The California Supreme Court could decide as early as today two huge legal issues related to Proposition 8. That's the ballot initiative with which a majority of voters changed the California Constitution to eliminate same-sex marriage.
California Attorney General Jerry Brown has set the right tone in his recommendation to the justices. He's written briefs saying that the high court should resolve issues promptly and should not punt by refusing to take the cases or by dumping them on lower courts.
• First, should the high court take up the issue of whether Proposition 8 creates far-reaching, sweeping or profound changes to the California Constitution? Yes.
An actual ruling may take a little bit of time. But, as Brown notes, the public interest would be best served if the high court took on the issue, got briefs quickly and resolved it promptly. As Brown has said, because the issues are "strictly legal in nature," they "do not require fact-finding by a trial court."
At issue is Article I, The Declaration of Rights. Section 7 says:
"A person may not be … denied equal protection of the laws" and,
"A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens."
If the justices do decide that Proposition 8 is a radical revision to the constitution, that change cannot occur only by a direct vote of the people in an initiative.
Fundamental change to the state constitution requires a more arduous process – a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Legislature, plus a majority vote of the people. This is a safeguard to ensure more deliberation before any profound change.
So the stakes are high. The outcome will determine whether Proposition 8 was a legitimate use or an abuse of the initiative process.
• Second, what happens to the 18,000 same-sex marriages performed before the Nov. 4 election? And can same-sex couples continue to get married before the Secretary of State officially certifies the election on Dec. 13?
It's not right to leave same-sex couples who already have married in limbo. And city and county clerks need to know what to do about marriage licenses in the time before the election is certified. They need certainty now.
Again, the state attorney general lays out the need for urgency.
While the high court decides whether Proposition 8 constitutes a radical revision of the California Constitution, he recommends that the state should not allow more same-sex marriages to take place before the election is certified or the justices rule on the larger issue. Allowing marriages that might later be invalidated, Brown writes, "would engender uncertainty about the legal status of same-sex marriages in California."
Brown concludes that the public interest would be best served "by allowing Proposition 8 to remain in effect while expediting briefing and decision on these writ petitions."
That's the right stance. The worst thing would be to leave these issues hanging for weeks, months or years.
Settle this now, so people can go on with their personal lives and political activities knowing just where they stand.
About Comments
Reader comments on Sacbee.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Sacramento Bee. If you see an objectionable comment, click the "report abuse" button below it. We will delete comments containing inappropriate links, obscenities, hate speech, and personal attacks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. See more about comments here.