Judge upholds redefined Prop. 8 ballot language
Jeff Johnson - OneNewsNow - 8/8/2008 11:25:00 AMBookmark and Share

Updated 2:30 p.m. Central (Thursday)

 

Pro-family attorneys are vowing to go back to court to get biased, pro-homosexual language removed from the ballot title and summary for the California marriage protection amendment.

 

The amendment states that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." But somehow, Attorney General Jerry Brown reinterpreted that as eliminating "the right of same-sex couples to marry." Timothy Chandler, legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), was in Superior Court in California Thursday arguing that Brown's editorializing is illegal.
  
"The issue before the voters is whether or not California should define marriage as between one man and one woman," Chandler explains. "And rather than presenting it that way to the voters, the attorney general got political with it."
 
Instead of providing a neutral and unbiased ballot title and summary, says the ADF attorney, Brown bowed to "political pressure" and "gave a biased and prejudicial summary" -- in effect failing to follow his obligation under state law. "The attorney general is required by law to provide an objective summary of what the proposition would do to the law," Chandler explains.
 
But the Superior Court disagreed Friday, ruling that Brown was within his rights to define the amendment as taking away rights, even though those alleged rights were only recently created by the California Supreme Court.

 

"In this case, the Attorney General did not abuse his discretion in concluding that the chief purpose and effect of the initiative is to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry, even if the initiative also has other purposes and effects," wrote Judge Timothy Frawley. "The Attorney General's title is an accurate statement of the primary purpose and effect of the measure. It is not argumentative or inherently prejudicial."

 

The original ballot title described the amendment as a change to the state constitution that would "provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Chandler hopes a three-judge panel of the California Appellate Court will overturn Frawley's decision.
 
"This is an emergency petition to try to get the court to order the attorney general to provide a [sic] unbiased ballot title and summary before the ballots are begun to be printed here in California, which starts next week," says Chandler.

 

Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund and ProtectMarriage.com say they intend to file the appeal immediately.

 

iTunes Podcast

 

Rate this Story (1 Star = Not so Good -and- 5 Stars = Excellent!)

  (average 3 out of 5)


View Comments

Other Stories in Legal and Courts
Senate confirms controversial judge to federal bench
Lawsuit requests people's voice
NJ teen barred from abortion protest sues school
Congressman bribes way into 13-year prison sentence
Supreme Court ignores free speech
ACORN's root for suit?
Terror trials in NYC criticized
ADF pushes for 14th Ft. Hood victim
Churches win in equal access debate
Michigan abortionist under pressure
Commissioners' prayer leads to federal court
1st Amendment shoved aside on Constitution Day
Founder takes charity to court
'Opt out' not an option, says judge
Planned Parenthood seeks silence, fails
Audits on free exercise of religion?
ACLU mum on this church-gov't lawsuit
Christian organization wins attorney’s fees
Courts deem pro-life groups lack standing
ACLU accused of promoting promiscuous lifestyle


If you believe OneNewsNow.com is an important source for Christian news,
please consider a
 
small tax-deductible gift for this service. 





11/21/2009 1:51:00 AM