From the Sacramento Bee:
The California Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to consider complaints by opponents of Proposition 8 that it improperly revised the constitution to ban gay marriage.
The court declined to stay its enforcement in the meantime.
Court spokeswoman Lynn Holton said the court asked the parties involved to write briefs arguing three issues:
(1) Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution?
(2) Does Proposition 8 violate the separation-of-powers doctrine under the CaliforniaConstitution?
(3) If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?
Holton said the court established an expedited briefing schedule.
She said oral argument could be held as early as March 2009.
ALSO SEE:
LA Times
Associated Press
2 comments:
Does an "revision" of the CA constitution mean a change to an existing part, whereas an "amendment" simply adds to the constitution?
A "revision" is a fundamental change in the system of government; an "amendment" is a less sweeping change. The distinction isn't clearly defined in case law.
Post a Comment