Monday, January 17, 2022
Hawai'i Free Press

Current Articles | Archives

Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Supreme Court declines to hear Appeal of Decision Overturning Calif. Prop. 8
By News Release @ 3:11 PM :: 3234 Views :: Family

Wikipedia:  Hollingsworth v. Perry (initially Perry v. Schwarzenegger, then Perry v. Brown)[2] is a case that was decided by the United States Supreme Court on June 26, 2013. The court ruled that initiative sponsors do not have Article III standing to appeal an adverse decision to the appellate level. As a result, it vacated decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court of California and left in place the original decision by a district court judge from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. That decision held that a California initiative, Proposition 8, was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause and that the state of California's decision to deny marriage rights to same-sex couples was based solely on animus.

  *   *   *   *   *

CBS: Gov Jerry Brown Orders County Clerks to Resume Granting Gay Marriage Licenses 

  *   *   *   *   *

Supreme Court declines to hear appeal of Prop. 8

Nation’s highest court issues limited ruling leaving Prop. 8 the law of California

News Release from Alliance Defending Freedom June 26, 2013

Press conference following decision: Video

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday declined to review the validity of Proposition 8, California’s constitutional amendment protecting marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

The court said that the official proponents of Proposition 8 do not have the legal authority to defend it in federal court, even though the state’s governor and attorney general refused to defend it. The high court then voided a U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit opinion striking down the amendment. Without an appellate court decision declaring the amendment unconstitutional, Proposition 8 remains the law of the land in California.

“Despite the Supreme Court’s decision, the debate over marriage has only just begun,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Austin R. Nimocks, a member of the Proposition 8 legal defense team. “The court’s decision does not silence the voices of Americans. Marriage--the union of husband and wife--will remain timeless, universal, and special, particularly because children need mothers and fathers. This has been the experience of diverse cultures and faiths throughout history, including the American experience, and that will not change.”

“Americans will continue advancing the truth about marriage between a man and a woman and why it matters for children, civil society, and limited government,” Nimocks added.

In a dissent from the majority opinion in Hollingsworth v. Perry, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, “The essence of democracy is that the right to make law rests in the people and flows to the government, not the other way around. Freedom resides first in the people without need of a grant from government.”

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys are part of the legal team defending the California marriage amendment on behalf of, the banner organization for the official proponents and campaign committee of Proposition 8.

    The Supreme Court denied standing to What is “standing”?

    Alliance Defending Freedom is an alliance-building, non-profit legal organization that advocates for the right of people to freely live out their faith.

      *   *   *   *   *

    Legal analysis of Supreme Court decision: Hollingsworth v. Perry

    Summary of Hollingsworth v. Perry Decision

    On June 26, 2013, the United States Supreme Court declined to review the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The Court reached that conclusion after it determined that the Proposition 8 Proponents lack standing to defend California’s marriage law. The Court’s opinion was authored by Chief Justice Roberts.

    The Court concluded that the Proposition 8 Proponents lack standing because they “have no ‘personal stake’ in defending [the marriage amendment’s] enforcement that is distinguishable from the general interest of every citizen in California.”

    In particular, the Court rejected the Proponents’ argument that they are authorized under California law to assert the state’s interest in the validity of Proposition 8. The Court reasoned that even though the California Supreme Court permitted the Proponents to assert the state’s interest in the validity of Proposition 8 in state court, California law does not specifically appoint the Proponents as “agents of the people” of California. Finding the lack of an explicit agency relationship between the Proponents and the People, the Court concluded that the Proponents lack standing to defend the measure that they sponsored and supported.

    After reaching that conclusion, the Court stressed that “the Ninth Circuit was without jurisdiction to consider the appeal,” and thus “the judgment of the Ninth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.”

    Justice Kennedy authored the dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayor. In that opinion, Justice Kennedy and the other dissenting justices stressed that “[t]he Court’s reasoning does not take into account the fundamental principles or the practical dynamics of the initiative system in California, which uses this mechanism to control and to bypass public officials—the same officials who would not defend the initiative, an injury the Court now leaves unremedied.” They also declared: “The essence of democracy is that the right to make law rests in the people and flows to the government, not the other way around. Freedom resides first in the people without need of a grant from government.”

      *   *   *   *   *

    Out with the old:

    Indiana Homosexual will likely die in prison, convicted of ‘sextorting’ underage boys

    Bragged of over 100 underage victims

    In with the new:

    Colorado transgender 'girl', 6, wins discrimination case



    TEXT "follow HawaiiFreePress" to 40404

    Register to Vote


    808 Silent Majority

    ACA Signups Hawaii

    Alliance Defending Freedom

    Aloha Pregnancy Care Center

    American Council of Trustees and Alumni


    Antonio Gramsci Reading List

    A Place for Women in Waipio

    Astronomy Hawaii

    Back da Blue Hawaii

    Ballotpedia Hawaii

    Better Hawaii

    Broken Trust

    Build More Hawaiian Homes Working Group

    Christian Homeschoolers of Hawaii

    Cliff Slater's Second Opinion

    DVids Hawaii


    Fix Oahu!

    Frontline: The Fixers

    Genetic Literacy Project

    Grassroot Institute

    Hawaii Aquarium Fish Report

    Hawaii Aviation Preservation Society

    Hawaii Catholic TV

    Hawaii Christian Coalition

    Hawaii Cigar Association

    Hawaii Coalition Against Legalized Gambling

    Hawaii ConCon Info

    Hawaii Credit Union Watch

    Hawaii Crop Improvement Association

    Hawaii Debt Clock

    Hawaii Defense Foundation

    Hawaii Family Advocates

    Hawaii Family Forum

    Hawaii Farmers and Ranchers United

    Hawaii Farmer's Daughter

    Hawaii Federalist Society

    Hawaii Federation of Republican Women

    Hawaii Future Project

    Hawaii Gathering of Eagles

    Hawaii History Blog

    Hawaii Homeschool Association

    Hawaii Jihadi Trial

    Hawaii Legal News

    Hawaii Life Alliance

    Hawaii March for Life

    Hawaii's Partnership for Appropriate & Compassionate Care

    Hawaii Public Charter School Network

    Hawaii Rifle Association

    Hawaii Shippers Council

    Hawaii Smokers Alliance

    Hawaii State Data Lab

    Hawaii Together



    Hiram Fong Papers

    Homeschool Legal Defense Hawaii

    Honolulu Navy League

    Honolulu Traffic

    House Minority Blog

    Imua TMT

    Inouye-Kwock, NYT 1992

    Inside the Nature Conservancy

    Inverse Condemnation

    Investigative Project on Terrorism

    July 4 in Hawaii

    Kakaako Cares

    Keep Hawaii's Heroes

    Land and Power in Hawaii

    Legislative Committee Analysis Tool

    Lessons in Firearm Education

    Lingle Years

    Malulani Foundation

    Managed Care Matters -- Hawaii

    Malama Pregnancy Center of Maui

    Mauna Kea Recreational Users Group

    Military Home Educators' Network Oahu

    Missile Defense Advocacy

    MIS Veterans Hawaii

    NAMI Hawaii

    National Christian Foundation Hawaii

    National Parents Org Hawaii

    NFIB Hawaii News

    No GMO Means No Aloha

    Not Dead Yet, Hawaii

    NRA-ILA Hawaii

    Oahu Alternative Transport


    OHA Lies

    Opt Out Today

    Patients Rights Council Hawaii

    PEACE Hawaii

    People vs Machine

    Pritchett Cartoons

    Pro-GMO Hawaii


    Rental by Owner Awareness Assn

    ReRoute the Rail

    Research Institute for Hawaii USA

    Rick Hamada Show

    RJ Rummel

    Robotics Organizing Committee

    Save Dillingham Airfield

    School Choice in Hawaii

    Sink the Jones Act

    Statehood for Guam

    Tax Foundation of Hawaii

    The Real Hanabusa

    Time Out Honolulu

    Trustee Akina KWO Columns

    UCC Truths

    US Tax Foundation Hawaii Info

    VAREP Honolulu

    West Maui Taxpayers Association

    What Natalie Thinks

    Whole Life Hawaii