This issue has NOT been forgotten - and definitely not forgotten here in our family. It's just one reason why we just can't support a jewelry store owned by our family members...and luckily friends of ours agree...
Marriage Equality Update
Last week, COLAGE and Our Family Coalition filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the California Supreme Court in Strauss v. Horton, the case seeking to invalidate Proposition 8. A coalition of LGBT legal advocacy groups filed the case, asking the Supreme Court to strike down Proposition 8. The case argues that a simple majority of voters cannot legally approve a measure that radically changes the principle of equality guaranteed in the California Constitution-the same principle of equality that the Court relied on in the Marriage Cases when it recognized that all people have the fundamental right to marry, regardless of sexual orientation. Proposition 8 would corrupt this equality guarantee by taking away a fundamental right from a minority group that is supposed to receive the highest level of protection under the law.
The Supreme Court also asked the parties in the case to answer the question of whether Proposition 8, if held to be valid, is retroactive and whether the marriages of the more than 18,000 same-sex couples who married between June and November are valid. COLAGE and Our Family Coalition filed a brief specifically arguing that Proposition 8 is not retroactive, and that the rights of the couples who married and their families must be protected.
The court's docket as of Friday evening showed that 60 friend-of-the-court briefs had been filed by the Jan. 15 deadline, including 17 supporting Proposition 8 and 43 arguing it should be overturned.
Some 75 civil rights groups and local bar associations joined in two briefs and more than 50 labor groups in a third brief asking the court to strike down Proposition 8. Religious organizations, law professors and state legislators filed arguments on both sides.
A group of 65 present and former legislators headed by Democratic Assembly and Senate leaders supported the plaintiffs' argument that Proposition 8 is a constitutional revision that would require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature before being submitted to voters. They wrote, "Proposition 8 is void because it seeks to make far-reaching changes to our system of government and its underlying principles without first having undergone the constitutionally required scrutiny of legislative debate, deliberation and approval."