This week, the California Supreme Court is accepting amicus or friend-of-the-court briefs on the merits of the challenges to Prop. 8. These briefs are particularly important in this case since the official defender of California law, Attorney General Jerry Brown, does not support Prop. 8 and has in fact offered the court novel theories as to why it should be overturned. When several lawsuits were initially filed seeking to stay the enforcement of Prop. 8, PJI was among the first to file a letter brief in opposition. The California Supreme Court agreed with PJI and fellow defenders of traditional marriage, denying the stay.
In its brief filed this week, PJI takes aim at one of the core arguments of the parties filing suit: that Prop. 8 unfairly singles out homosexuals. Besides pointing out that the text of Prop. 8 does not even mention homosexuals, PJI attorneys also explain to the Court that reaffirming the limitation of marriage to heterosexual monogamy, while inherently limiting toward not only homosexuals but arguably even greater numbers of bisexuals and would-be polygamists, is not a drastic revision to the state Constitution.
PJI Chief Counsel Kevin Snider, principal author of the brief, commented, "It is simply inaccurate to say that reaffirming the traditional definition of marriage singles out homosexuals for exclusion. Even the radical re-definition of marriage currently sought by gay activists maintains exclusions based on such factors as age and monogamy. It is hypocritical for them to pretend they are the only group affected by Prop. 8."
PJI President Brad Dacus noted, "In order for marriage to mean anything, it cannot mean everything. The intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the Prop. 8 foes must not be forced on the rest of California."