The California Supreme Court today denied requests to stay the enforcement or implementation of Proposition 8, and at the same time agreed to decide several issues arising out of the passage of Proposition 8. The court’s order, issued in the first three cases that had been filed directly in the state’s highest court challenging the validity of Proposition 8, directed the parties to brief and argue three issues:Written briefs are due by the end of January, with oral arguments slated for March.
(1) Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution?
(2) Does Proposition 8 violate the separation-of-powers doctrine under the California Constitution?
(3) If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?
Some think that overturing this in court is a bad move. I'm of the opinion that sometimes the courts need to intercede so that the rule of law trumps the "will of the people." The founding fathers knew this and therefore granted the judicial branch of government the same powers as the legislative and executive branches. Majority rule, in their opinion, could run amok and thwart the rule of law. Case in point: Had it not been for judicial intervention, African-American children would still be in separate schools.
So, I say let the Supremes hear the case. If they let Prop 8 stand, THEN we take it back to the ballot box - and keep taking it there until we sway enough minds to overturn this damn thing.
