[新聞] 同志團體上訴加州最高法院要求推翻八號 …
簡單說就是透過最高法院來否決公民投票的結果。
但這樣的案例變得很棘手，因為這種案例史上很少。
不過同志團體不建議直接向聯邦法院提起上訴，因為擔心如果聯邦否決，那會重挫同志運動。
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaylegal6-2008nov06,0,220763.story
REPORTING FROM SAN FRANCISCO AND LOS ANGELES -- After losing at the polls,
gay rights supporters filed three lawsuits today asking the California
Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8, an effort the measure's supporters
called an attempt to subvert the will of voters.
"If they want to legalize gay marriage, what they should do is bring an
initiative themselves and ask the people to approve it," said Frank Schubert,
co-chairman of the Proposition 8 campaign. "But they don't. They go behind
the people's back to the courts and try and force an agenda on the rest of
society."
UC Irvine Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky said his research found too
little case law on constitutional revisions to predict how the state high
court might resolve the question.
"There is very little law about what can be done by amendment as opposed to
revision," he said.
Jennifer Pizer, a staff lawyer for Lambda Legal, said the initiative met the
test of a revision because it had far-reaching magnitude.
"The magnitude here is that you are effectively rendering equal protection a
nullity if a simple majority can so easily carve an exception into it," she
said. "Equal protection is supposed to prevent the targeting and subjugation
of a minority group by a simple majority vote."
Glen Lavy, an attorney for the Proposition 8 campaign, called the lawsuits
"frivolous" and "a brazen attempt to gut the democratic process."
The first action was filed by the ACLU, the National Center for Lesbian
Rights and Lambda Legal. Santa Clara County and the cities of San Francisco
and Los Angeles also filed a suit, and Los Angeles lawyer Gloria Allred filed
a third suit on behalf of a married lesbian couple. All the lawsuits cited
the constitutional revision argument, and two of them asked the court to
block Proposition 8 from taking effect while the legal cases were pending.
"The court must hold that California may not issue licenses to non-gay
couples because if it does it would be violating the equal protection clause,
"Allred said at a news conference.
A California Supreme Court spokeswoman said the court would act "as quickly
as possible" on the challenges.
Other lawsuits could follow, but gay rights groups have called on supporters
not to file cases in federal court. They fear that a loss at the U.S. Supreme
Court could set back the marriage movement decades.
"We think it is early to go into federal court and ask federal courts to say
we have a federal right to marry," Pizer said.
In addition to going to court, gay rights advocates sought to assure an
estimated 18,000 same-sex couples that their marriages will remain valid.
The groups cited comments by Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, who has said the
initiative was not retroactive. If the marriages are challenged in court,
that case too would go to the California Supreme Court. Experts differ on
whether the law would protect the marriages.
The California Supreme Court voted 4 to 3 on May 15 that a state ban on
same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. The ruling also elevated sexual
orientation to the constitutional status of race and gender, an elevation
that provides strong legal protection from discrimination.
Dolan and Abdollah are Times staff writers.
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 72.43.25.226