect to Proposition Eight, there was what the computer industry calls a “race condition” – two processes running concurrently where the result depends on which completes first and with the timing of which completes first being indeterminate. Proposition Eight was introduced before the Supreme Court ruling that invalidated Proposition 22. Both had the same wording but Proposition 22 made it an ordinary law and Proposition Eight made it part of the state constitution. A case went through the courts, however, that resulted in Proposition 22 being invalidated before Proposition Eight was passed. If the timing was different, with Proposition Eight passing before the court case, we would not have had a window in which same-sex marriages were legal in California, and hence no existing right to take away – if Proposition Eight had been part of the state constitution at the time, the California Supreme Court would not have allowed same-sex marriages (the California Supreme Court did not invalidate Proposition Eight subsequently when it had a chance to do that).
The clever thing for the pro-Prop-Eight people to argue might be that because Proposition Eight was introduced before same-sex marriages were temporarily made legal, it was not intended to take away an existing right. The counter argument of course is that it did in fact take away an existing right and that the campaign (the ads, etc. to influence voters) to get Proposition Eight passed started after same-sex marriages were legalized, and became an attempt to take away an existing right even though there was no such right when Proposition Eight was filed.
Jul 31, 2012 at 8:56 pm · @Reply · Flag
No. 3 · Jim H.
@Scott: Yep. I think this one’s squarely within the holding of Romer v. Evans.
Jul 31, 2012 at 8:59 pm · @Reply · Flag
No. 4 · Ronn
Does anyone know how soon or a deadline for the court to say yes or no if they are going to take the case?
Jul 31, 2012 at 9:38 pm · @Reply · Flag

Add your Comment
Name (required)

Email Address (required)

Website URL

It’s easier to add your comments when you are a member. Register or log in!

Post comments that are relevant to the article, written in clear language and that avoid personal attacks on bloggers and your fellow commenters. And take a moment to read the Queerty Comment Policy.

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail
Send me the Queerty Daily Newsletter

POPULAR ON QUEERTY
Another Judge Takes A Swipe At DOMA, Rules For Same-Sex Couples In Pedersen v. OPM

Berenstain Bears Try To Avoid Chick-Fil-A Hateration, Publisher Not So Much
4

When Kids Attack: Teen Terrors Send Lesbian To Hospital in MO
8

With Third Party Abstaining, New Zealand Parliament Closer To Approving Marriage Equality
1

FROM AROUND THE WEB

Gay marriage a wedge issue in presidential race?
(Fox News)

Gender Benders: 15 Actors Who Play Gay But Really Are Straight or Vice Versa (Are Their Roles Believable?)
(Styleblazer)

Stars Who Don’t Think They’re Hot
(Zimbio)

Are You Making These 5 Horrible Bedroom Mistakes?
(MyDailyMoment)
[?]

Full story here: http://www.queerty.com/breaking-marriage-equality-foes-ask-supreme-court-to-review-prop-8-decision-20120731/#ixzz22G1ZmCmF