ACLJ Represents Members of Congress from California in Asking California Supreme Court to Uphold Proposition 8 Vote Supporting Marriage
WASHINGTON-(Business Wire)-January 16, 2009 - The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), focusing on constitutional law, announced today it has submitted an amicus brief – on behalf of several members of California’s Congressional delegation – urging the California Supreme Court to uphold the state’s marriage amendment passed by voters in November which rejected same-sex marriage.
“The fact is that the voters of California took appropriate and constitutional action when they approved a valid amendment codifying marriage as an institution between one man and one woman,” said Vincent McCarthy, ACLJ Senior Counsel. “The challenge to this amendment is legally flawed and improperly rejects the will of California voters. We’re hopeful the California Supreme Court will take the action necessary to uphold this amendment and clear the way for its implementation.”
In its amicus brief in support of Proposition 8, the ACLJ represents itself and three members of the U.S. House of Representatives from California: Rep. Dan Lungren, representing CA 3rd District and former Attorney General for California; Rep. Wally Herger, representing CA 2nd District; and Rep. George Radanovich, representing CA 19th District.
In the brief, the ACLJ (posted here at www.aclj.org) contends that the language of Proposition 8 is “unambiguous” and clearly provides that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The brief also asserts that the amendment does not violate the separation of powers under the California Constitution, and that San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Santa Clara lack legal standing in the case.
The ACLJ brief asserts that “there can be no doubt that the voting citizens of California intended Proposition 8 to prevent the state of California from legally recognizing as a ‘marriage’ any union other than one between a man and a woman ...”
In urging the state’s high court to uphold the will of California voters, the ACLJ brief also contends that the amendment underscores the state’s historical definition of marriage.
Proposition 8 is a validly enacted amendment, the ACLJ brief contends, that “does not create far reaching, sweeping, or profound changes in the state's constitutional scheme.” “Rather,” the brief asserts, “it merely confirms the historically recognized scope of a single right recognized in the California Constitution - the right to marry - as encompassing only those unions ‘between a man and a woman’...”
“Petitioners bear a heavy burden of persuasion in challenging Proposition 8 - a duly enacted constitutional amendment - in light of the great weight that the California Constitution affords to the will of the people,” the brief asserts. “Through the passage of Proposition 8, the people of California have spoken clearly and unequivocally regarding the definition of marriage, and the amendment they approved took effect the day after it was enacted.”
Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the American Center for Law and Justice focuses on constitutional law and is based in Washington, D.C. The ACLJ is online at www.aclj.org.
 |
 |
 |
|
||
 |
|
 |
|
||
Search Our News Using Google Search
Can't find what you want? Try using Google:
