San Francisco, CA – Today's just-concluded oral arguments at the California Supreme Court over the validity of Prop. 8 were marked by lively exchanges between attorneys and the justices. Attorneys from Pacific Justice Institute observed today's arguments and had the following analysis.
- Several justices were very skeptical of the challengers' central argument that Prop. 8 is an invalid "revision." The justices seemed hesitant to overturn a direct act of the people. Justice Joyce Kennard specifically disputed the notion that the Court must strike down Prop. 8 just because they previously found a right to gay marriage in the state constitution as it existed prior to Prop. 8. Only Justice Carlos Moreno seemed determined to side with the Prop. 8 challengers.
- The justices were not buying the Attorney General's novel argument that Prop. 8 should be struck down for the alternative reason that, even though not a “revision,” it violates the inalienable right to marry.
- Justice Chin questioned whether the state should eliminate the concept of civil marriage entirely, leaving only civil unions or domestic partnerships available to all couple, heterosexual or homosexual.
- The justices seemed very unlikely to hold that Prop. 8 was retroactive so as to invalidate the same-sex "marriages" entered into between its decision last summer and the passage of Prop. 8 in November.
PJI President Brad Dacus commented, "Of course, we can never be certain how a court will rule until the decision is actually issued, but today's arguments were very encouraging for those who worked so hard to ensure the passage of Prop. 8."
Should marriage for same-sex couples be legal? Click here to see the Opposing Views debate.
POST YOUR COMMENTS BELOW