Same-Sex Marriage Amicus

July 2, 2007

Judicial Watch Files Amicus Curiae Brief in California State Supreme Court in Support of Law Banning “Same-Sex Marriage”
“…The judiciary should not innovate social policy.”

WASHINGTON, June 26 /Standard Newswire/ — Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and promotes fidelity to the rule of law, announced today that it filed an amicus curiae brief on June 19, 2007 in the California Supreme Court in support of a California state law banning same-sex marriage.

The California Supreme Court agreed to consider the issue of same-sex marriage after a state appellate court overturned a 2005 decision by California Superior Court Judge Richard A. Kramer, who ruled that same-sex couples had a constitutional right to marry. Judge Kramer’s decision invalidated a law approved by California voters in 2000 declaring that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

“…The Court of Appeals prudently exercised judicial restraint and refused to usurp the power of the legislative by redefining or otherwise expanding by judicial fiat the concept of marriage to include the idea of same-sex marriage which has been rejected directly by the people of California…,” Judicial Watch argued in its brief.

According to the California State Constitution, “The Legislature is charged, among other things, with ‘making law…by statute.'” The role of the judiciary is too limited “to resolving specific controversies between parties.” As noted by the Court of Appeals, “judges are not free to rewrite statues to say what they would like, or what they believe to be better social policy.” The Judicial Watch brief also presents strong general arguments encouraging the California high court to exercise judicial restraint, asserting that the “judiciary should not innovate social policy.”

The California Supreme Court is considering a total of six cases on the issue of same-sex marriage. Legal representation for the same-sex couples is being provided by Lambda Legal, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union.

“The courts should not create new rights that suit the personal or political agendas of individual judges,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Judges should not improperly usurp the power of legislatures and voters, especially on as issue as fundamental as the definition of marriage.”

To read Judicial Watch’s amicus curiae brief, please visit


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: