"A philosophical interest based on prejudice against lesbian and gay people should not be enough to gain access to federal courts."
Yesterday, the California Supreme Court heard arguments as to whether the proponents of Proposition 8 have an adequate interest under California law to defend the constitutionality of such an initiative when public officials decline to appeal a judgment invalidating it. Lambda Legal issued the following statement from Legal Director Jon Davidson following today's oral arguments:
"It is often impossible to predict from the questions asked by appellate judges how they will rule and today was no different. All of the judges on the California Supreme Court asked probing questions and seemed concerned about the implications of any decision they might make. We continue to hope that the Court will ultimately decide that small groups of unelected individuals who are answerable to no one should not be able to act on behalf of the state.
"We also hope they will see that the proponents of Proposition 8 had no direct interest in the validity of the measure. Their only legal interest was getting it placed on the ballot. A philosophical interest based on prejudice against lesbian and gay people should not be enough to gain access to federal courts."