By: Politico

When Proposition 8 passed on Tuesday, six California couples filed lawsuits in the State Supreme Court hoping to overturn the new constitutional amendment, which was passed by 52.5 percent of voters.

The same-sex couples have not married and claim the new amendment infringes on "fundamental" constitutional rights.

Approximately 18,000 same-sex couples have married in the past five months, following the California Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the constitutional ban on same-sex marriages passed in May.

A number of legal rights organizations came together Wednesday to challenge the passage of Proposition 8, stating that it violates California’s procedures for enacting law.

If the California Supreme Court decides that Proposition 8 sought to make a minor change to the constitution by virtue of an amendment, then it may do so through a simple ballot initiative, in which case Tuesday’s majority vote would pass the amendment.

However, if the court decides the proposition sought to significantly change the constitution as a revision, it must have been approved by two-thirds of the Legislature prior to being put on the ballot.

"These lawsuits are asking the court to distinguish between an amendment to the constitution or a revision," said Elizabeth Gill, a petitioner in one of the suits and a lawyer from the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California.

Proponents of Proposition 8 say the case is similar to one that was rejected by a state court in Oregon. An amendment made to Oregon’s constitution read that "only a marriage between one man and one woman would be valid or legally recognized as a marriage."

Through the Court of Appeals, the claim that the amendment was improperly added to the state constitution was "unanimously rejected," according to a press release by proponents.

CalSERVE Senator Lyell Sakaue said he appreciated the efforts to challenge the ban but was not sure what the results would be.

"I think it’s valid to challenge the proposition in court, but I don’t expect the court to overturn the proposition," he said. "But I want to prepare for the worst."

Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said that the passage of the proposition denies same-sex couples the fundamental right to marriage.

"Ultimately, this is a question of a minority group’s role in the political process," Minter said.

Joan Hollinger, lecturer at Boalt Hall School of Law, said she thought the lawsuit could be successful if the court decided that the new amendment improperly excluded people because of their sexual orientation.

"If you deny marriage as a fundamental right to same-sex couples, then you are classifying them as a group of people based on their sexual orientation," she said. "This classification will question what the government interest is in respect to marriage."

Billy Curtis, director of the Gender Equity Resource Center at UC Berkeley, said that many students are aware of the lawsuits. Meetings and workshops have been conducted to encourage discussion among concerned students.

"We want students to engage in any way they can," he said. "What I emphasize the most is how we can use education as a means to move forward, regardless of the outcome of the lawsuits."

Cynthia Moreno reports for The Daily Californian, a student publication at UC Berkeley. The Daily Californian is partnering with Campus Politico for the 2008 elections.

Copyright © 2008 Capitol News Company, LLC | Distributed by Noofangle Media