FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 17, 2011
CONTACT: Carla Hass 916-834-9969
SACRAMENTO – ProtectMarriage.com, the official proponent in the Perry v. Brown case to uphold Prop 8, released the following statement which can be attributed to general counsel Andy Pugno:
“We are delighted that the Supreme Court has clearly reaffirmed our right, as the official proponents of Prop 8, to defend over seven million Californians who amended their own State Constitution to restore traditional marriage. This victory is an enormous boost for Proposition 8 as well as the integrity of the initiative process itself.
“This ruling is a huge disaster for the homosexual marriage extremists. The Court totally rejected their demands that their lawsuit to invalidate Proposition 8 should win by default with no defense. Their entire strategy relied on finding a biased judge and keeping the voters completely unrepresented. Today that all crumbled before their eyes.
“Today’s decision is a critical step in our three-year battle to uphold marriage between a man and a woman. Now we can return our focus to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and our appeal to reverse the lower court’s decision declaring Proposition 8 and traditional marriage itself ‘unconstitutional.’ ”
NOTE TO EDITOR:
The following are key portions of the decision, which can be found at the links below:
“In a postelection challenge to a voter-approved initiative measure, the official proponents of the initiative are authorized under California law to appear and assert the state’s interest in the initiative’s validity and to appeal a judgment invalidating the measure when the public officials who ordinarily defend the measure or appeal such a judgment decline to do so.” (page 5.)
“[W]e conclude that when public officials decline to defend a voter-approved initiative or assert the state’s interest in the initiative’s validity, under California law the official proponents of an initiative measure are authorized to assert the state’s interest in the validity of the initiative and to appeal a judgment invalidating the measure.” (page 23.)
The Court’s decision is available here: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S189476.PDF or http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S189476.PDF
