California | News | Proposition 8

California Supreme Court Rejects Prop 8 Backers Request to Halt Gay Marriages

The California Supreme Court has rejected a petition from Prop 8 backers asking it to halt same-sex marriages in California, Bloomberg reports:

CasupremeProposition 8 backers filed a petition July 12 and asked the state’s high court to order county clerks to enforce the gay-marriage ban, claiming the measure was still valid because a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last month didn’t find it was unconstitutional. They asked for an immediate injunction reinstating the law while the lawsuit is pending.

“The request for an immediate stay or injunctive relief is denied,” the court said in a filing today, without giving a reason.

Prop 8 authors made the request last Friday. Legal experts considered its success a long shot.

Buzzfeed has more:

The court on Friday had set a schedule requiring a full briefing on the Proposition 8 supporters’ remaining request that the court declare that the trial-court ruling only applies to the four plaintiffs in the litigation brought by the American Foundation for Equal Rights. As such, the supporters of Proposition 8 argue, the trial-court ruling cannot require state officials to stop enforcing Proposition 8.

The opposition to their request is to be filed “in this court on or before Monday, July 22, 2013.” The Proposition 8 supporters will then have “until Thursday, August 1, 2013, in which to serve and file a reply to the preliminary opposition.”

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Poor Maggie and Brian... Someone please pass them some Kleenex!

    Posted by: Jim Stone | Jul 15, 2013 5:36:37 PM

  2. They should have included a note: "Stop wasting our time."

    Posted by: Rexford | Jul 15, 2013 5:47:34 PM

  3. Great news! So now they'll go and donate their time/money to help people instead of hurt them, right? Oh wait...

    Posted by: Larry | Jul 15, 2013 5:51:58 PM

  4. Will these H8er's never learn. Get a clue. Get a life. Get the f*&% out of the 1800s.

    Posted by: Jaysonn | Jul 15, 2013 5:54:36 PM

  5. The trial court in question is a federal court, which has already issued a ruling that the pro-Prop 8 litigants cannot appeal. No state court--supreme or district--issues orders to federal courts, limits their jurisdiction, or modifies their rulings. Why is the California state supreme court even for a moment entertaining this preposterous challenge? The federal judiciary trumps state courts. The Supremacy Clause in the Constitution of the United States is supreme. Enough already. Stop this absurd legal trickery. The California state supreme court needs to put an end to this legal BS once and for all.

    Posted by: Jim | Jul 15, 2013 6:20:07 PM

  6. It was unanimous! Stick a fork in Project Marriage! Done!!

    Posted by: Joseph | Jul 15, 2013 6:21:24 PM

  7. This is them: "Come on. Somebody please please please stop people we don't like from doing something that in no way affects us. How hard do we have to stamp our feet?" The judges should throw the next clown that files one of these motions/suits down a deep hole.

    Posted by: Bollux | Jul 15, 2013 6:26:37 PM

  8. Court to Prop 8 Backers: "ROFLMAO"

    Posted by: Soren456 | Jul 15, 2013 6:37:48 PM

  9. I keep urging Californians in particular to talk to their family and friends. The major opponent of equality is the catholic bishops, but nothing is done by the parishoners to stop them.

    Posted by: Bob | Jul 15, 2013 6:54:14 PM

  10. Yes, what @JIM said. And I'd add, they probably didn't petition the district court because--duh--they know they don't have standing.

    Posted by: JJ | Jul 15, 2013 7:31:28 PM

  11. btw - How or by what means and when does the official California Code get updated to reflect the validity of same-sex marriage in the state?

    Posted by: Rexford | Jul 15, 2013 7:54:28 PM

  12. Rexford -- my understanding is that it doesn't. Prop 8 just sits there, lifeless and ineffectual, until and unless removed from the CA Constitution (which would require a ballot initiative).

    It's like the state sodomy laws invalidated by Lawrence v. Texas in 2003. Some remain on the books (or did until recently), but with no legal effect.

    Posted by: JamesInCA | Jul 15, 2013 8:12:43 PM

  13. > It's like the state sodomy laws invalidated by Lawrence v. Texas in 2003. Some remain on the books (or did until recently), but with no legal effect.

    It's still on the books here in Virginistan. The legislature (General Assembly) has refused to repeal it. Our Christianist Atty General has petitioned SCOTUS to uphold it, to be applied at his discretion. Unbelievable, these farkin' people.

    Posted by: Steeve | Jul 15, 2013 11:52:22 PM

  14. @JamesInCA - Thanks for the reply. That's what I figured; but I was also wondering if Sections 301 and 308 of the California Code (which I believe the CA legislature amends) can now be changed to reflect the reality of the situation. For example, parts of Section 308 currently address how California recognizes SSMs performed both in-state and out-of-state during the 2008 window when they were legal here. I believe the legislature was able to codify that based on the California Supreme Court ruling on the matter. So I was thinking they could perhaps do something similar now based on the federal appeals court ruling.

    Posted by: Rexford | Jul 16, 2013 1:36:19 AM

  15. If the Prop 8 backers want to find out what the California Supreme Court really thinks of Proposition Eight, they should read the decision overturning Proposition 22 (Prop 8's predecessor).
    Both Prop 22 and Prop 8 had exactly the same wording, but Prop 8 put it in the state constitution. The state supreme court had ruled that Prop 22 was unconstitutional.

    For Prop 8, the decision was about a challenge to Prop 8 that claimed Prop 8 was a revision to the constitution, not an amendment. This is a technicality unique to California. At the time, the people trying to overturn Prop 8 did not want to risk a U.S. Supreme Court case (at that point we didn't have Olsen and Boies on board, so the attorneys were simply staying within their capabilities to avoid risking a disaster).

    Posted by: Bill | Jul 16, 2013 2:50:13 AM

  16. CA Supreme Court only rejected staying marriages until after they heard arguments next week (the 22nd, I think?). Granted, they would probably NOT have refused to stop marriages if they thought the petitioners (Andy Re-Pugnant et al) would prevail, but it's loathsome this still has to be addressed at all. Maybe this will indeed be the final nail in the h8ers coffin.

    Posted by: JakeAZ | Jul 16, 2013 11:42:10 AM

  17. I believe both the California Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court has told these bigots to sit down and shut up...

    Posted by: mmike1969 | Jul 16, 2013 7:54:32 PM

Post a comment


« «Towleroad Guide to the Tube #1403« «