By Steven T. Jones
The California Supreme Court’s decision to hear legal challenges to Proposition 8 moves the debate about same-sex marriage toward a more basic legal question: Can a majority vote to take away the constitutional rights of a minority? “The passage of Prop. 8 has pushed California to the brink of a constitutional crisis,” San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, whose office began preparing this legal challenge even before election day, just said at a hastily called news conference, where he appeared with his deputy Terry Stewart and Santa Clara County Attorney Anne Ravel.
“Equal protection is what separates constitutional democracy from mob rule tyranny,” Herrera said, noting that the measure “trounced upon the independence of our judicial branch.” For that reason, he expects the issues and arguments that San Francisco and its 12 co-plaintiffs (and counting) make to be very different than those his office argued for same-sex marriage. Briefs will be filed by Jan. 5 and oral arguments could come as early as March.
“They’re going to decide a question that goes to the very foundation of our democracy,” Ravel said. “A majority of voters can’t undercut the court’s role in protecting the rights of minorities.”