Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
California Supreme Court Grants Review
in Prop 8 Legal Challenges
Court to Determine Constitutionality of Prop 8
Today the California Supreme Court granted review in the legal challenges to Proposition 8, which passed by a narrow margin of 52 percent on November 4. In an order issued today, the Court agreed to hear the case and set an expedited briefing schedule. The Court also denied an immediate stay.
On November 5, 2008, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit challenging the validity of Proposition 8 in the California Supreme Court on behalf of six couples and Equality California. The City of San Francisco , joined by the City of Los Angeles , the County of Los Angeles , and Santa Clara County , filed a similar challenge, as did a private attorney in Los Angeles .
The lawsuits allege that, on its face, Proposition 8 is an improper revision rather than an amendment of the California Constitution because, in its very title, which was “Eliminates the right to marry for same-sex couples,” the initiative eliminated an existing right only for a targeted minority. If permitted to stand, Proposition 8 would be the first time an initiative has successfully been used to change the California Constitution to take way an existing right only for a particular group. Such a change would defeat the very purpose of a constitution and fundamentally alter the role of the courts in protecting minority rights. According to the California Constitution, such a serious revision of our state Constitution cannot be enacted through a simple majority vote, but must first be approved by two-thirds of the Legislature.
Since the three lawsuits submitted on November 5, three other lawsuits challenging Proposition 8 have been filed. In a petition filed on November 14, 2008, leading African American, Latino, and Asian American groups argued that Proposition 8 threatens the equal protection rights of all Californians.
On November 17, 2008, the California Council of Churches and other religious leaders and faith organizations representing millions of members statewide, also filed a petition asserting that Proposition 8 poses a severe threat to the guarantee of equal protection for all, and was not enacted through the constitutionally required process for such a dramatic change to the California Constitution. On the same day, prominent California women’s rights organizations filed a petition asking the Court to invalidate Proposition 8 because of its potentially disastrous implications for women and other groups that face discrimination.
In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court held that barring same-sex couples from marriage violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and violates the fundamental right to marry. Proposition 8 would completely eliminate the right to marry only for same-sex couples. No other initiative has ever successfully changed the California Constitution to take away a right only from a targeted minority group.
Over the past 100 years, the California Supreme Court has heard nine cases challenging either legislative enactments or initiatives as invalid revisions of the California Constitution. In three of those cases, the Court invalidated those measures.
I'm no scholar of the California Constitution. From what little I know, it sounds like they have a case, but I don't think this is how the fight should be played out.
To pass Proposition 8, the far right used all kinds of lies and scar tactics. They said the increased cost of providing same-sex benefits would exacerbate the fiscal crisis, which is ridiculous, because the state always offers same-sex benefits. They said churches would be forced to officiate weddings they don't approve of, which wasn't true in Loving v. Virginia 50 years ago, and it isn't true today.
Instead of taking this to the courts, civil libertarians should take it to the people. Progress that comes down from the courts in the face of public votes is subject to resentment and impermanence. The debate will not be closed, but continue indefinitely, until perhaps eventually the issue is settled.
Civil libertarians should work to repeal in 2010 by popular vote. That will have a much more lasting effect, avoid inflaming the public perception of the courts, and generally provide same-sex rights a sense of legitimacy they wouldn't have through a judicial victory alone.
its happened before and im sure it will happen here also.
"In 1966, the California Supreme Court struck down an initiative that would have permitted racial discrimination in housing. Voters had approved the measure, a repeal of a fair housing law, by a 2-to-1 margin. Opponents challenged it on equal protection grounds, not as a constitutional revision."
and then people get mad when you draw parallels between the gay rights and black rights or womans rights movement.
This is just opening a door..whats next after gay marriage is approved? Adults marrying children? People marrying farm animals? Why not? after all...people will say that since gays can marry...why not some 40 year old man marrying a 12 year old girl?
This is just opening a door..whats next after gay marriage is approved? Adults marrying children? People marrying farm animals? Why not? after all...people will say that since gays can marry...why not some 40 year old man marrying a 12 year old girl?
I'm no scholar of the California Constitution. From what little I know, it sounds like they have a case, but I don't think this is how the fight should be played out.
To pass Proposition 8, the far right used all kinds of lies and scar tactics. They said the increased cost of providing same-sex benefits would exacerbate the fiscal crisis, which is ridiculous, because the state always offers same-sex benefits. They said churches would be forced to officiate weddings they don't approve of, which wasn't true in Loving v. Virginia 50 years ago, and it isn't true today.
Instead of taking this to the courts, civil libertarians should take it to the people. Progress that comes down from the courts in the face of public votes is subject to resentment and impermanence. The debate will not be closed, but continue indefinitely, until perhaps eventually the issue is settled.
Civil libertarians should work to repeal in 2010 by popular vote. That will have a much more lasting effect, avoid inflaming the public perception of the courts, and generally provide same-sex rights a sense of legitimacy they wouldn't have through a judicial victory alone.
The short answer is that we have been waiting TOO LONG already. When you look at civil rights struggles, the changes took place historically through the courts or Executive Order or the legislative branch. Have you ever heard of the general public voting in rights for an unpopular minority? Once gay civil marriage is allowed, the education will begin from actually looking at the marriages and noticing that hetro marriage is not "falling apart" and education in the various communities. We can't wait for the older generation to die off. we need the rights now before we ourselves die and never get to enjoy the rights enjoyed by every other american. i personally don't think that gay couples care what specific religions think of gay civil marriage nor being married within those churches, mostly concerned with having the rights - bottom line.
i will preface this by saying i am a southern baptist Christian, and I am not against same-sex marriage. I think if we're going to start making laws based on what the Bible says, we shouldn't pick and choose which things to cover. It was not the intention of our country's founders to force our religion upon others (why did they found this country to begin with?), but I would like the same respect for my own religion from others in turn.
now:
it seems as though the court system of california is telling voters that their vote doesn't matter. what's the point in even going to polls if the will of millions of californians can be overturned by a few judges? I think its a shame that the amendment passed, but that's our fundamental right. I'm anxiously awaiting the outcome of this one.
This is just opening a door..whats next after gay marriage is approved? Adults marrying children? People marrying farm animals? Why not? after all...people will say that since gays can marry...why not some 40 year old man marrying a 12 year old girl?
the difference here is consent. the ability to give it. children cant and neither can animals. thats a tired tired comparison/scenario.
is that all you have?
This is just opening a door..whats next after gay marriage is approved? Adults marrying children? People marrying farm animals? Why not? after all...people will say that since gays can marry...why not some 40 year old man marrying a 12 year old girl?
Because it's illegal for a 40-year-old to marry a 12-year-old. We're talking about two adults marrying here.
How about if you stop simply repeating the same old tired lines that we've heard a million times and come up with a new argument that actually persuades people?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
