News from the west coast: Courts to check in prop 8

Top Court in California Will Review Proposition 8 By JESSE McKINLEY SAN FRANCISCO — Responding to pleas for legal clarity from those on both sides of the issue, the California Supreme Court said Wednesday that it would take up the case of whether a voter-approved ban on same-sex unions was constitutional. The court, however, stopped short of suspending the ban, which California voters passed as Proposition 8 two weeks ago after an expensive and hard-fought campaign. The proposition, which overturned a May decision of the California Supreme Court that legalized same-sex marriage, has been challenged by a number of cities and civil rights groups, which say it is a substantial revision of the state’s Constitution, and therefore requires legislative approval. In agreeing Wednesday to take the case, the court suggested in a two-page order signed by six of its seven justices that it would take up that question, as well as lingering questions over the legality of some 18,000 same-sex marriages performed in the state this year. Those ceremonies were halted after Proposition 8 passed. The court has also been asked to consider whether same-sex couples are being denied equal protection under the state’s Constitution. An amendment banning same-sex marriages has never been challenged in a state where the marriages had been legal. Dennis Herrera, the city attorney of San Francisco, a petitioner in the case who opposes the ban, said, “I have confidence that this court is going to make this decision on the facts and on the law.” Supporters of the ban said they were pleased that the court had declined to suspend the ban. “This is a great day for the rule of law and the voters of California,” said Andrew Pugno, general counsel for Protect Marriage, the leading group behind the effort to pass the ballot measure, which received 52 percent of the vote. “This order means that voters will get their day in court.” The first legal briefs are due Dec. 19, with a reply from opponents of the ban due in early January. Oral arguments are expected to be heard in March.