In The Courts Archive

In February, 2004, the mayor of San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite the existence of California law explicitly stating that marriage is limited to a man and a woman. The California Supreme Court granted an emergency order preventing the mayor and city from issuing licenses to same-sex couples and later held that the marriages were void under California law. Subsequently, proponents of same-sex marriage filed a suit challenging the constitutionality of California’s marriage laws. Representing the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund, we were victorious in California's Court of Appeals, but the California Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case. Briefing is now complete before the high court, and oral arguments were heard on March 4, 2008. 

In May, 2008, the Court rendered its decision (in favor of same-sex marriage), which is available here.   We continue our efforts to preserve traditional marriage through participation in a coalition promoting an amendment to the California Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman on the November ballot. 

Following his school's participation in the "Day of Silence," a national LGBT awareness day, Chase Harper wore a t-shirt with a Bible verse expressing his viewpoint regarding homosexuality and his school's support of it. As a result of Harper's stance, he was removed from classes for the day and told that he must remove the message from his shirt or face disciplinary action.

The District Court's denial of a preliminary injunction was heard by the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit ruled against Chase in a strongly worded and highly controversial opinion -- so controversial, in fact, that the United States Supreme Court vacated that opinion and remanded the case to the District Court. The District Court refused to reconsider its denial, however. We have subsequently re-filed in the Ninth Circuit where briefing is now complete.  This case was dismissed by the Ninth Circuit because the Plaintiffs have now graduated from high school. 

Lake Elsinore Christian Center was denied a conditional use permit to establish a church within the downtown portion of the City of Lake Elsinore. We appealed this case to the Ninth Circuit, and had a favorable ruling when the Ninth Circuit declared the federal law protecting churches and religious institutions from discrimination constitutional. While the Ninth Circuit sent the case back to the district court to determine damages, the City also appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The City approached us about settling the case, and a settlement was reached. Damages were determined based on today’s fair market value of the property the church sought to buy seven years ago. Accordingly, the church received a 1.2 million dollar settlement.

Calvary Chapel San Diego is seeking to expand its current facilities. Despite the City’s specific plan stating that churches and ancillary Christian schools are permitted as a matter of right, the church was required to submit a conditional use permit (CUP) application. The church is now on its second CUP application, and despite time and finances spent to obtain an approval, it has yet to get the City's approval. In fact, the City has been dragging its feet for months. We intend to file a lawsuit in Federal District Court if the City does not comply with our demands that it act constitutionally.

Additionally, Calvary’s Christian school uses the City Park next to its facility for physical education. While other groups and schools have been permitted to use the park during the day for the same type of use, the City informed the church last year that it would no longer be able to use the grounds. We sent a letter to the City demanding that it allow the church to use the park. City staff backed down, and a mutually acceptable agreement was approved by the City Council at a public hearing. The church and school now enjoy equal access to the facility.

Two physicians specializing in fertility treatment were sued by a woman because of their religious convictions against inseminating any unmarried woman, including a lesbian. The woman brought suit against the doctors and the medical group, alleging sexual orientation discrimination under California law. We filed an emergency appeal with the Court of Appeals after the trial court ruled against the doctors and their original attorneys. The Court of Appeals ruled in our favor. This case has been appealed to the California Supreme Court, which has asked all parties to address the following question: Does a physician have a constitutional right to refuse on religious grounds to perform a medical procedure for a patient because of the patient's sexual orientation? The briefing has been completed, and oral arguments were heard in May, 2008.

On August 18, 2008, in a 7-0 decision, the California Supreme Court restricted the religious liberty of these physicians' constitutional right to respect his or her conscience when deciding whether to perform a particular medical procedure. Read full press release here.

Advocates’ attorneys and allied counsel filed a petition asking the California Supreme Court to rehear the case in light of the significant negative impact the ruling will have on religious liberty rights in California. On October 28, 2008, the Court denied the petition to rehear the case.  

Downloads

• Opening Brief on the Merits by RPI Benitez
• Answer Brief on the Merits of Petitioners
• Reply Brief by RPI Benitez
• California Supreme Court Opinion

Advocates for Faith and Freedom filed an amicus brief ("friend of the court brief") with the California Supreme Court on January 15, 2009, to defend Prop 8 and preserve the will of the people.  The brief was filed on behalf of the California Family Council, the California Republican Attorney's Association, and members of the California Senate and Assembly: Joel Anderson, Paul Cook, Sam Cook, Chuck DeVore, Michael D. Duvall, Jean Fuller, Danny D. Gilmore, Curt Hagman, Diane L. Harkey, Kevin Jeffries, Steve Knight, Doug LaMalfa, Dan Logue, Jeff Miller, Brian Nestande, Jim Nielsen, George Runner, Cameron Smyth, Audra Strickland, Michael N. Villines.   Click here to read the brief. 

The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in early March, 2009.  A decision from the Court is expected within the next month.