Connect with us

Prop 8: LGBT And Anti-Gay Groups Respond To Today’s Supreme Court Decision

Published

on

LGBT groups wasted no time in responding to today’s decision by the California Supreme Court that ProtectMarriage.com has standing an is legally entitled to defend Prop 8 in court.

(Most-recent update: 2:00 PM ET)

Courage Campaign:

“While we respect the recommendations that the California Supreme Court made to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals– that they grant standing to the proponents of the so-called ProtectMarriage.com — it is only a recommendation,” said Rick Jacobs, chair and founder of the 750,000 member Courage Campaign. “Allowing the Prop 8 proponents to have special rights in Court may open the floodgates to wealthy special interests to do the same. The judges of the 9th Circuit must determine if people who had enough money to buy a ballot measure that calls for people to vote on each other’s rights should have special rights in federal court. Regardless, we are confident that justice and love will prevail.”

Human Rights Campaign:

“With today’s decision, the case challenging Prop 8 returns to federal court and we are one step closer to ending discrimination against loving California couples.  Thousands of California families remain in legal limbo and we urge the Ninth Circuit to quickly issue its decision.  We thank the courageous plaintiffs, the American Foundation for Equal Rights, and the Olson-Boies legal team for their continued fight for the equality of all Californians.”

National Center for Lesbian Rights:

“We disagree profoundly with the California Supreme Court’s holding that a handful of unelected initiative sponsors have the power to represent the interests of the entire public and to override the decisions of the state’s elected executive officers,” said NCLR Executive Director Kate Kendell in a statement. “Nonetheless, we are relieved that the case is once again moving forward and the Ninth Circuit will now address whether the initiative proponents can continue this appeal and, if so, whether Prop 8 is constitutional. We hope the Ninth Circuit will issue its decision soon and hasten the day when this damaging law is off the books. Every day that goes by, same-sex couples in California are being denied not only the basic right to marry, but the right to be treated with equal dignity and respect. Same-sex couples in California have lived under the shadow of this unfair law for far too long.”

Lambda Legal:

“While a disappointing ruling, this case is now back in federal court, where we expect a quick victory,” said Lambda Legal’s Legal Director Jon Davidson. “The ruling addresses only a procedural legal question. The key question underlying this case is whether the U.S. Constitution permits a state electorate to treat one group of people unequally to everyone else by depriving them of what the state’s high court has held to be a fundamental right. A federal court has already ruled that it may not. We look forward to seeing that decision upheld so that same-sex couples in California may once again enjoy the freedom to marry.”

“Today’s ruling also does not settle the question as to whether Prop 8 proponents have standing in federal court. It remains up to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to decide whether or not the U.S. Constitution allows initiative proponents to defend a challenge to the measure the proponents supported when elected state officials don’t. We think the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that they don’t.”

“In the end, the proponents of Prop 8 are just people with an opinion. That does not make them entitled to stand in for the government when they don’t agree with its decisions. We believe the U.S. Court of Appeals should rule that they lack standing under federal law and, if they don’t, that the full Ninth Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court should rule that initiative proponents are not entitled to take over the government’s role.”

Shannon Minter, Legal Director at National Center for Lesbian Rights, via Prop 8 trial Tracker:

“This is a terrible decision in terms of its impact on California law. The court has given initiative proponents unprecedented and virtually unlimited power, and the people of California will be living with the dangerous consequences of that decision for years to come. That said, the Court’s ruling means that the Ninth Circuit will almost certainly find that the proponents of Prop 8 have standing to pursue the appeal, which means that the Ninth Circuit will now decide whether to affirm or reverse Judge Walker’s decision finding that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. If the Ninth Circuit agrees with Judge Walker, the Supreme Court is very likely to take the case. In the bigger picture, this is good news for same-sex couples in California. Prop 8 is blatantly unconstitutional for many reasons—not only because it deprives same-sex couples of a basic right, but because it was enacted for the sole purpose of targeting a particular group in order to deny them equal protection of the laws.”

NOM, the National Organization For Marriage:

“It has been nothing short of shameful to see Governor Jerry Brown, his predecessor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Kamala Harris abdicate their constitutional responsibility to defend Proposition 8 in Court,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “Although today’s ruling from the California Supreme Court confirms that the proponents of Prop 8 have the right to defend their initiative when the state officials refuse to fulfill their sworn duty, it is gratifying to know that the over 7 million Californians who supported the initiative will have a vigorous defense of their decision in our federal courts.”

“With this victory in hand, it is time for the Ninth Circuit to move the Prop 8 litigation forward to its eventual decision by the US Supreme Court,” Brown said. “We fully expect the Ninth Circuit, the most overturned court in America, to invalidate Prop 8, finding some phony right to same-sex marriage in the US constitution. However, once this case gets out of San Francisco and reaches the US Supreme Court, we fully expect to be victorious.”

We’ll continue to update this post as knew comments are released.

Related to today’s decision:

Prop 8: Read Today’s California Supreme Court Decision (Full Text)

Prop 8: Anti-Gay Marriage Supporters Do Have Standing – What Today’s Decision Really Means

 

 

 

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Republicans Are Using a Secret Super PAC to Pour $1 Million Into Democratic Primaries

Published

33 minutes ago

on

May 12, 2026

By

Super PACs with ties to Republicans are spending money to promote weaker, left-wing candidates in Democratic primaries, in an apparent effort to help Republicans retain control of the House, The New York Times reports.

“They’re going into Democratic primaries and literally trying to boost the most extreme candidates and oppose the Blue Dog-endorsed candidates that, if they win, are going to beat the Republicans in the general,” U.S. Rep. Adam Gray (D-CA) said in an interview with the Times. The Blue Dogs are more centrist Democrats.

One “new mystery super PAC with ties to Republicans has spent more than $1 million meddling in at least three Democratic congressional primaries to select preferred opponents,” the Times reports. That group is spending money to promote “a left-wing sex therapist in Texas who has been accused of bigotry and antisemitism by leaders in both parties.”

It is also running ads in Democratic primaries in Pennsylvania and Nebraska.

In some of these races the spending is an effort to disrupt Democratic candidates “who are part of the Democratic Party’s ‘red to blue’ program, a special designation for top recruits in key races that could determine control of the House.”

READ MORE: Republicans Moving to Give Trump Something He’s Wanted Since 2019

The Times calls these “interventions in the opposing party’s primaries,” and reports that they are “apparently to elevate Democrats viewed as weaker candidates,” suggesting that “the race for control of the House has entered an intensive new phase in which both parties are vying for every imaginable edge.”

“Some Republicans privately believe the party’s best chance to hold power this year is to cast Democrats as extremists,” the Times reports.

Another super PAC formally aligned with Republicans is promoting a progressive Democrat in California.

Maureen Galindo is running for a Democratic seat from Texas. Party leaders are backing Johnny Garcia, who has worked in the local sheriff’s office. Despite having raised less than $10,000, Galindo finished first in the primary, advancing to a May runoff.

“In a text message,” the Times reports, “Ms. Galindo suggested the money for the mailer had come from ‘a billionaire zionist who made the pac to sabotage candidates,’ using the type of language that has previously prompted charges of antisemitism, including from Senator Jacky Rosen, Democrat of Nevada, and Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, who called her ‘openly bigoted.'”

Galindo told the Times, “Dems and Republicans uniting against me in the same week with the same message is evidence that theyre [sic] working together for the zionist billionaires that control our government and tax money.”

There are more races that Democratic strategists expect Republicans to meddle in, including in California, Michigan and Colorado.

READ MORE: ‘Bad All Around’: Republicans Privately Fear Backing Trump Request Sends Tone-Deaf Message

 

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

News

Fetterman Says He ‘Fully’ Understands Why a Pennsylvania Judge Left the Democratic Party

Published

2 hours ago

on

May 12, 2026

By

A longtime Pennsylvania judge who ran as a Democrat is dropping his affiliation with the Democratic Party over what he sees as antisemitism, and U.S. Senator John Fetterman (D-PA) is weighing in.

Justice David Wecht “said in a statement he is switching his party affiliation to independent due to an ‘acquiescence to Jew-hatred’ becoming ‘disturbingly common among activists, leaders and even many elected officials in the Democratic Party,'” Politico reported.

“I can no longer abide this. So, I won’t,” said Wecht, who once served as vice chair of the state Democratic Party. “I am no longer registered within any political party.”

Judge Wecht said that antisemitism used to be found more often on the far right, but since the Pittsburgh Tree of Life synagogue shooting in 2018, he said, “that same hatred has grown on the left.”

“Increasingly, it has moved from the fringe to the mainstream. It is the duty of all good people to fight this virus, and to do so before it is too late,” he said.

READ MORE: Republicans Moving to Give Trump Something He’s Wanted Since 2019

Lamenting that the Democratic Party has “changed,” Wecht said that “hateful anti-Jewish invective and actions are minimized, ignored, and even coddled.”

Senator Fetterman, whose own intention to stay affiliated with the Democratic Party has been questioned, knows Judge Wecht, according to Fox News.

“I know David and his legendary father, Cyril,” Fetterman wrote in a post on X. “As I’ve affirmed, I’m not changing my party — but I fully understand David’s personal choice.”

Fetterman also appeared to agree with Wecht, saying that the “Democratic Party must confront its own rising antisemitism problem.”

Pittsburgh’s NPR station WESA reports that Fetterman, “like Wecht a Pennsylvania Democrat, has also criticized the party, particularly in recent days as Democrats in Maine seem all but certain to nominate Graham Platner, who had a Nazi tattoo, as their candidate to challenge Republican Susan Collins for her Senate seat.”

READ MORE: ‘Bad All Around’: Republicans Privately Fear Backing Trump Request Sends Tone-Deaf Message

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

America’s ‘Winner-Take-Everything’ War Has Already Begun: Columnist

Published

4 hours ago

on

May 12, 2026

By

Republican efforts to wipe Democrats off the face of their states’ congressional maps — the redistricting wars — are not the end of a “winner-take-everything” political “cold civil war,” but merely the beginning, argues Jonathan V. Last at The Bulwark.

President Donald Trump started the redistricting war when he demanded Texas redistrict mid-decade to gain five Republican seats in the House of Representatives. GOP-led states have followed suit, but in some, like America just saw in Louisiana, Republicans are now pushing to send only Republicans to the House. They are redrawing their maps to get rid of districts that voted for Democrats.

Pointing to journalists and analysts, Last argues that that will become a problem some day for Republican states that have no Democratic members of Congress. Because one day there will be a Democrat in the White House, and it will be disadvantageous for there to be no Democrats for those red states to help get their voice out to the new administration.

Last also notes that in this “winner-take-everything” political world that America may be entering, what President Joe Biden did for red states proved to be unhelpful for Democrats, and helped voters push him out.

READ MORE: Republicans Moving to Give Trump Something He’s Wanted Since 2019

“Joe Biden was, famously, a president for all of America,” Last writes. “He pumped hundreds of billions of dollars in federal credits and investments into red states. Biden didn’t just give red states their fair share—he gave them much more.”

Biden’s theory, Last argues, was that “the way to leach the poison of Trumpism out of America was to forgive Republicans and shower them with goodies to prove that he was on their side, too.”

“The notion was that, in exchange, they would reward him politically, or at least be less hostile in their overall political outlook.”

That did not work.

“Instead of conveying to Republicans that the cycle of recriminations could be broken, Biden inadvertently conveyed a different message: That Democrats did not believe in recriminations,” he writes. In other words, the message was that for all of the GOP’s bad faith actions, there would be no political price to pay.

“What message would it send to Republicans if, in 2029, President Raphael Warnock passed an infrastructure package that, just to pick an example, shoveled money for battery factories into Tennessee, after Tennessee gerrymandered its lone Democratic district out of existence?” he posits.

“Democratic deterrence didn’t work,” Last writes.

He points to Democratic states that moved to redistrict after Texas, and notes that the two sides were coming up about even.

But then, Florida moved to redistrict, with Republican Governor Ron DeSantis “doing an end run around the law” to get more GOP seats.

And then, the Supreme Court “rushed to insert itself into the fight by pushing out the Callais decision in time for Southern states to get rid of a bunch of black congressional districts.”

At this point, for Democrats to take back majority control of the House, they will need to “win the national popular vote by more than 4 percentage points.”

This status quo, says Last, is “not sustainable.”

READ MORE: ‘Bad All Around’: Republicans Privately Fear Backing Trump Request Sends Tone-Deaf Message

 

Image: Public Domain by Architect of the Capitol via Flickr

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2026 AlterNet Media.