Promote Your Attorney Profile on Law.net - Get Found / Earn More!
Attorney Disbarred Due to “Inexplicable Incompetence”
Attorney Disbarred Due to “Inexplicable Incompetence”
One Case May Determine the Fate of Gay Marriage in the United States
One Case May Determine the Fate of Gay Marriage in the United States
Rick Perry’s Defense Loses Battle to Have Paperwork Dismissed
Rick Perry’s Defense Loses Battle to Have Paperwork Dismissed
Class Action Lawsuit Accuses Sephora of Discrimination
Class Action Lawsuit Accuses Sephora of Discrimination
Your profile matches an open legal position. Apply now!
Legal Job Listings

California’s Proposition 8 Supporters Urge Supreme Court to Uphold Ban on Gay Marriage

In Hollingsworth v. Perry, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voided Proposition 8, California’s gay marriage ban, on narrow grounds, but allowed the law to remain pending appeal. The 9th Circuit held that the state cannot take away a right to same-sex marriage after granting it previously. It was in the course of the appeal against the ruling of the 9th Circuit, that on Tuesday, proponents of Proposition 8 made their arguments to the Supreme Court.

The brief on behalf of Proposition 8 observed, “That same-sex relationships are not recognized as marriages does not reflect a public judgment that individuals in such relationships are ‘inferior’ or ‘of lesser worth as a class … but simply the fact that such relationships do not implicate society’s interest in responsible procreation in the same way that opposite-sex relationships do.”

The supporters of Proposition 8 also submitted that they are entitled to defend Proposition 8, because the state had refused to defend the measure passed through the ballot process and reflecting will of a majority.

When the Supreme Court questioned their locus standi they argued that they had the right “as agents of the people,” given that no one else had come forward to defend the democratically expressed will of a majority.

Get JD Journal in Your Mail
Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!




The supporters said that the definition of marriage should rather be left to the voters rather than to judges and that a ban on same-sex marriage did not automatically mean dishonor to gays and lesbians.

While the Supreme Court is getting ready to hear arguments on the same-sex marriage cases later in the year, both proponents and opponents are putting forward their logic and arguments to influence the outcome on the review of DOMA.

In a separate filing meant to uphold Section 3 of the DOMA, three Republican members of the House of Representatives argued, “Judicially constitutionalizing the issue of same-sex marriage is unwarranted as a matter of sound social and political policy while the American people are so actively engaged in working through this issue for themselves.”

In U.S. v. Windsor, the case before the Supreme Court for reviewing the DOMA, Section 3 is sought to be invalidated on the grounds that the definition of marriage deprives legally married same-sex couples from the same federal benefits as married heterosexual couples.

The same-sex marriage cases before the Supreme Court are Hollingsworth v. Perry, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-144; and U.S. v. Windsor, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-307.

California’s Proposition 8 Supporters Urge Supreme Court to Uphold Ban on Gay Marriage by

Tagged: , ,

Posted by on January 23, 2013. Filed under Legal News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

 

 

Job of the Day
Managing Counsel
USA-OH-Columbus

Primary Responsibilities • Provide legal and regulatory support to Meeder and its subsidiaries, as well as to the Meeder Funds. • Work with senior business executives on new product ...

Related Posts: