www.LC.org

San Francisco, CA – Today the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, thus affirming the constitutional amendment passed that defines marriage as only the union of one man and one woman. Although its 4-3 decision on May 15, 2008, favored same-sex “marriage,” the Court acknowledged that “the provisions of the California Constitution itself constitute the ultimate expression of the people’s will.” In re Marriage Cases, (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757, 852. 

Since 2004, Liberty Counsel has represented the Campaign for California Families to defend the definition of marriage. Shortly after the amendment passed in November, three lawsuits were filed at the California Supreme Court by same-sex marriage advocates, claiming that Proposition 8 is itself unconstitutional. Liberty Counsel filed a brief at the Supreme Court in defense of Proposition 8.

The decision proves that when the people are allowed to participate in the democratic process, they will take action to uphold traditional marriage values. As the California Supreme Court previously stated, “The right of initiative is precious to the people and is one which the courts are zealous to preserve to the fullest tenable measure of spirit as well as letter.”

The Court also upheld the validity of the same-sex marriage licenses issued between the dates of June 16 and November 4, 2008. This part of the ruling makes little sense, because a constitutional amendment like this one means that going forward, that which happened in the past is no longer recognized. When the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, slavery was abolished. Slave holders could not claim grandfather rights to own another person. When the Eighteenth Amendment was passed, the manufacture, sale and transportation of intoxicating liquors ceased. If the licenses that were issued in this limited time frame remain valid, then what about licenses outside the state that were issued in this same period? If a person with such a license moves to California, can their license also be recognized? Of course, the answer to both questions should be “No!”

Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, who argued the case at every stage of the litigation, commented: “The people of California have spoken by affirming traditional marriage. It is time to move on. By a mere fourteen words that reaffirm the historic and common-sense definition of marriage, the people have restored common sense and the rule of law to California. This is a great day for traditional marriage and the family. We have fought this battle in California for nearly 5 years to defend traditional marriage. Today is a day of celebration. Political leaders who say that we should give up the battle on traditional marriage are out of touch with the American people. Our future leaders must be strong advocates of traditional marriage and family.”