ADF: Ballot initiative for Calif. marriage amendment not “speculation”
ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND NEWS RELEASE
June 3, 2008 – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT ADF MEDIA RELATIONS: (480) 444-0020 or www.telladf.org/pressroom
ADF: Ballot initiative for Calif. marriage amendment not “speculation”
Proposed amendment certified for ballot;
ADF attorneys ask California Supreme Court to officially take notice
SAN FRANCISCO — Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund submitted documents to the California Supreme Court Tuesday on the heels of the proposed state marriage amendment’s qualification for the November ballot. The documents ask the court to take official notice that the amendment’s inclusion on the ballot is no longer uncertain because of the California secretary of state’s certification of the citizen initiative.
“The qualification of the amendment demonstrates that the people of California believe marriage should be the union of one man and one woman. It was the largest grassroots volunteer signature gathering effort in the state’s history. We hope the court will take note of the secretary of state’s certification when considering our request that the court postpone implementation of its decision on marriage,” said ADF Senior Counsel Glen Lavy, who argued before the court March 4.
“The people of California have a constitutional right to vote on marriage, and we trust the high court will respect the democratic process. The possibility of significant and unnecessary legal and social problems can be avoided by waiting to see what the California people desire when it comes to the meaning of marriage,” Lavy said.
ADF attorneys filed a petition with the court May 22 on behalf of the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund asking the justices to delay implementation of their May 15 marriage decision until the results of the November election are known (www.telladf.org/news/story.aspx?cid=4528). Opponents of the petition had argued that inclusion of the amendment on the ballot was “speculation.” The request for notice filed with the court Tuesday points out the invalidity of that argument.
A copy of the request for notice submitted to the California Supreme Court in the consolidated marriage cases named In re: Marriage Cases, which includes the lawsuit Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund v. City and County of San Francisco, is available at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/Prop22request.pdf.
The text of the proposed constitutional amendment is available at www.protectmarriage.com/read.php.
ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith. Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.
www.telladf.org www.domawatch.org
2 Comments
You are doing good work … I have linked to your post from an article on the Jeremiah Films site, I will continue to be doing so to let people know who is doing the work.
Which of your Fundamental rights would you let be put to the vote? The bill of rights is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. See Smith V Dept of Employment, in the words of Sandra Day OConnor:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=494&page=872
Finally, the Court today suggests that the disfavoring of minority religions is an “unavoidable consequence” under our system of government and that accommodation of such religions must be left to the political process. Ante, at 890. In my view, however, the First Amendment was enacted precisely to protect the rights of those whose religious practices are not shared by the majority and may be viewed with hostility. The history of our free exercise doctrine amply demonstrates the harsh impact majoritarian rule has had on unpopular or emerging religious groups such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Amish. Indeed, the words of Justice Jackson in West Virginia State Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette (overruling Minersville School Dist. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586 (1940)) are apt: [494 U.S. 872, 903]
“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” 319 U.S., at 638